Join the Labour Party and save your country!

tangled_metal

Not at all. Just applying the same wealth argument used against Tories for a long time against the socialist elite of new old Labour. Mambo and others keep mentioning Tory wealth and linking it to how their policies are hitting the least well off the most. Wealth has less to do with it than ideologies. If it was more closely related then Corbyn would be a Tory perhaps!

mamba80

As you say, its about Policies and belief systems - not wealth regardless of which party, but if you spout on about understanding the problems the poor face JAM's fairer britain etc etc but the policy does not match the rhetoric, then yes, she out of touch, living a life of wealth and privilege reinforces the view that May and other tories seem to have that the less well off are somehow to blame for their predicament.

Having had a bit of time to research this, cutting widows bereavement payments, cuts in disability payments, whilst at the same time benefiting wealthy families with cuts in IHT, show a level of callousness that beggars belief.

a distant relative has recently died, she leaves behind primary school aged children, a partner who can no longer work, (even with suitable childcare, those kids need him in their lives more than ever now) and only a single grand parent able to help out, but at least she had the good sense to die before April.

tangled_metal

But still the biggest problem is the most effective opposition they have seems to be libdem! Tories have really only been stopped by their own side or their own side and libdem peers. Wealth has nothing to do with that. If you really want to reign in the Tories you need a functioning Labour party.

OTOH there's always been a history of the party in power of favouring their own supporters. New Labour did that so well. I doubt there's any majority government that's been working for the good of all. Nature of fptp without the need for the moderating force of coalitions. Just how different would a majority Tory government have been without libdems in 2010?

Then I'd rather be where we are now than where we were in certain Labour governments. Callaghan's inflation, winter of discontent, etc. No doubt a clever socialist will produce some data to show we were better off when the UK went cap in hand to the IMF than now.

My biggest issue is Brexit is hurting. That was a decision from left and right. Although the Tories should have put a. bigger majority on it to account for non-voters.

Lookyhere

Perhaps if May was a parent herself, she might have a little more compassion before changing a benefit that has been around since 1946.
Bereavement doesn't stop at 18months and children who have lost a parent need the surviving parent more than ever.

Bare in mind that most parents who die would have paid into the system at one time or another but will never claim state pension.

however, i do not believe that a surviving partner, where there are no children, should get anything, yet that is now what is going to happen.

the savings are £40m per year, tell me, how much are the cuts in IHT costing the treasury?

surrey_commuter

Tangled Metal wrote:

Anyone know the relative wealth of Labour elite? I know the new Labour lot were more than well off. Miliband brothers did very nicely out of their socialist dad. Corbyn lives in a nice part of London i believe, he won't be on working class income and I'd wager he gets, or used to get, an outside Westminster income from various sources too.

Oh well, rich Tory elite that's out of touch with working class feeds nicely into a socialist ideology. Even a champagne socialist ideology. I've got news for you, any MP you care to mention will be wealthy. It's not a poor man's job. Most take a pay cut to become an MP. Whatever your view of the Tories i can tell you for sure that i have a better idea of financially struggling on low pay in a modern UK than Corbyn or May.

his Westminster salary is a matter of record and he has published his tax return so no need to guess

mamba80

Tangled Metal wrote:

But still the biggest problem is the most effective opposition they have seems to be libdem! Tories have really only been stopped by their own side or their own side and libdem peers. Wealth has nothing to do with that. If you really want to reign in the Tories you need a functioning Labour party.

OTOH there's always been a history of the party in power of favouring their own supporters. New Labour did that so well. I doubt there's any majority government that's been working for the good of all. Nature of fptp without the need for the moderating force of coalitions. Just how different would a majority Tory government have been without libdems in 2010?

Then I'd rather be where we are now than where we were in certain Labour governments. Callaghan's inflation, winter of discontent, etc. No doubt a clever socialist will produce some data to show we were better off when the UK went cap in hand to the IMF than now.

