Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Uk Debate Mk 2, the UK's liveliest political and social debate site.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Locked Topic
Labour Leadership Contest; merged thread
Topic Started: May 15 2015, 01:02 PM (2,227 Views)
Tytoalba
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Chuka Umunna withdraws Labour leader bid, Who is left to lead them? The BBC has been attacking UKIP and Farrage for days, but at least they have a leader. Labour are in a state of uncertainty, and we do need a good opposition in the HOC,
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Replies:
Opinionater
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Jul 30 2015, 11:17 PM
gansao
Jul 30 2015, 10:05 PM
Steve K
Jul 29 2015, 07:42 PM


Or he believes that his policies are ultimately affordable and desirable .

You may think that socialist equals fuckwit but there seems to be many that believes NOT to be a socialist equals fuckwit.
Did I say that being socialist = fuckwit? :nono:

I might say that falsely representing another's post = fuckwit though

Have you actually read the pronouncements of Corbyn? I suggest you do. His brand of pandering to each and every left wing idealism with giveaways and beating up employers will never work.

It may not work in government but it will get him elected as leader, no doubt about that now, he has swung the fuckwit vote to back him.

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Opinionater
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Jul 31 2015, 07:27 PM
gansao
Jul 31 2015, 05:25 PM
Steve K
Jul 30 2015, 11:17 PM


You said..Well he's either seeking to delude his party that his policies are affordable or delude us that he's not a fuckwit.

Now without you actually explaining why one of the choices you gave me made Corbyn a fuckwit ( if he wasnt a fuckwit then he would not have to ' delude us that he was NOT a fuckwit)....keeping up?
So the only reason I could deduce that you think he MAY be a fuckwit was that he was a Socialist...( His policies are based on Socialist principles).

So I refute that I was falsely representing your post and I might say getting tetchy when someone assumes the bleeding obvious =fuckwit.
Has it occurred to you that a left wing collectivist would tend to proffer left wing collectivist policies? Maybe you should. :rubchin:
As I've said before he is offering extreme left wing policies and saying that we can still afford higher wages, more welfare and an even bigger NHS.

I'm saying it doesn't add up and he knows that so in fact he is not an honest politician. The only other explanation is he is too stupid to realise that there is no magic free money ie he is a fuckwit.

You falsely construed that to say I was saying that all socialists are fuckwits.

You were either maliciously lying or being obtusely stupid. You pick
There is another option, that he is an honest politician, he isn't stupid or a fuckwit and he believes he can just keep printing money to pay for his policies. Very much in line with socialist ideas, then blame the capitalist system when it all goes wrong.

Anyway he is winning, can't see any of the other getting near him now unless they can make some shit stick to him.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Aug 1 2015, 11:59 AM
Ah but always worth remembering the old adage that Trade Union leaders always vote for Conservative governments - much better for membership figures
The decimation of TU membership took place under a Tory government.

I always maintain that we get the sort of TU that business creates. Militancy came as a result of both business and government intransigence. When there is consultation and coordinated agreement there is no place for militancy.

Alas a militant TU Congress does do wonders for the right wing media and politicians to create demons out of conscientious worker reps.

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Aug 1 2015, 05:36 PM
Steve K
Aug 1 2015, 11:59 AM
Ah but always worth remembering the old adage that Trade Union leaders always vote for Conservative governments - much better for membership figures
The decimation of TU membership took place under a Tory government.

I always maintain that we get the sort of TU that business creates. Militancy came as a result of both business and government intransigence. When there is consultation and coordinated agreement there is no place for militancy.

Alas a militant TU Congress does do wonders for the right wing media and politicians to create demons out of conscientious worker reps.

yes you're probably right on that
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
disgruntled porker
Member Avatar
Older than most people think I am.
[ *  *  * ]
ReJinalD said:
Quote:
 
The Tories are Hell bent on being the Party for the Working Man.


I would question that anyone with an iota of sanity could truly believe that.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
disgruntled porker
Aug 1 2015, 06:33 PM
ReJinalD said:
Quote:
 
The Tories are Hell bent on being the Party for the Working Man.


I would question that anyone with an iota of sanity could truly believe that.
Watch, listen and learn Mr Pig, it is all about game strategy. Watch Osborne closely.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Pro Veritas
Upstanding Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
So here's the thing the Labour spin-doctors just don't understand.

