Join the Labour Party and save your country!

tangled_metal

Stevo 666 wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

I actually watched a lecture by the IFS on BBC parliament channel on the economic impact of the three (four) main parties; conservative, labour and LibDems. The one thing I remember is graphs of the positive or negative impact of the policies overall by socio-economic grouping or earning level. Tories and Labour both had a similar shape graph across all levels, basically negative for all but the poor were clobbered more than middle and high earners. The goal is positive and level across the groups I guess but both Tories and Labour had a low graph at lower groupings rising to almost positive for mid groups then dropping a bit.

The only party to get even close to the ideal, fair for all impact was LibDems. Their policies were nearly positive for low and middle earning groups and only dropping a bit for the rich, the line dropped less for the rich than the other 2 parties IIRC.

One comment I remember was the speaker saying something along the lines of if you wanted a change to the better for the most people LibDems is the only party.

This was a long time back to remember it exactly but certainly labour and Tory's manifestos would have had not much difference to the impact economically. That's surprising because of how different their politics are. There's something about the further left you go in politics the more like the right they become. It can't be true can it?

Even if you might be right about the Lib Dems, in the near future they are unlikely to return to being a credible political force in terms of numbers of seats.

Hence my deliberate use of the word 'realistically' above.

Too bloody right! They've been nowhere for a few generations IMHO. Gone are the days of liberals fighting it out with Tories for government.

They're a fringe party nowadays, with luck we'll see Corbyn's labour go the same way! ☺️

Lookyhere

Maybe vote Rees-Mogg and save your country?

i want a Labour government and more than happy for a JC led administration, the Tories are leading this country to wreck and ruin, how liberals want more of the Tories is beyond me.

Stevo_666

Lookyhere wrote:

Maybe vote Rees-Mogg and save your country?

i want a Labour government and more than happy for a JC led administration, the Tories are leading this country to wreck and ruin, how liberals want more of the Tories is beyond me.

There are quite a few people on this thread who are either Liberal voters or of a centre left political inclination. Why don't you ask them?

I think there's enough from me about that that on this thread

Lookyhere

Stevo 666 wrote:

Lookyhere wrote:

Maybe vote Rees-Mogg and save your country?

i want a Labour government and more than happy for a JC led administration, the Tories are leading this country to wreck and ruin, how liberals want more of the Tories is beyond me.

There are quite a few people on this thread who are either Liberal voters or of a centre left political inclination. Why don't you ask them?

I think there's enough from me about that that on this thread

I certainly didnt ask you did i ? and yes you are correct

Stevo_666

Get on with it and ask them then

Can you really not understand why people might not want a Corbyn government?

tangled_metal

Stevo 666 wrote:

Get on with it and ask them then

Can you really not understand why people might not want a Corbyn government?

Because they'll be as bad as the Tories but in a slightly different way?!

Lookyhere

Stevo 666 wrote:

Get on with it and ask them then

Can you really not understand why people might not want a Corbyn government?

i didnt ask you nor did i quote anyone, so stop popping up like some demented jack in the box.

Aside, JC would be the best thing to happen to this country in years, May with Brexit, Grammar school exam chaos, a run down NHS (esp Adult social care) and an Education system that leaves our higher educated with some of the highest debt and fails to provide industry with skilled school leavers and to top it all last week, a UN report on how the UK is failing the severely disabled.

I dont expect you to get any of this.

Stevo_666

Lookyhere wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Get on with it and ask them then

Can you really not understand why people might not want a Corbyn government?

i didnt ask you nor did i quote anyone, so stop popping up like some demented jack in the box.

Aside, JC would be the best thing to happen to this country in years, May with Brexit, Grammar school exam chaos, a run down NHS (esp Adult social care) and an Education system that leaves our higher educated with some of the highest debt and fails to provide industry with skilled school leavers and to top it all last week, a UN report on how the UK is failing the severely disabled.

I dont expect you to get any of this.

I'm not bothered if you asked me or not, we still have free speech last time I looked.

The faith put by people like yourself on the hard left in New Old Labour is quite touching.

So how will Uncle Jeremy fix these things for you, and how should they be paid for?

Stevo_666

Tangled Metal wrote:

Too bloody right! They've been nowhere for a few generations IMHO. Gone are the days of liberals fighting it out with Tories for government.

They're a fringe party nowadays, with luck we'll see Corbyn's labour go the same way! ☺️

I'll drink to that

Lookyhere

Stevo 666 wrote:

Lookyhere wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Get on with it and ask them then

Can you really not understand why people might not want a Corbyn government?

i didnt ask you nor did i quote anyone, so stop popping up like some demented jack in the box.

