Join the Labour Party and save your country!
Comments
-
But how much of a clique is it? The Labour party seems to have erased 'New Labour' from the history books. And yet New Labour was the only elected / electable iteration of the labour party since Callaghan. It seems more than a clique to me.mrfpb wrote:morstar wrote:Agreed. But I think JC believes he is returning the Labour party to something the grass roots believes in. In that assessment, he is probably correct. Problem is, that a traditional socialist party is probably unelectable. The more centre leaning Labour MP's either need to convince the membership that what Labour had become is the best for the party or start a new centre party.
JC appears a reasonable fellow in TV interviews and on platforms, but he is the front man for a left wing clique that have wanted to get more influence in the party for decades and are too ideologically hardnosed to negotiate a settlement with the centre left. Threatening to make every MP face reselection isn't a reasonable act of leadership.0 -
But, and it is a big butt, the corbynistas see no point in getting elected on a Blair mandate. They are looking at the long-term in which they believe they will win the argument and gain power with a socialist mandate and achieve everything they want to. Their first step is to seize control of the party, which is currently going pretty well.
Whilst I believe most of what they say to be absolute lunacy you can no argue that the party was born out of the Union movement to represent the working man. It always strikes me as strange when people complain that Labour is in hock to the unions.0 -
mrfpb wrote:morstar wrote:Agreed. But I think JC believes he is returning the Labour party to something the grass roots believes in. In that assessment, he is probably correct. Problem is, that a traditional socialist party is probably unelectable. The more centre leaning Labour MP's either need to convince the membership that what Labour had become is the best for the party or start a new centre party.
JC appears a reasonable fellow in TV interviews and on platforms, but he is the front man for a left wing clique that have wanted to get more influence in the party for decades and are too ideologically hardnosed to negotiate a settlement with the centre left. Threatening to make every MP face reselection isn't a reasonable act of leadership.
They don't want a settlement - they want their Party back. They see it as reasonable to get rid of the infiltrators. When you see the identikit nature of their MPS you can see their point of view.0 -
Agree completely. My point is that the centre left need to convince the socialists that theirs is the way forward or move on.Surrey Commuter wrote:But, and it is a big butt, the corbynistas see no point in getting elected on a Blair mandate. They are looking at the long-term in which they believe they will win the argument and gain power with a socialist mandate and achieve everything they want to. Their first step is to seize control of the party, which is currently going pretty well.
Whilst I believe most of what they say to be absolute lunacy you can no argue that the party was born out of the Union movement to represent the working man. It always strikes me as strange when people complain that Labour is in hock to the unions.0 -
morstar wrote:
Agree completely. My point is that the centre left need to convince the socialists that theirs is the way forward or move on.Surrey Commuter wrote:But, and it is a big butt, the corbynistas see no point in getting elected on a Blair mandate. They are looking at the long-term in which they believe they will win the argument and gain power with a socialist mandate and achieve everything they want to. Their first step is to seize control of the party, which is currently going pretty well.
Whilst I believe most of what they say to be absolute lunacy you can no argue that the party was born out of the Union movement to represent the working man. It always strikes me as strange when people complain that Labour is in hock to the unions.
Waste of breath trying to change their minds. If the invisible man does not defeat JC then their will be the mother of all purges before the next election. Leaving and setting up a new party will not help as most labour voters will unthinkingly vote for the red rosette.
More questions should be asked of the loons who nominated JC first time round.0 -
If Corby wins and there is a massive.purge of moderates then those purged won't have much to lose by setting up a new party. A good proportion will vote Labour regardless but a good proportion will also see a purged Labour party for what it is and walk away.Surrey Commuter wrote:morstar wrote:
Agree completely. My point is that the centre left need to convince the socialists that theirs is the way forward or move on.Surrey Commuter wrote:But, and it is a big butt, the corbynistas see no point in getting elected on a Blair mandate. They are looking at the long-term in which they believe they will win the argument and gain power with a socialist mandate and achieve everything they want to. Their first step is to seize control of the party, which is currently going pretty well.
Whilst I believe most of what they say to be absolute lunacy you can no argue that the party was born out of the Union movement to represent the working man. It always strikes me as strange when people complain that Labour is in hock to the unions.
Waste of breath trying to change their minds. If the invisible man does not defeat JC then their will be the mother of all purges before the next election. Leaving and setting up a new party will not help as most labour voters will unthinkingly vote for the red rosette.
More questions should be asked of the loons who nominated JC first time round."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:If Corby wins and there is a massive.purge of moderates then those purged won't have much to lose by setting up a new party. A good proportion will vote Labour regardless but a good proportion will also see a purged Labour party for what it is and walk away.
