Join the Labour Party and save your country!

Stevo_666

Stevo 666 wrote:

I raised the point about the mess left by Labour in the 70's so stop changing the subject and give us your thoughts on strikes, 25% inflation and the IMF loan we needed...

Come on Jez mon, don't be shy...

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

I raised the point about the mess left by Labour in the 70's so stop changing the subject and give us your thoughts on strikes, 25% inflation and the IMF loan we needed...

Come on Jez mon, don't be shy...

yeah the conservative Gov of the 1970s was a glowing success, 3 day week anyone? super hi inflation too.

what your forgetting is, it was OPEC that caused the crisis of the 70s for both Tories and labour, no one can buck world markets, let alone a tripling of world oil prices but then again facts were never your strong point.

Ultimately, North sea oil bailed us out and unlike the Norwegians, we squandered it away, mainly on tax cuts.

joelsim

Oh dear. The Tories have just gained free rein to do anything they want and not be troubled by Labour/Protest Party for the next few years.

Probably the exact opposite of what the Corbynites think they're achieving.

Latest YouGov.

Who'd make the better PM?
May 41%
Jezza 19%

Dear, dear, dear, dear.

Stevo_666

Joelsim wrote:

Oh dear. The Tories have just gained free rein to do anything they want and not be troubled by Labour/Protest Party for the next few years.

Probably the exact opposite of what the Corbynites think they're achieving.

Latest YouGov.

Who'd make the better PM?
May 41%
Jezza 19%

Dear, dear, dear, dear.

Tories with a massive 16 point lead over Labour in late July - before 'traingate'
http://www.ukpolitical.info/General_election_polls.htm
And after the referendum.

But in leftie la-la land, Corbyn looks set to get back in as Labour leader:
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/08/30/labour-leadership-election-corbyn-leads-smith-24/

Bloody great.

morstar

Stevo 666 wrote:

morstar wrote:

ddraver wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

But just remember that the last Labour administration was not far left and look at the financial mess they left. The Labour govt before that had inflation at 25%, strikes crippling the country and us going cap in hand to the IMF. Better safe than sorry

Maybe we can use the term Rightiebollox to describe anyone who pins the sub-prime mortgage crisis and it's effect on the UK PLC squarely on the Labour Government...

I'd like to claim that I invented RightyShite please...

No, this doesn't work. Only countries ruled by left wing governments like George Bush's USA were hit by the GLOBAL recession and it was entirely their own making.

As Bompington said, what are your thoughts on the mess left by Labour in the late 70's?

And there you go shifting the goal posts again. Jez mon has already clarified the sequence of posts to which mine was a contribution.
You lost that point so bait and switch. I won't even attempt to match your fervor for this topic. I'm not particularly a left winger. My personal preference is for free trade with social responsibility but fear it is an oxymoron. Your opinions posted throughout political threads embodies many things I dislike about our current political climate. If it's within the rules it's OK. The fact that the rules are made by the successful to suit the successful and are even then stretched to the limits of interpretation bothers me. It doesn't you. You continue with your fervor and I'll drop in the odd comment here and there.
I'd like a strong opposition and Labour isn't it.

tangled_metal

KingstonGraham wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

Balls sounds like he'd have made a better Labour leader than Miliband. What if he'd won back then? I think he's more strategic and possibly have beaten Cameron. Imagine, no Brexit but a Balls up in number 10! Would he have made a good Labour pm?

Lots of people sound like they'd have made a good leader after they realise what mistakes they were making at the time.

Unfortunately realizing it and admitting it doesn't come together, even with hindsight.

I just think balls is admitting it now but also saying he told Miliband the same thing at the time. Different from hindsight if true. Now if you believe him, personally I don't but for the sake of argument it's true, would he have made a better Labour leader and potentially pm thus preventing the whole Corbynmania and disaster?

If you think that Miliband making a hash of the election led to leadership contest and the need for "open debate" in the Labour party. It led to MPs putting Corbyn on the ballot paper....

You see what I'm thinking? There's obviously thousands of "what ifs", but I'm just curious that a potentially more economically literate and politically aware leader was in Miliband's place Tories wouldn't have won. Corbyn wouldn't have been relevant and we'd have a centre left leader of the opposition or even pm. Perhaps no Brexit, whether that's good or bad "no comment" from me here. BTW I'm one of those who believe it better to have at least two strong parties in Westminster and around the country. One to lead the other to hold them to account. That's why I'm curious as to ball's comments and capability if he'd been a leader.