Aside, JC would be the best thing to happen to this country in years, May with Brexit, Grammar school exam chaos, a run down NHS (esp Adult social care) and an Education system that leaves our higher educated with some of the highest debt and fails to provide industry with skilled school leavers and to top it all last week, a UN report on how the UK is failing the severely disabled.

I dont expect you to get any of this.

I'm not bothered if you asked me or not, we still have free speech last time I looked.

The faith put by people like yourself on the hard left in New Old Labour is quite touching.

So how will Uncle Jeremy fix these things for you, and how should they be paid for?

There is plenty of money in this country, the Tories are experts at throwing it away, not least the fortune that Brexit will cost the nation, even Farage predicts 10y plus of down turn.
I support Labour not because they will do everything in a manifesto (has any party in any country managed that) but for the change in priorities they would bring about nor do i think they are without fault, the way Sarah Champion has been treated for example, but when it comes to lying to the public (and that list is endless) the tories take the biscuit.

The blind faith you place in the tory party is nt touching, its pathetic, you cant seem to think for yourself, even after the disasters they presided over in the last few years, i ve yet to read of a single serious criticism you've had of them.

Stevo_666

Lookyhere wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

So how will Uncle Jeremy fix these things for you, and how should they be paid for?

Stuff that doesn't answer the question

Go on, try to answer a question that someone puts to you - just this once...

Not my job to criticise the tories, there are plenty of bitter lefties who do that on here

tangled_metal

Did labour vote against the Brexit referendum? Did they campaign vigorously against Brexit? Did Corbyn as Labour's leader personally campaign vigorously and publicly and loudly against Brexit? If not they're partly culpable for Brexit. Although Tory party was a bunch of idiots for going for the referendum.

As far as who lies the most that's purely down to your politics. Obviously your side is better than the other side. You'd not support them if you didn't believe that. However that's all bunkum! It's completely pig headed and blind to think the others lie more than your lot.

They're politicians, if they don't lie you'd not vote for them. Imagine if a leader of the main parties started telling the truth! What do you suppose they'd say? Why not use your imaginations to suggest what the leader of your party might say if they could lie, obfuscate or mislead.

I've not got a good imagination but I'll give it a go. May would obviously say she messed up with GE but she'd also say Tories messed up with the referendum and quite frankly we'd be happy with Scotland leaving the union but we're too scared to preside over it. The nhs is screwed but the PFI issue isn't the reason just part of it. Grammar schools and free schools was about sucking up to our voters.

Corbyn might say he's taking advantage of the youth vote. John McDonnell scares me, I think he wants my job. I'm out of my depth I don't know who my friends really are. Sh1t! I did too well at verge GE. Ppl might see me as a credible option and if May drops or and there's another GE I might become PM. I don't want it because I'll have to fulfill my manifesto, I'll let these nutters like McDonnell into government with me. And I can't oppose anything if it's me proposing laws!

Cable might say I'm tired, please let me retire. Someone please take over. I should be putting my feet up tending my garden not leading a party.

Sturgeon might say that she doesn't think Scotland would work out well if it got independence. I only meant it to use it to get me power, I don't want it all.

mamba80

sure the IFS came up and rubbished all the parties manifestos and then did a job on Labours costings... but not quite, they did admit that Labours plans would raise about 30 billion not the 50b plus, 30billion? would make a huge difference.

Labour wouldnt have taken us into Brexit, as they never would have had a vote.

May was warned about tis as HS, she ignored it... how much will this end up costing us?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... tal-health

the gov made a hash of the new jets for the QE a/c, another 2 billon wasted, plus a heap of time, Nimrod, scrapped, a billion thrown away plus the billions spent on its replcement.... tory eco competence?

But like Tangled, i dont have any faith in anyone any more, its just the best of a bad bunch.

rjsterry

Labour wouldnt have taken us into Brexit, as they never would have had a vote.

Hang on, which alternative timeline is this? One where Miliband is PM?

In this universe, they had the option to campaign against Brexit, but realised (correctly) that it would lose them a large chunk of their traditional support.

tangled_metal

Actually the IFS in the programme I saw basically said labour and Tories weren't much different in the actual economic outcomes. A lot of the headline labour policies, such as extra taxation of the rich had a lesser effect than wanted because they were the very group who were most capable of actively taking measures to minimize taxes. IIRC the IFS made the point that targeting them could be counter effective because those who previously never made tax efficient financial decisions would be forced into that course of actions by the new tax rate being proposed. That could result in decreasing tax take from that section of society.