They failed to see their supporters drifting to UKIP, and UKIP then stole working-class votes from them.

They failed to see their supporters drifting to the SNP, and then the SNP wiped them out in Scotland.

They failed to see the level of grassroots support for a non-Blairite position and now Corbyn looks set to be the new Labour leader.

They have been wrong about three of the most major issues the party has faced in the last 8 years; they still think that Labour supporters are buying in to Blair's neo-liberal, tory-lite bollocks - and they aren't.

All The Best
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Tytoalba
Jul 31 2015, 10:36 PM
gansao
Jul 31 2015, 05:36 PM
Tytoalba
Jul 31 2015, 03:34 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deephttp://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-corbyn-opens-up-massive-6154187No matter who was in the lead to lead the Labour party the usual supporters will rush to give them their full backing and claim he/she is the best thing since sliced bread,. If it were a donkey with a red rosettes were would be claims that it was a thoroughbred with exception intellectual properties, and was bound to win the next Derby or in this case General election. Best not to put your mone4y on Corbyn, for like the forecasts made about Milliband you have seen the same forecasts for Corbyn, He will be another loser.


I think you may find that he is in the lead BECAUSE he has a great deal of supporters in the Labour party and doesnt have a great deal of supporters because he is in the lead .
If Corbyn became leader of the Labour party they would not have a hope in hell of winning a GE in the foreseeable future , they would be a left wing socialist protest group. However they would have a clear mandate and an honest agenda.
I've said this a few times and I will repeat it. The other candidates are prepared to be Tories in order to lead a Labour government. That is a concern to many Labour supporters.
Maybe they would rather have a leader who sees political solutions through a Socialist lens rather than the Neo liberalist lens of the Tories .
You can do nothing without the power and authority to do so. Being principled with minority supported policies in opposition is just meaningless and gesture politics. To gain power you first have to be elected.


That doesnt mean morphing into something that you despise simply to be elected. It appears people like yourself are complete strangers to principles and honesty
Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Opinionater
Aug 1 2015, 03:43 PM
Steve K
Jul 30 2015, 11:17 PM
gansao
Jul 30 2015, 10:05 PM
Did I say that being socialist = fuckwit? :nono:

I might say that falsely representing another's post = fuckwit though

Have you actually read the pronouncements of Corbyn? I suggest you do. His brand of pandering to each and every left wing idealism with giveaways and beating up employers will never work.

It may not work in government but it will get him elected as leader, no doubt about that now, he has swung the fuckwit vote to back him.



For fuckwit read people who are sick of the Tories and even sicker of people who profess to represent the principles of the Labour party but are really no different than the Tories.
Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
gansao
Aug 2 2015, 09:27 PM


That doesnt mean morphing into something that you despise simply to be elected. It appears people like yourself are complete strangers to principles and honesty

You mean like being openly critical of Cameron's lurch to the left (centre) when winning the leadership contest and declaring Conservatives should have a social conscience and forget Thatcherism, but still supportive as it made the Party electable?
He dumped the 'Nasty Party' tag ....... only to resurrect it much to the delight of the faithful.


Edited by Affa, Aug 2 2015, 11:41 PM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Pro Veritas
Upstanding Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tytoalba
Jul 31 2015, 10:36 PM
Being principled with minority supported policies in opposition is just meaningless and gesture politics. To gain power you first have to be elected.
Is anyone at all shocked that an ardent Tory supporter is the one to claim that being principled is a meaningless gesture.

Tories: they know the price of everything, and the value of noting.

All The Best
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Pro Veritas
Aug 2 2015, 11:58 PM
Tytoalba
Jul 31 2015, 10:36 PM
Being principled with minority supported policies in opposition is just meaningless and gesture politics. To gain power you first have to be elected.
Is anyone at all shocked that an ardent Tory supporter is the one to claim that being principled is a meaningless gesture.

Tories: they know the price of everything, and the value of noting.