BTW what's the highest ranking position in government or opposition to fail to hold their parliamentary seat? Portillo or Balls?

kingstongraham

Tangled Metal wrote:

I'm just curious that a potentially more economically literate and politically aware leader was in Miliband's place Tories wouldn't have won. Corbyn wouldn't have been relevant and we'd have a centre left leader of the opposition or even pm.

That is probable, but I'm not convinced that politically/economically literate describes Ed Balls from the way he acted/spoke when he was shadow chancellor.

kingstongraham

Jez mon wrote:

it's far easier to just keep repeating "labour spent too much" until it becomes true in the eyes of everyone.

Let's do that then because it hasn't sunk in to some people yet. As has been said, increasing the deficit when money was pouring in was irresponsible. If you are doing that, then when money becomes harder to come by, it is inevitably going to cause problems. So the increase in deficit was down to the global financial crisis, the fact that it had such an impact in the UK was at least partially down to over spending and especially over commitment.

bobmcstuff

Tangled Metal wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

Balls sounds like he'd have made a better Labour leader than Miliband. What if he'd won back then? I think he's more strategic and possibly have beaten Cameron. Imagine, no Brexit but a Balls up in number 10! Would he have made a good Labour pm?

Lots of people sound like they'd have made a good leader after they realise what mistakes they were making at the time.

Unfortunately realizing it and admitting it doesn't come together, even with hindsight.

I just think balls is admitting it now but also saying he told Miliband the same thing at the time. Different from hindsight if true. Now if you believe him, personally I don't but for the sake of argument it's true, would he have made a better Labour leader and potentially pm thus preventing the whole Corbynmania and disaster?

If you think that Miliband making a hash of the election led to leadership contest and the need for "open debate" in the Labour party. It led to MPs putting Corbyn on the ballot paper....

You see what I'm thinking? There's obviously thousands of "what ifs", but I'm just curious that a potentially more economically literate and politically aware leader was in Miliband's place Tories wouldn't have won. Corbyn wouldn't have been relevant and we'd have a centre left leader of the opposition or even pm. Perhaps no Brexit, whether that's good or bad "no comment" from me here. BTW I'm one of those who believe it better to have at least two strong parties in Westminster and around the country. One to lead the other to hold them to account. That's why I'm curious as to ball's comments and capability if he'd been a leader.

BTW what's the highest ranking position in government or opposition to fail to hold their parliamentary seat? Portillo or Balls?

I think that having a PM called Balls would be rather unfortunate.

joelsim

KingstonGraham wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

it's far easier to just keep repeating "labour spent too much" until it becomes true in the eyes of everyone.

Let's do that then because it hasn't sunk in to some people yet. As has been said, increasing the deficit when money was pouring in was irresponsible. If you are doing that, then when money becomes harder to come by, it is inevitably going to cause problems. So the increase in deficit was down to the global financial crisis, the fact that it had such an impact in the UK was at least partially down to over spending and especially over commitment.

You're quite right.

Although the Tories are just about to pale into insignificance any overspending that Labour did by 'Brexit means Brexit'.

Now more than ever we need an electable Labour leader but unfortunately the hard left is achieving the polar opposite by ensuring the reelection of Corbyn, who has about as much chance of becoming PM as I have.

wallace_and_gromit

morstar wrote:

No, this doesn't work. Only countries ruled by left wing governments like George Bush's USA were hit by the GLOBAL recession and it was entirely their own making.

I don't think I've ever seen anyone actually claim that the Labour government caused the financial crisis. Plenty of lefties have claimed that this is what the Tories have said, though. (Actual quotations are rarer than hens' teeth, though.)

What is a much easier claim to make is that the Labour government's policies left the UK unusually vulnerable to the impacts of the financial crisis vs the rest of the world i.e. heavy reliance on volatile sources of tax which disappear in a downturn, very large, badly regulated financial sector and significant structural deficit (as evidenced by running repeated deficits during the boom years.)

Good soundbites though: "No more boom and bust" will always be worth remembering!

joelsim

Wallace and Gromit wrote:

morstar wrote:

No, this doesn't work. Only countries ruled by left wing governments like George Bush's USA were hit by the GLOBAL recession and it was entirely their own making.