My biggest issue is Brexit is hurting. That was a decision from left and right. Although the Tories should have put a. bigger majority on it to account for non-voters.

Completely agree, there is no effective opposition (other than the 'lords) meaning things just get pushed through, good and bad.

Labours mistake is agreeing with the decision to leave the EU, imo it ll turn out to be a disaster for the UK and along with the Tories, they ll also have no where to hide, leaving the voters with little choice - thats when extremes get in or most likely an increase in voter apathy.

Maybe the libdems will make a comeback? but with such a low starting point and little cash, not likely.

cycleclinic

labour tying itself in knots again over Ken. Labour say he is anti semetic. Ken said hilter supported zionists not he was a zionist. Hilter signed the Haarvara agreement. Therefore he supported zionism for his own ends.

I have just seen a labour MP on newsnight say Ken is not welcome in his contiucancy and poured rightous indignation on him. I can't believe he said that. No one should be told they are not welcome in any part of the UK. That MP should be kicked out of parliament for saying this. I dont think what Ken said is racist. I dont understand why he commented on NAz Shars face book post (he did not need to and stepped in it good and proper) but the result is labour is eating itself. can they hurry up and just disband so politics can find a new normal because while all this continues they cant do the job they have and be the opposition.

The lib dems might make a comeback but not under Tim Farron, it will take another Paddy or Cleggy but the current pool is a little thin. That the problem for the lid dems even with 9 MP's who can name all of them?

Stevo_666

I see the Greens have made an audacious bid for Labour's natural voter base
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39471102

ballysmate

3 day weekend?
You can FRO if you think I'm gonna work 4 days a week.

Stevo_666

Ballysmate wrote:

3 day weekend?
You can FRO if you think I'm gonna work 4 days a week.

I'll take up the slack Bally...although you're still working harder than the average southern rail train driver.

kingstongraham

Ballysmate wrote:

3 day weekend?
You can FRO if you think I'm gonna work 4 days a week.

Don't worry, they were proposing only 21 hours work over those 4 days.

rjsterry

KingstonGraham wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

3 day weekend?
You can FRO if you think I'm gonna work 4 days a week.

Don't worry, they were proposing only 21 hours work over those 4 days.

21 hours is not even 3 full days' work. How would anything get done?
I heard or read some similar idea a while back - think it was related to the idea of a 'citizen's income'. I think the promoters of such ideas have rather got sucked into the idea that you can do anything from a smartphone app.

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

3 day weekend?
You can FRO if you think I'm gonna work 4 days a week.

Don't worry, they were proposing only 21 hours work over those 4 days.

21 hours is not even 3 full days' work. How would anything get done?
I heard or read some similar idea a while back - think it was related to the idea of a 'citizen's income'. I think the promoters of such ideas have rather got sucked into the idea that you can do anything from a smartphone app.

Lazy gits.

Do you mean the sort of minimum income regardless of whether you work? Think something like that was voted down in Switzerland and Finland recently. Presumably because the working public realise that if you pay people enough to do nothing, they will do...nothing.

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

3 day weekend?
You can FRO if you think I'm gonna work 4 days a week.

Don't worry, they were proposing only 21 hours work over those 4 days.

21 hours is not even 3 full days' work. How would anything get done?
I heard or read some similar idea a while back - think it was related to the idea of a 'citizen's income'. I think the promoters of such ideas have rather got sucked into the idea that you can do anything from a smartphone app.

Lazy gits.

Do you mean the sort of minimum income regardless of whether you work? Think something like that was voted down in Switzerland and Finland recently. Presumably because the working public realise that if you pay people enough to do nothing, they will do...nothing.