All The Best
If so called principled opposition means almost permanent opposition then all it does is to help one's political opponent. Such a position must surely deserve some lateral thinking.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
disgruntled porker
Member Avatar
Older than most people think I am.
[ *  *  * ]
The more the Tories keep braying the wedge home, the more the people will look to an alternative. Any alternative. The Tories start at the bottom of society and then work there way up systematically until those who thought they were immune from their efforts suddenly get kicked in the nadgers. Eventually we get back to the elite few at the top and the rest subservient plebs.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Aug 3 2015, 07:37 AM
Pro Veritas
Aug 2 2015, 11:58 PM
Tytoalba
Jul 31 2015, 10:36 PM
Being principled with minority supported policies in opposition is just meaningless and gesture politics. To gain power you first have to be elected.
Is anyone at all shocked that an ardent Tory supporter is the one to claim that being principled is a meaningless gesture.

Tories: they know the price of everything, and the value of noting.

All The Best
If so called principled opposition means almost permanent opposition then all it does is to help one's political opponent. Such a position must surely deserve some lateral thinking.
But there is no guarantee of permanent opposition and we decry Politicians, such as Flipper Burnham, who appear not to have any firm convictions. Corbyn's popularity is because he has convictions even though these might be bonkers. The Tories won the last GE because Labour appeared as opportunist objectors without conviction. The country are convinced that the Public Sector Deficit needs to be eradicated, Labour appeared unsure right up to the end. Joe Public believes that Welfare needs reforms and the IDS programme is in the right direction, but Labour appeared unsure. As for the NHS reforms they originated with Burnham who now appears to regret his past opinions. Labour lacks a stake in the ground and Corbyn is the only one who has planted his. Unfortunately those competing with Corbyn appear to be political pigmies and avoid convictions as if they are tainted. This is particularly true of Cooper for which I once had high hopes. Maybe Labour needs Corbyn in order to flush out their next Leader with stature, but this will take some time. Me I would like to see Labour move to be the champion of Consumers, but for Labour with it's Methodist mindset this is an uncomfortable place.



Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
It is quite natural for anyone (paying taxes) not on Welfare to be drawn towards those promising cuts to welfare spending. IDS has made the effort to cut these costs by reducing the amounts decreed and restricting access to them. What he hasn't done is cut the amount spent on Welfare support - that has increased, as it always does when the Conservatives are in government. Why it increases is because there are always more people in need of welfare, more jobless, more low paid. The penny will drop eventually with the electorate, and scare tactics of 'tax & spend' Labour lose their undeserved effect.
Very few of us are better off under a Tory administration ...... minimalism, just stores up problems for the future, creates crises.

.

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Tytoalba
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
gansao
Aug 2 2015, 09:27 PM
Tytoalba
Jul 31 2015, 10:36 PM
gansao
Jul 31 2015, 05:36 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deephttp://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-corbyn-opens-up-massive-6154187No matter who was in the lead to lead the Labour party the usual supporters will rush to give them their full backing and claim he/she is the best thing since sliced bread
You can do nothing without the power and authority to do so. Being principled with minority supported policies in opposition is just meaningless and gesture politics. To gain power you first have to be elected.


That doesnt mean morphing into something that you despise simply to be elected. It appears people like yourself are complete strangers to principles and honesty
You can have "They died for their principles" carved on Labours gravestone , but you had better. have beneath it the words "And a fat lot of good it did them
Far better to achieve what you can than nothing at all.IMO
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Aug 3 2015, 09:06 AM

Very few of us are better off under a Tory administration ...... minimalism, just stores up problems for the future, creates crises.

.

It is now a worry given the complete total and utter converging disaster that is the Tories in government as to just who will replace them at the next general election.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Tytoalba
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Pro Veritas
Aug 2 2015, 11:58 PM
Tytoalba
Jul 31 2015, 10:36 PM
Being principled with minority supported policies in opposition is just meaningless and gesture politics. To gain power you first have to be elected.
Is anyone at all shocked that an ardent Tory supporter is the one to claim that being principled is a meaningless gesture.

Tories: they know the price of everything, and the value of noting.

All The Best
Labour know the value of nothing, and expect others to pay for everything. Socialists are only socialist with other peoples money, and their principles for others to pay for.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Tytoalba
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Aug 3 2015, 09:06 AM
It is quite natural for anyone (paying taxes) not on Welfare to be drawn towards those promising cuts to welfare spending. IDS has made the effort to cut these costs by reducing the amounts decreed and restricting access to them. What he hasn't done is cut the amount spent on Welfare support - that has increased, as it always does when the Conservatives are in government. Why it increases is because there are always more people in need of welfare, more jobless, more low paid. The penny will drop eventually with the electorate, and scare tactics of 'tax & spend' Labour lose their undeserved effect.
Very few of us are better off under a Tory administration ...... minimalism, just stores up problems for the future, creates crises.