So it's in the interests of the moderates to break away before the next election. Enough of them leaving together they can form the official opposition and make their mark before the next GE. They would need around 100 MPs though, as I don't think their is a precedent for a coalition as opposition.0 -
mrfpb wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:If Corby wins and there is a massive.purge of moderates then those purged won't have much to lose by setting up a new party. A good proportion will vote Labour regardless but a good proportion will also see a purged Labour party for what it is and walk away.
So it's in the interests of the moderates to break away before the next election. Enough of them leaving together they can form the official opposition and make their mark before the next GE. They would need around 100 MPs though, as I don't think their is a precedent for a coalition as opposition.
Bet they wish they'd voted for PR now.0 -
Now Smith wants a 15% surcharge on unearned income - not a vote winner for the public sector then
0 -
Deja vu - that's straight out of the Dennis Healey book of economics in the 70's when there was the same surcharge of 15% on unearned income. He's also proposing reinstating wages councils and jacking up borrowing by £200 billion. No wonder the Corbyn camp have accused him of copying their policies...florerider wrote:Now Smith wants a 15% surcharge on unearned income - not a vote winner for the public sector then
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/27/owen-smith-policies-copied-says-jeremy-corbyn-team
So it's a straight choice between pure undiluted leftiebollox and slightly diluted leftiebollox
In other good news, the same link gives recent party support as this according to a YouGov poll:
"...support for the Conservatives at 40%. Labour is at 28%, its lowest point since Corbyn became leader in September last year. Ukip was at 13% and the Lib Dems at 8%."
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
What's the specific problem with taxing unearned income? We tax most other forms of income so it doesn't seem unreasonable to me.0
-
Don't you know all politicians are strangers to the truth, they never answer questions but go off on a waffle expedition and by the time they've finished the interviewer has forgotten what question he/she asked. It's feckin mental. The Labour Party are shite0
-
Stevo 666 wrote:
Deja vu - that's straight out of the Dennis Healey book of economics in the 70's when there was the same surcharge of 15% on unearned income. He's also proposing reinstating wages councils and jacking up borrowing by £200 billion. No wonder the Corbyn camp have accused him of copying their policies...florerider wrote:Now Smith wants a 15% surcharge on unearned income - not a vote winner for the public sector then
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/27/owen-smith-policies-copied-says-jeremy-corbyn-team
So it's a straight choice between pure undiluted leftiebollox and slightly diluted leftiebollox
In other good news, the same link gives recent party support as this according to a YouGov poll:
"...support for the Conservatives at 40%. Labour is at 28%, its lowest point since Corbyn became leader in September last year. Ukip was at 13% and the Lib Dems at 8%."
Wages councils? and taxing un earned income over 150k ? when i was working under a wages council, they provided training and employment advice, whats so wrong with that?
Wages councils have employers as well as employees on them and worked very well, esp in industries where there there was no Union rep.
Perhaps if we d stuck with them, maybe w e d not have the mess that is the min wage.0 -
Unearned income is already taxed. He's proposing to tax it at a higher rate than earned income.bobmcstuff wrote:What's the specific problem with taxing unearned income? We tax most other forms of income so it doesn't seem unreasonable to me."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
bobmcstuff wrote:What's the specific problem with taxing unearned income? We tax most other forms of income so it doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
It already gets taxed via income tax. The proposal is to tax it (investment income) at a higher rate, because obviously if you're getting investment income, you've clearly stolen some assets from the deserving workers and must pay for your greed!
Like any "novel" tax proposal, it's simply a means of raising a bit more revenue without affecting many people who are likely to vote for the party proposing it. And its primary purpose may well be to signal virtue rather than actually raise revenue. There's nothing special about it, other than it's not been tried recently.0 -
Given who its coming from it will no doubt give the unions and anti-capitalists another way tostick their oar in. Given we have a reasonably flexible labour market, a minimum wage and no shortage of unions for people to join, why would we reintroduce something that was brought in in 1909? - when you probably could argue that working conditions warranted it.mamba80 wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
Deja vu - that's straight out of the Dennis Healey book of economics in the 70's when there was the same surcharge of 15% on unearned income. He's also proposing reinstating wages councils and jacking up borrowing by £200 billion. No wonder the Corbyn camp have accused him of copying their policies...florerider wrote:Now Smith wants a 15% surcharge on unearned income - not a vote winner for the public sector then
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/27/owen-smith-policies-copied-says-jeremy-corbyn-team
So it's a straight choice between pure undiluted leftiebollox and slightly diluted leftiebollox
In other good news, the same link gives recent party support as this according to a YouGov poll:
"...support for the Conservatives at 40%. Labour is at 28%, its lowest point since Corbyn became leader in September last year. Ukip was at 13% and the Lib Dems at 8%."