Yes, that's it. The thinking is that with increased automation and the rise of Uber/Deliveroo type jobs, people will be in and out of employment in a way far too chaotic to manage traditional unemployment benefit. The cost is astronomical, though:

One rudimentary scheme worked out for the UK by Malcolm Torry – and remember that he is an advocate of the basic income – proposed an income of £8,320 a year, to replace all benefits except housing and council-tax benefit. That is hardly a generous annual stipend, and yet if it is to be funded through the income tax system it would require the rates of income tax to go up from 20, 40 and 45 per cent to 48, 68 and 73 per cent. That means anyone on today’s average full-time earnings of about £27,000 a year would lose out, because although the £8,320 a year would make up for losing the income-tax personal allowance, every pound of earnings would be taxed, and more heavily.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/bas ... 05561.html

So it's not so much that it woul breed idleness as nobody could afford it.

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

3 day weekend?
You can FRO if you think I'm gonna work 4 days a week.

Don't worry, they were proposing only 21 hours work over those 4 days.

21 hours is not even 3 full days' work. How would anything get done?
I heard or read some similar idea a while back - think it was related to the idea of a 'citizen's income'. I think the promoters of such ideas have rather got sucked into the idea that you can do anything from a smartphone app.

Lazy gits.

Do you mean the sort of minimum income regardless of whether you work? Think something like that was voted down in Switzerland and Finland recently. Presumably because the working public realise that if you pay people enough to do nothing, they will do...nothing.

if it means i can earn what i do now for the hours i (sometimes) work! then it gets my vote!!

Seriously, what you get when unemployed, should be based on what you pay in, not free cash - if its good enough for Germany, good enough for us and far fairer too, i guess some would say its a type of basic income though.

Tax rates dont seem super high either?

http://www.howtogermany.com/pages/germantaxes.html

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... -allowance

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

So it's not so much that it woul breed idleness as nobody could afford it.

That follows on from the idleness as less people earning and paying tax = less to spend on the idle.

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

3 day weekend?
You can FRO if you think I'm gonna work 4 days a week.

Don't worry, they were proposing only 21 hours work over those 4 days.

21 hours is not even 3 full days' work. How would anything get done?
I heard or read some similar idea a while back - think it was related to the idea of a 'citizen's income'. I think the promoters of such ideas have rather got sucked into the idea that you can do anything from a smartphone app.

Lazy gits.

Do you mean the sort of minimum income regardless of whether you work? Think something like that was voted down in Switzerland and Finland recently. Presumably because the working public realise that if you pay people enough to do nothing, they will do...nothing.

if it means i can earn what i do now for the hours i (sometimes) work! then it gets my vote!!

Seriously, what you get when unemployed, should be based on what you pay in, not free cash - if its good enough for Germany, good enough for us and far fairer too, i guess some would say its a type of basic income though.

Tax rates dont seem super high either?

http://www.howtogermany.com/pages/germantaxes.html

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... -allowance

To some extent agree although it should be capped as it is only meant to be a safety net.

Youre only looking at income tax rates - in reality all taxes go into the 'pot' and overall Germany is a higher tax jurisdiction..

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

So it's not so much that it woul breed idleness as nobody could afford it.

That follows on from the idleness as less people earning and paying tax = less to spend on the idle.

There are plenty of people notionally in full time employment who still manage to achieve almost total idleness. But agreed: it's a non-starter. It's one of those patently unworkable ideas that keeps rearing its head because it appears to offer a simple solution to a very complex problem, with the added attraction of making the proponent look a bit of a radical.

rjsterry

Diverting slightly (deviating?), this just popped up.

Neil Hamilton: Mark Reckless can never be trusted again.

tangled_metal

Paul Nuttal - lost close friends at Hillsborough.

Nigel Farage - if Brexit goes badly I'll leave the UK.

A UKIPer talking about trust? One of theirs leaving for another party? Well double standards. They only got an MP because he defected to UKIP from the Tories. Indeed i believe reckless was once described as a Tory even while in UKIP. It's natural for him to go over to the party who's politics match his now that the point of UKIP has been achieved (or about to be in less than 2 years unless it is prevented by remainers).

kingstongraham

To be fair, it's not like leaving a sinking ship, it's more like disembarking once you've reached your destination.