Put simply they run to Stevo or his colleagues.

IMHO anyone trying to make out their party is better than the other side is simply deluded. Sorry Mambo but whatever benefits from a Corbyn Government would be lost by other policies. Every government fails in new ways. They all end up as bad as each other. It's part of the political cycle.

Stevo_666

Tangled Metal wrote:

Actually the IFS in the programme I saw basically said labour and Tories weren't much different in the actual economic outcomes. A lot of the headline labour policies, such as extra taxation of the rich had a lesser effect than wanted because they were the very group who were most capable of actively taking measures to minimize taxes. IIRC the IFS made the point that targeting them could be counter effective because those who previously never made tax efficient financial decisions would be forced into that course of actions by the new tax rate being proposed. That could result in decreasing tax take from that section of society.

Put simply they run to Stevo or his colleagues.

IMHO anyone trying to make out their party is better than the other side is simply deluded. Sorry Mambo but whatever benefits from a Corbyn Government would be lost by other policies. Every government fails in new ways. They all end up as bad as each other. It's part of the political cycle.

The tax side already has evidence to support the view that Labour's methods of raising money will not work.

1. Increasing the top income tax rate to 50% raised sweet FA - for exactly the behavioural reasons you mention
2. Dropping the corporate rate from 28% to the current 19% has increased the absolute level of corporate tax collected (even after factoring in economic growth)

Labour want to raise a lot of their extra revenue though increasing these rates again...although I will become very popular if they do

mamba80

Tangled Metal wrote:

Actually the IFS in the programme I saw basically said labour and Tories weren't much different in the actual economic outcomes. A lot of the headline labour policies, such as extra taxation of the rich had a lesser effect than wanted because they were the very group who were most capable of actively taking measures to minimize taxes. IIRC the IFS made the point that targeting them could be counter effective because those who previously never made tax efficient financial decisions would be forced into that course of actions by the new tax rate being proposed. That could result in decreasing tax take from that section of society.

why do you think the rest of europe manages to have higher taxes? are we genetically preprogrammed to head for the nearest tax advisor once rates hit 41% lol.

Even with lower rates, it doesnt stop extremely wealthy individuals and corporations doing all they can can to get the rate they pay down to zero, it doesnt matter how low the rate is, humans are v greedy.

JC was proposing a small rise and the reversal in things like iht th.

IFS took into account behavioral, which is what they said Labour coudlnt raise the 50 billion plus, also the 50% rate was only in for a year or less wasnt it?

but sure carry on with cr@p public services (esp education, which is insane) and wages propped up with other peoples taxes, whislt the companies they work for post nice profits and/or dividends, rewarding their own pay with huge pay rises - this isnt capitalism or socialism, its stupidity.

anyhow need to go to work now, to help pay the tax credits for all those scroungers who work for firms that do very well but chose to pay far below a living wage, the latest high lighted is McDonalds... but its a uk wide problem.

rick_chasey

Stevo still giving heat to the imaginary gov't to shield the actual gov't.

JC lost Stevo, so get over it! He might as well say he has the moon on a stick; it's what the gov't does now that's important.

tangled_metal

I read something about the amount you need to earn before you become a net contributor not beneficiary of state resources. I can't remember the figure but it was quite high, £50k rings so bell. If you earn more than that great, if less then go to work but you're still a scrouger! Anyone know the figure I refer too?

BTW I'm a scrouger according to that but I work hard and don't expect to see guaranteed annual pay increases like the public sector. I get a pay rise when the business sees a case for it. It means a real time pay decrease due to the cost of living greater than public sector 1%increases result in.

Pay higher taxes? We're not a high tax kind of nation. Put simply the national conversation on higher taxes for better public services always come back with don't increase taxes high enough to make a difference. It's not the national mood as far as taxation goes. So accepting that you have to accept reduced services. The socialist paradox you could say. Socialism seems to want bigger state which needs money but the nation doesn't want to pay what is needed so socialism needs to decide between more of the same with power or political wasteland but high taxation / high services policies. If they don't get the Scandinavian or French levels of taxation then they're just a version of all the other labour and tory parties to hold power since the 70s.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo still giving heat to the imaginary gov't to shield the actual gov't.

JC lost Stevo, so get over it! He might as well say he has the moon on a stick; it's what the gov't does now that's important.

There's always another election...when leftiebollox goes away then I can stop

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo still giving heat to the imaginary gov't to shield the actual gov't.

JC lost Stevo, so get over it! He might as well say he has the moon on a stick; it's what the gov't does now that's important.