Wages councils? and taxing un earned income over 150k ? when i was working under a wages council, they provided training and employment advice, whats so wrong with that?
Wages councils have employers as well as employees on them and worked very well, esp in industries where there there was no Union rep.
Perhaps if we d stuck with them, maybe w e d not have the mess that is the min wage.
Labour is doing the time warp again..."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
It was tried in the 70's by Labour, which coincided with a major 'brain drain' and the UK going cap in hand to the IMF. It probably didn't help that the top rate of income tax was 83% before the 15% surcharge at that time, but the temptation will always be there for left wing politicians to keep jacking the rate up without realising how it drives away wealth creators.Wallace and Gromit wrote:bobmcstuff wrote:What's the specific problem with taxing unearned income? We tax most other forms of income so it doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
It already gets taxed via income tax. The proposal is to tax it (investment income) at a higher rate, because obviously if you're getting investment income, you've clearly stolen some assets from the deserving workers and must pay for your greed!
Like any "novel" tax proposal, it's simply a means of raising a bit more revenue without affecting many people who are likely to vote for the party proposing it. And its primary purpose may well be to signal virtue rather than actually raise revenue. There's nothing special about it, other than it's not been tried recently."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Shows what I know - 100% of my income goes through PAYE...Stevo 666 wrote:
Unearned income is already taxed. He's proposing to tax it at a higher rate than earned income.bobmcstuff wrote:What's the specific problem with taxing unearned income? We tax most other forms of income so it doesn't seem unreasonable to me.0 -
Have you never had interest from a bank account?bobmcstuff wrote:
Shows what I know - 100% of my income goes through PAYE...Stevo 666 wrote:
Unearned income is already taxed. He's proposing to tax it at a higher rate than earned income.bobmcstuff wrote:What's the specific problem with taxing unearned income? We tax most other forms of income so it doesn't seem unreasonable to me."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Yes of course, but never enough to pay any attention to really. 99.9% of my income goes through PAYE thenStevo 666 wrote:
Have you never had interest from a bank account?bobmcstuff wrote:
Shows what I know - 100% of my income goes through PAYE...Stevo 666 wrote:
Unearned income is already taxed. He's proposing to tax it at a higher rate than earned income.bobmcstuff wrote:What's the specific problem with taxing unearned income? We tax most other forms of income so it doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
I have a stocks and shares ISA which is where most of my (limited) savings live.0 -
You just found the exception that proves the rule - unless Smith or Corbyn notice that there's a rich vein of untaxed, unearned income to stick their shovel into...bobmcstuff wrote:Yes of course, but never enough to pay any attention to really. 99.9% of my income goes through PAYE then
I have a stocks and shares ISA which is where most of my (limited) savings live."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:...the temptation will always be there for left wing politicians to keep jacking the rate up without realising how it drives away wealth creators.
In my more cynical moments I think that many left wing politicians are aware of the adverse impacts of some of their tax policies but ignore them simply because they perceive the electoral advantages to so high. Or put more simply, who cares about losing a few wealth creators if the masses like the policy and will vote for me?
Labour's 50% higher tax rate is a case in point. It only existed for around a month of their 13 years in power and was put in place solely as a challenge to the Tories to reduce it so that Labour could say "Oh look at those nasty Tories giving their millionaire supporters a tax cut". The potential revenue raising benefits probably never even featured in the discussions of the merits of the policy! (I guess it must raise some extra revenue as otherwise the Tories would have reduced it back to 40% instead of 45%.)0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:
You just found the exception that proves the rule - unless Smith or Corbyn notice that there's a rich vein of untaxed, unearned income to stick their shovel into...bobmcstuff wrote:Yes of course, but never enough to pay any attention to really. 99.9% of my income goes through PAYE then
I have a stocks and shares ISA which is where most of my (limited) savings live.
I think ISAs are safe for a while (though the annual limits could be reviewed downwards) if only because there is a richer seam still be to mined in the form of pensions!0 -
We can all see what happens when Labour and the Tories ignore those at the lower end of society, (though i doubt anyone will every call a referendum again) and its one reason why Trump is popular, he is tapping into the people who feel left behind and ignored.
Like it or not the trickle down of income from the very wealthy, isnt working.
Would the workers at Sports Direct or BHS have been better served by a wages council than by people like Ashley or Green? how much is Greens activities going to cost us all? not too mention another gaping hole in the hi street.