Thigh_burn

thecycleclinic wrote:

labour tying itself in knots again over Ken. Labour say he is anti semetic. Ken said hilter supported zionists not he was a zionist. Hilter signed the Haarvara agreement. Therefore he supported zionism for his own ends.

I have just seen a labour MP on newsnight say Ken is not welcome in his contiucancy and poured rightous indignation on him. I can't believe he said that. No one should be told they are not welcome in any part of the UK. That MP should be kicked out of parliament for saying this. I dont think what Ken said is racist.

Livingstone has a long track record of saying things that serve very little purpose other than upsetting members of the Jewish community - and others who are bothered that a minority community is offended.

What he says is deeply offensive. I'd be tempted to say that it is objectively so, however I can't as I'm Jewish so I guess I'm not all that objective.

According to Livingstone, Hitler supported Jews moving to Israel and therefore supported to Zionism and he did this before "he went mad". I can only assume that reference to mad is a way of saying that he only started doing really bad stuff after "he went mad". So according to Livingstone, Hitler wasn't mad when he wrote Mein Kampf in 1925?

And whether you want some choice quotes from MK and Hitler's views on Jews, or you want to understand just how deeply offensive his comments are, read David Baddiel on this and Baddiel explains why Livingstone's 'historical facts' are so utterly flawed.

Livingstone is a disgrace and I think he acts an awful lot like an anti-semite. But he's one with a platform and for some reason people still like to listen to quote him and listen to what he has to say. That he didn't get expelled by the party is the sign that they didn't really think he brought the party into disrepute.

rjsterry

Thanks. That and Baddiel's piece are good explanations of what hasn't been terribly clearly reported in general.

Stevo_666

What a surprise...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39525952

Garry H

tangled_metal

Slightly off topic perhaps but if there are any unite members (or Tory infiltrators of the unite union) please consider carefully your vote. Voting for Len is like voting for Corbyn, you'll end up with a leader using your union subscriptions to back a weak opposition and its nice but unsuitable leader.

As much as I enjoyed Stevo's original semi-joking premise of voting in Corbyn to weaken the Labour party. It must surely be time that the joke ends? It's allowing for dangerous Tory governments from Cameron's who stupidly allowed their loony elements to dictate policy (Brexit) to May's that full of clowns. We need a centre left opposition with ideas because we haven't got a centre right government with idea worth much IMHO.

So to any unite members eligible to vote I am actually begging you. Don't vote in Len. The other guy sounds better. He's saying that unite shouldn't be trying to be puppet master or king maker to Labour. I wholeheartedly believe that Labour shouldn't be union controlled/influenced heavily. If unite under a new leader took a step back then perhaps we could move back to politics being fought over the centre ground. It's where most British voters actually stand!

ballysmate

The Unite leader said the union’s leadership contest had, in effect, been turned into a third leadership contest for Corbyn. “That is precisely what the media want it to be, and what the rightwing of the Labour party want it to be, and they have a puppet in Gerard Coyne that they can use,” McCluskey said

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -mccluskey

I urge all members to, er, unite behind the leadership so that the Labour Party can become the party we want it to be.
Now is not the time to rock the boat.

tangled_metal

Coyne did not vote for Corbyn, according to his interview on r4 this morning. He's running on a platform of stepping back from interfering in Labour party like Len does.

He's saying things like it's up to all the unions through TUC to decide on the role of unions in Labour party. He's kind of saying unions should focus on their members interests, pay, job security in uncertain employment, etc. If he's right-wing then all unions should be right-wing too.

ballysmate

TM, I suspect that your vision for the Labour Party doesn't match mine.

tangled_metal

I hope they never get into power again. How far from your viewpoint is that? I just want a Labour party that looks like it could get into power but doesn't. One that can act as a functioning opposition party (for the rest of their existence).