.

But so does doing nothing about our National debt.
Paying of the Debt, and borrowing less must automatically mean spending less on ourselves , effectively lowering our personal standards of living. I see that as the inevitable consequence of spending too much more than we could afford to do, and being prudent for the present and the future.
If you don't follow those principles in your private life, than your finances must be out of control
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tytoalba
Aug 3 2015, 09:16 AM
Labour know the value of nothing, and expect others to pay for everything. Socialists are only socialist with other peoples money, and their principles for others to pay for.
BS and you know it.
Labour are socialists, represent society and all within it which does include business. Society is the source of all wealth. There is no such thing as 'other people's money', it is all generated wealth from society - the distribution of which is skewed ........ thus convincing you that the haves must not be asked to put back to society an equal proportion to that they take from wealth made by society.

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Aug 3 2015, 09:30 AM

Labour are socialists,
They are Tory mark 2, there is nothing socialist about them.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Aug 3 2015, 08:30 AM
C-too
Aug 3 2015, 07:37 AM
Pro Veritas
Aug 2 2015, 11:58 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
If so called principled opposition means almost permanent opposition then all it does is to help one's political opponent. Such a position must surely deserve some lateral thinking.
But there is no guarantee of permanent opposition and we decry Politicians, such as Flipper Burnham, who appear not to have any firm convictions. Corbyn's popularity is because he has convictions even though these might be bonkers. The Tories won the last GE because Labour appeared as opportunist objectors without conviction. The country are convinced that the Public Sector Deficit needs to be eradicated, Labour appeared unsure right up to the end. Joe Public believes that Welfare needs reforms and the IDS programme is in the right direction, but Labour appeared unsure. As for the NHS reforms they originated with Burnham who now appears to regret his past opinions. Labour lacks a stake in the ground and Corbyn is the only one who has planted his. Unfortunately those competing with Corbyn appear to be political pigmies and avoid convictions as if they are tainted. This is particularly true of Cooper for which I once had high hopes. Maybe Labour needs Corbyn in order to flush out their next Leader with stature, but this will take some time. Me I would like to see Labour move to be the champion of Consumers, but for Labour with it's Methodist mindset this is an uncomfortable place.



40 years of Old Labour opposition since 1951, not recommended.

All those years of Conservative governments yet Labour were responsible for UK economic failures. ;D
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Aug 3 2015, 09:30 AM
Tytoalba
Aug 3 2015, 09:16 AM
Labour know the value of nothing, and expect others to pay for everything. Socialists are only socialist with other peoples money, and their principles for others to pay for.
BS and you know it.
Labour are socialists, represent society and all within it which does include business. Society is the source of all wealth. There is no such thing as 'other people's money', it is all generated wealth from society - the distribution of which is skewed ........ thus convincing you that the haves must not be asked to put back to society an equal proportion to that they take from wealth made by society.

So are you suggesting that the "have nots" should continue ad infinitum to keep on taking in the form of welfare and benefits? or would you rather that if they are capable of doing so they are encouraged to find employment and become independent and pay taxes so that they too can help to alleviate others hardships?
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Rich
Aug 3 2015, 10:00 AM
Affa
Aug 3 2015, 09:30 AM
Tytoalba
Aug 3 2015, 09:16 AM
Labour know the value of nothing, and expect others to pay for everything. Socialists are only socialist with other peoples money, and their principles for others to pay for.
BS and you know it.
Labour are socialists, represent society and all within it which does include business. Society is the source of all wealth. There is no such thing as 'other people's money', it is all generated wealth from society - the distribution of which is skewed ........ thus convincing you that the haves must not be asked to put back to society an equal proportion to that they take from wealth made by society.