Many companies are non unionised and in small set ups, having a wage council, can provide support for workers and have benefits for the employers as well, for example, the agricultural wages council would free provide training for farm workers (such as machinery or animal husbandry) this meant they could carry out more tasks for their employer and in return, the worker got a small wage increase, some of these workers cant read or write and this would have been the only way to improve their lot and that has gone.
Just because something was set up a 100 years ago, doesnt mean it is obsolete, hang on your right, lets disband Eton lol!!!0 -
True, I bunged in what I could into my pension scheme last year while the door was still fully open - I need to get my backside in gear and do my 2015/16 tax return done as HMRC owe me quite a decent refundWallace and Gromit wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
You just found the exception that proves the rule - unless Smith or Corbyn notice that there's a rich vein of untaxed, unearned income to stick their shovel into...bobmcstuff wrote:Yes of course, but never enough to pay any attention to really. 99.9% of my income goes through PAYE then
I have a stocks and shares ISA which is where most of my (limited) savings live.
I think ISAs are safe for a while (though the annual limits could be reviewed downwards) if only because there is a richer seam still be to mined in the form of pensions! "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Bang on about not caring about the voting impact - what they don't fully appreciate (or want to ignore) is how this impacts the people that are supposed to be acting for. The people they scare away create the jobs for Labour's voter base (and indeed other parties' voter base). Exactly the 'trickle down' effect that others are in denial aboutWallace and Gromit wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:...the temptation will always be there for left wing politicians to keep jacking the rate up without realising how it drives away wealth creators.
In my more cynical moments I think that many left wing politicians are aware of the adverse impacts of some of their tax policies but ignore them simply because they perceive the electoral advantages to so high. Or put more simply, who cares about losing a few wealth creators if the masses like the policy and will vote for me?
Labour's 50% higher tax rate is a case in point. It only existed for around a month of their 13 years in power and was put in place solely as a challenge to the Tories to reduce it so that Labour could say "Oh look at those nasty Tories giving their millionaire supporters a tax cut". The potential revenue raising benefits probably never even featured in the discussions of the merits of the policy! (I guess it must raise some extra revenue as otherwise the Tories would have reduced it back to 40% instead of 45%.) Less wealth creators - less jobs created, simple.
The 50% rate was a classic piece of scorched earth economic policy by a bunch of spiteful losers. BTW it raised sweet FA in tax - according to HMRC's own numbers.
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130129110402/http:/www.hmrc.gov.uk/budget2012/excheq-income-tax-2042.pdf
There's a lot of guff in there - just read the exec summary on page 2. Economically there is no real reason why it shouldn't go back down to 40%, which would not be massively out of line with many developed economies that do not seek to punish people for working hard and succeeding."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
So it's the poor who create most jobs is it?mamba80 wrote:Like it or not the trickle down of income from the very wealthy, isnt working.
Evidence for your claim please..."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:There's a lot of guff in there - just read the exec summary on page 2. Economically there is no real reason why it shouldn't go back down to 40%, which would not be massively out of line with many developed economies that do not seek to punish people for working hard and succeeding.
Thanks. Surely it's time for the Laffer Curve to get an outing!0 -
Could well be. Trouble is, a lot of people on here find it very uncomfortable with the idea that raising tax rates can actually reduce tax revenues and vice versa. The simplistic leftie assumption is that all you have to do is just keep raising tax rates and hey presto all of this money magically appears, without taking into account the human and corporate reaction to this :roll:Wallace and Gromit wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:There's a lot of guff in there - just read the exec summary on page 2. Economically there is no real reason why it shouldn't go back down to 40%, which would not be massively out of line with many developed economies that do not seek to punish people for working hard and succeeding.
Thanks. Surely it's time for the Laffer Curve to get an outing!
I could roll out my own real life example again if needed rather than the HMRC sponsored version."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:
So it's the poor who create most jobs is it?mamba80 wrote:Like it or not the trickle down of income from the very wealthy, isnt working.
Evidence for your claim please...
you are taking that quote out of context.....
of course the wealthy are paying and in many cases creating the jobs BUT you cannot have millions of people on very low wages, feeling ignored and being ignored.
People on very low incomes are doing very worth while and essential jobs but they get paid F all, eg the 10s of 1000's of health care assistants cleaning up double incontinent elderly patients numerous times daily, feeding and administrating meds get paid a pittance, NHS cooks or porters all claim working benefits to enable them to have a wage they can actually live on and many would have to claim HB, where is their voice?
yet someone in IT or an Accountant get a relative fortune.... and the politicians listen to the middle classes, they vote because they ve the time and education to sit down and try to understand the issues.
so what is your solution? it certainly doesnt seem to lie in the hands of the likes of Green.0