There's always another election...when leftiebollox goes away then I can stop

So what's the rightbollox solution to this?

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

why do you think the rest of europe manages to have higher taxes? are we genetically preprogrammed to head for the nearest tax advisor once rates hit 41% lol.

Even with lower rates, it doesnt stop extremely wealthy individuals and corporations doing all they can can to get the rate they pay down to zero, it doesnt matter how low the rate is, humans are v greedy.

JC was proposing a small rise and the reversal in things like iht th.

IFS took into account behavioral, which is what they said Labour coudlnt raise the 50 billion plus, also the 50% rate was only in for a year or less wasnt it?

but sure carry on with cr@p public services (esp education, which is insane) and wages propped up with other peoples taxes, whislt the companies they work for post nice profits and/or dividends, rewarding their own pay with huge pay rises - this isnt capitalism or socialism, its stupidity.

anyhow need to go to work now, to help pay the tax credits for all those scroungers who work for firms that do very well but chose to pay far below a living wage, the latest high lighted is McDonalds... but its a uk wide problem.

I don't think you assertion that the rest of Europe manages to have higher taxes is correct. Any evidence to support that? You may want to look at countries like Switzerland and Luxembourg and see how low taxes has decimated their standard of living

I have argued before that it is high taxes that holds countries back in the long term because it reduces growth. It also does not mean that the are somehow debt free - just take a look at the national debt levels of countries like France, Italy and Germany. Based on that, high taxes do not appear to be working very well.

Lower taxes do not eliminate avoidance but they sure as hell reduce them.as there is less value and less incentive to do so. I mentioned before that part of our corporate tax strategy is to maximise taxable profits in the UK (at the expense of other countries in Europe) because the rate differential makes it highly beneficial to do so. Effectively reverse tax avoidance - and benefits the UK.

As for your point about having to sub people on tax credits, well if you give the all the pay rises they are asking for what do you think will happen to the price of the products and services that their employers sell? Or in the case of small businesses who may mot be able to afford the increased wages, do you think they will cut or increase the number of employees? We will pay for it one way or another, all in the name of fairness.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

rightbollox

There's no such thing

You asked for a solution but what's the problem as you see it?

Also cant see what countries relate to some of those colour codes - some of those red colours seem to be in EE but cannot see exactly which ones? You need to set better questions Rick.

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

rightbollox

There's no such thing

You asked for a solution but what's the problem as you see it?

Also cant see what countries relate to some of those colour codes - some of those red colours seem to be in EE but cannot see exactly which ones? You need to set better questions Rick.

So it's from this: http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sou ... _stock.pdf

Capital stock is a useful indicator for how well or badly a region is doing.

Capital stock per worker even more so.

In the UK, a lot of the regions have a a capital to worker ratio as low as the rural parts of Poland.

Compare that to France, Germany, Netherlands, Italy, and it looks pretty ugly.

Basically, to account for UK success, you've basically got a hyper strong city in London, and the rest is broadly sh!te.

What's the rightiebollox response to that regional inequality?

surrey_commuter

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

rightbollox

There's no such thing

You asked for a solution but what's the problem as you see it?

Also cant see what countries relate to some of those colour codes - some of those red colours seem to be in EE but cannot see exactly which ones? You need to set better questions Rick.

So it's from this: http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sou ... _stock.pdf

Capital stock is a useful indicator for how well or badly a region is doing.

Capital stock per worker even more so.

In the UK, a lot of the regions have a a capital to worker ratio as low as the rural parts of Poland.

Compare that to France, Germany, Netherlands, Italy, and it looks pretty ugly.

Basically, to account for UK success, you've basically got a hyper strong city in London, and the rest is broadly sh!te.

What's the rightiebollox response to that regional inequality?

I would get rid of Scotland and Northern Ireland

Stevo_666

Define capital stock. Never heard of that phrase before.

rick_chasey

Oh come on, it's an accounting term.

It's a measure of capital accumulation.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Oh come on, it's an accounting term.

It's a measure of capital accumulation.

I'll have a look at the report later when I have wifi - EU reports are notoriously verbose.

However I did notice that the data is now at least 10 years old which is long enough to substantially reduce its relevance to current day. Got anything better?

Also only covers services, which I am guessing is has the stats that you think best supports your case. I'll look at the report later but I've hauled you up before on selective use of data. Let's hope this isn't another case so soon after the last ones...

tangled_metal

Selective use of stats? We all do that don't we?

Stevo_666

Tangled Metal wrote:

Selective use of stats? We all do that don't we?

Very probably, but some do it more than others...although that may be too subtle a difference for certain people.