So are you suggesting that the "have nots" should continue ad infinitum to keep on taking in the form of welfare and benefits? or would you rather that if they are capable of doing so they are encouraged to find employment and become independent and pay taxes so that they too can help to alleviate others hardships?
Welfare should be for those incapable of supporting themselves, whether temporary or permanently. There could be and should be enough opportunities for those that are capable but inactive to be gainfully employed and become self sufficient.
That is the ideal. A near century of Right-wing rule has screwed that idealism up so badly that few now, so used and immersed in the dogma they are fed on, that they have lost sight of what is important ........ to them it is all about business profiting or more correctly, business exploiting and profiteering. We have a wealth gap that has continued to widen, is still widening. The worst of is that Multinational business makes a fortune here, puts little back, and uses that wealth created here to export jobs abroad and presenting us with more competition for business ..... we are funding those that are taking our livelihood away. And the only ones getting rich are the already rich, the investor ........ result = more welfare for rest.



Offline Profile Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Aug 3 2015, 10:16 AM
Welfare should be for those incapable of supporting themselves, whether temporary or permanently. There could be and should be enough opportunities for those that are capable but inactive to be gainfully employed and become self sufficient.


Have you been studying Karl Marx recently?
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Aug 3 2015, 09:15 AM
Affa
Aug 3 2015, 09:06 AM

Very few of us are better off under a Tory administration ...... minimalism, just stores up problems for the future, creates crises.

.

It is now a worry given the complete total and utter converging disaster that is the Tories in government as to just who will replace them at the next general election.
What disaster is that then? Do you mean the long overdue welfare reforms that Joe Public voted for? Or do you mean the fact that wages are at long last getting ahead of inflation and have returned to pre-crash levels? Surely you are not still predicting that French truck drivers will not be able to make it home because of all the hundreds of thousands of dead bodies choking up the road system?
The only great mistake I see is the tardy approach to cutting the deficit and rebalancing the economy.

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Aug 3 2015, 07:29 AM
Steve K
Jul 30 2015, 08:48 PM
C-too
Jul 30 2015, 05:15 PM
Neither Brown or Osborne played any part in creating the international financial meltdown without which the UK would not be in the economic mess it is in. You know that's true. ;D . .
same old, same old  ::)

No one believes you
Seems like the same old denial on your part.  ::)

What part did they play in the abuse of the subprime mortgages in the USA ?

What part did they play in hiding the toxic debts from the subprime mortgage fiasco in parcels that were slipped into the international financial markets via Wall Street thus causing the international financial meltdown that many governments are still struggling with ?

Your problem is every few days you come out with an unprovoked post in words giving Brown total absolution. And such is poppycock

Perhaps you forgot that the UK is a nation and so de facto is part of the international banking world and its bust was part of the wider international meltdown

Perhaps you forgot that UK banks were participating in the USA market while Brown did nothing to regulate same, that USA and other non UK banks were participating in the UK market while Brown did nothing to regulate same.

Can you not at least accept that Brown made mistakes, that the Brown economics of 2001-2008 were flawed and must not be repeated? And that that is the import relevant to the thread topic. Any leadership candidate that implies we can go back to same is a charlatan.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Opinionater
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
gansao
Aug 2 2015, 09:33 PM
Opinionater
Aug 1 2015, 03:43 PM
Steve K
Jul 30 2015, 11:17 PM
It may not work in government but it will get him elected as leader, no doubt about that now, he has swung the fuckwit vote to back him.



For fuckwit read people who are sick of the Tories and even sicker of people who profess to represent the principles of the Labour party but are really no different than the Tories.
Read what you like into it, he has the support and looks like a winner to me.
No use trying to look for reasoning in the choice, he sticks out a mile from the others s different and where there's no sense there's no reason.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Opinionater
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Any views on who will be deputy leader?
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Tytoalba
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Aug 3 2015, 09:30 AM
Tytoalba
Aug 3 2015, 09:16 AM
Labour know the value of nothing, and expect others to pay for everything. Socialists are only socialist with other peoples money, and their principles for others to pay for.
BS and you know it.
Labour are socialists, represent society and all within it which does include business. Society is the source of all wealth. There is no such thing as 'other people's money', it is all generated wealth from society - the distribution of which is skewed ........ thus convincing you that the haves must not be asked to put back to society an equal proportion to that they take from wealth made by society.

It was their failure to represent all parts of society that lost them the General election.

There are socialist elements in all our governments no matter what party is in power so that to claim that only Labour has a socialist agenda or a have a social conscience , is as you say , bullshit.
If there is no such thing as other peoples money that implies that the state owns everything, which in law it does not. It belongs to individuals who have acquired it. it belong to individuals through their own work and labour , enterprise, even from legacies.. Your argument implies that those that contribute nothing, generates nothing are entitled to a share of other peoples money, a typical socialist attitude, , and confirmation of what I said. The haves BTW pay, a bigger proportion of tax than the have not's through general taxation, and vat on the services they use and the good they buy and through death duties.
No wonder your brand of socialism is in decline and so unappealing to the aspirational.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Aug 3 2015, 05:32 PM
papasmurf
Aug 3 2015, 02:04 PM
RJD
Aug 3 2015, 10:33 AM
What disaster is that then?
It is complete waste of time my detailing every impending and converging Tory disaster for you RJD, because you won't read the references.
If you only use the right wing media for your sources of information as you appear to, in your case ignorance will be bliss until it is too late to defend yourself against the disaster.
Oh I see it's those secret disasters that only a few know about. Wink wink nudge nudge. Sorry I forgot that you are in the know (THE KNOW) and would have to shoot us all if you divulged.

This simply HAS to be listened to by all that are interested in politics, the phrases "utter chaos" and "economically illiterate" shakes one to the foundations, it begins at 29 mins and 9 seconds in, I fell about laughing at the masquerade of supposed wisdom.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b063zv16#play
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tytoalba
Aug 3 2015, 06:37 PM


If there is no such thing as other peoples money that implies that the state owns everything, which in law it does not. It belongs to individuals who have acquired it. it belong to individuals through their own work and labour , enterprise, even from legacies..

Your argument implies that those that contribute nothing, generates nothing are entitled to a share of other peoples money, a typical socialist attitude, , and confirmation of what I said.

The haves BTW pay, a bigger proportion of tax than the have not's through general taxation, and vat on the services they use and the good they buy and through death duties.
No wonder your brand of socialism is in decline and so unappealing to the aspirational.

Three points ...... all wrong headed.

My post referred to generated wealth, income, the part that is taxed, the disposable part. We do not tax assets, or at least not in any substantial way (Tigger can explain it to you). The lions share going to the very few ...... and they contribute proportionally less than someone on average income. Tax evasion/avoidance etc. They have the ability to contribute more and should imo.
'No Man is an Island'.

You declare you know all about indirect taxation, VAT etc, but then announce that the poorest paying no income contribute 'nothing' ...... a error of selective thinking, a soundbite, that is as false as it is ingenuous.
Quote:
 

the poorest fifth of households had a gross annual income of £11,105 on average, and paid £4,302 a year in tax, a ratio of 38.7%. Meanwhile, at the other end of the scale, the richest fifth of households had an average gross annual income of £74,247, and paid £25,926 in tax, on average, a ratio of 34.9%. ft

http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/4813

Posted Image

Th top fifth earners take 68% of earned income, and contribute proportionally the least to the tax total .... 34.9%.

Aspirations increase exponentially with opportunity ....... for those on limited opportunity aspirations fall to a desire to survive the week. A wealthy man might aspire to become filthy rich.


Edited by Affa, Aug 3 2015, 07:14 PM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Aug 3 2015, 06:57 PM
Tytoalba
Aug 3 2015, 06:37 PM


If there is no such thing as other peoples money that implies that the state owns everything, which in law it does not. It belongs to individuals who have acquired it. it belong to individuals through their own work and labour , enterprise, even from legacies..

Your argument implies that those that contribute nothing, generates nothing are entitled to a share of other peoples money, a typical socialist attitude, , and confirmation of what I said.

The haves BTW pay, a bigger proportion of tax than the have not's through general taxation, and vat on the services they use and the good they buy and through death duties.
No wonder your brand of socialism is in decline and so unappealing to the aspirational.

Three points ...... all wrong headed.

My post referred to generated wealth, income, the part that is taxed, the disposable part. We do not tax assets, or at least not in any substantial way (Tigger can explain it to you). The lions share going to the very few ...... and they contribute proportionally less than someone on average income. Tax evasion/avoidance etc. They have the ability to contribute more and should imo.
'No Man is an Island'.

You declare you know all about indirect taxation, VAT etc, but then announce that the poorest paying no income contribute 'nothing' ...... a error of selective thinking, a soundbite, that is as false as it is ingenuous.
Quote:
 

the poorest fifth of households had a gross annual income of £11,105 on average, and paid £4,302 a year in tax, a ratio of 38.7%. Meanwhile, at the other end of the scale, the richest fifth of households had an average gross annual income of £74,247, and paid £25,926 in tax, on average, a ratio of 34.9%. ft


Posted Image

Th top fifth earners take 68% of earned income, and contribute proportionally the least to the tax total .... 34.9%.

Aspirations increase exponentially with opportunity ....... for those on limited opportunity aspirations fall to a desire to survive the week. A wealthy man might aspire to become filthy rich.


Well, this report would seem to refute your claim.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/tax/11233686/How-top-3000-earners-pay-more-tax-than-bottom-9-million.html
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
johnofgwent
Member Avatar
It .. It is GREEN !!
[ *  *  *  * ]
Rich
Jul 26 2015, 10:00 PM
johnofgwent
Jul 26 2015, 07:59 PM
Opinionater
Jul 26 2015, 07:36 PM
That's not what he's going to get though is it.

What is a "genuine" labour supporter anyway ?
I do believe that it is someone in receipt of enough benefits that enables them to do SFA and vote once every 5 years for the same.

Unfortunately for them, the chickens have now come home to roost and they must do the same as you, me and millions of others, work!!!
I'm not so sure I'm that quick to condemn.

I think there are people who genuinely believe the country is poorer in spirit as a result of its lamentable lack - as they see it - of the sort of ideals that launched the NHS.

The problem for me is that such people seem unable to convince me the party they want to see in power has leaders that truly share their vision.

Because the fuckers running the show 1997-2010 clearly didn't.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Oddball
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Rich - I would like to know the detailed breakdown of these tax contributions of thy wealthiest, I have a sneaking suspicion 'we' might discover some interesting twists and convolutions within.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Rich
Aug 3 2015, 07:13 PM

I know you are not stupid Rich, so why present yourself as so?

The case being made is 'proportional' contributions to the exchequer .... and the wealthiest contribute the least ........ you do understand that the whole tax system revolves around 'ability to pay'? Time was when only the very rich paid anything at all ..... and that was more recent than you may imagine.
In less than a century the whole balance of tax contributions has been turned on its head.
Corporation tax, the single most largest earners contribute a mere 7% to the total

Corporate Profits in the United Kingdom increased to 100941 GBP Million in the first quarter of 2015
(trading economics)
Edited by Affa, Aug 3 2015, 07:27 PM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
johnofgwent
Member Avatar
It .. It is GREEN !!
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Aug 3 2015, 06:57 PM
Posted Image


Well can someone tell me where £35K gross sits on that pie chart ?

I suspect down with the gravy and the lumps of gristle rather than the decent cuts of meat.

My problem is that those who rail against charts like that say nothing about how I get into the top decile (?) and most would rather like to actively destroy that part of the chart altogether and drag everyone down to a communal misery - but one in which their own standing as orchestrators of the pie making gives them the most prime cuts that don't make it to the pie mix ...
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
johnofgwent
Aug 3 2015, 07:25 PM
Affa
Aug 3 2015, 06:57 PM
Posted Image


Well can someone tell me where £35K gross sits on that pie chart ?

It would place you/it in the 7th sector.

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Aug 3 2015, 06:57 PM

http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/4813

Posted Image

Th top fifth earners take 68% of earned income, and contribute proportionally the least to the tax total .... 34.9%.

Aspirations increase exponentially with opportunity ....... for those on limited opportunity aspirations fall to a desire to survive the week. A wealthy man might aspire to become filthy rich.


A couple of points

1. Always a bit sus assuming income and wealth are the same or even a strong analog of each other.

2. You do realise that article is dated 12 April 2010 IE in the last days of 13 years of Labour?
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Aug 3 2015, 08:03 PM
A couple of points

1. Always a bit sus assuming income and wealth are the same or even a strong analog of each other.

2. You do realise that article is dated 12 April 2010 IE in the last days of 13 years of Labour?

Point 1 is valid but carries little weight.
Point 2 is just wriggling ........ unless you want to say that things have changed markedly? The article is dated 2012.
https://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/scale-economic-inequality-uk
......... and as austerity enforces, the poor have gotten poorer, the rich, richer. ergo things are worse now than when this was published.





Edited by Affa, Aug 3 2015, 09:03 PM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Locked Topic