I don't think I've ever seen anyone actually claim that the Labour government caused the financial crisis. Plenty of lefties have claimed that this is what the Tories have said, though. (Actual quotations are rarer than hens' teeth, though.)

What is a much easier claim to make is that the Labour government's policies left the UK unusually vulnerable to the impacts of the financial crisis vs the rest of the world i.e. heavy reliance on volatile sources of tax which disappear in a downturn, very large, badly regulated financial sector and significant structural deficit (as evidenced by running repeated deficits during the boom years.)

Good soundbites though: "No more boom and bust" will always be worth remembering!

^This.

bobmcstuff

Wallace and Gromit wrote:

morstar wrote:

No, this doesn't work. Only countries ruled by left wing governments like George Bush's USA were hit by the GLOBAL recession and it was entirely their own making.

I don't think I've ever seen anyone actually claim that the Labour government caused the financial crisis. Plenty of lefties have claimed that this is what the Tories have said, though. (Actual quotations are rarer than hens' teeth, though.)

What is a much easier claim to make is that the Labour government's policies left the UK unusually vulnerable to the impacts of the financial crisis vs the rest of the world i.e. heavy reliance on volatile sources of tax which disappear in a downturn, very large, badly regulated financial sector and significant structural deficit (as evidenced by running repeated deficits during the boom years.)

Good soundbites though: "No more boom and bust" will always be worth remembering!

That's one of my favourite stupid quotes.

One of my other favourites is from Petrobras about how they saved loads of money by getting rid of unnecessary and pointless safety inspections/maintenance on the P36, shortly before it blew up and sank.

Pretty sure at the time Labour were in power the Conservatives were also keen on further banking deregulation. Obviously both sides have since changed their tune.

kingstongraham

Joelsim wrote:

Although the Tories are just about to pale into insignificance any overspending that Labour did by 'Brexit means Brexit'.

Well nobody knows this yet. Or indeed what Brexit means, other than it meaning Brexit.

joelsim

KingstonGraham wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

Although the Tories are just about to pale into insignificance any overspending that Labour did by 'Brexit means Brexit'.

Well nobody knows this yet. Or indeed what Brexit means, other than it meaning Brexit.

Well, yes, up to a point.

But we do know that there is absolutely no chance of it being positive economically or morally, whatever form Brexit takes.

Stevo_666

morstar wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

morstar wrote:

ddraver wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

But just remember that the last Labour administration was not far left and look at the financial mess they left. The Labour govt before that had inflation at 25%, strikes crippling the country and us going cap in hand to the IMF. Better safe than sorry

Maybe we can use the term Rightiebollox to describe anyone who pins the sub-prime mortgage crisis and it's effect on the UK PLC squarely on the Labour Government...

I'd like to claim that I invented RightyShite please...

No, this doesn't work. Only countries ruled by left wing governments like George Bush's USA were hit by the GLOBAL recession and it was entirely their own making.

As Bompington said, what are your thoughts on the mess left by Labour in the late 70's?

And there you go shifting the goal posts again. Jez mon has already clarified the sequence of posts to which mine was a contribution.
You lost that point so bait and switch. I won't even attempt to match your fervor for this topic. I'm not particularly a left winger. My personal preference is for free trade with social responsibility but fear it is an oxymoron. Your opinions posted throughout political threads embodies many things I dislike about our current political climate. If it's within the rules it's OK. The fact that the rules are made by the successful to suit the successful and are even then stretched to the limits of interpretation bothers me. It doesn't you. You continue with your fervor and I'll drop in the odd comment here and there.
I'd like a strong opposition and Labour isn't it.

Whatever. You still didn't try to answer my questions about Labour in the 70's.

wallace_and_gromit

bobmcstuff wrote:

Pretty sure at the time Labour were in power the Conservatives were also keen on further banking deregulation. Obviously both sides have since changed their tune.

This issue with the Labour regulatory system was that it was simultaneously very onerous but cr*p. e.g. too much emphasis on "frisking" pensioners for money laundering risks with not enough emphasis on proper loan underwriting.

The Tories may well have been even worse than Labour, but the rule of British politics is that if it goes wrong on your watch then it's your fault, subject to a relatively brief honeymoon period. It is often forgotten that Labour were big fans of joining the ERM back in the late 80s. This support for the policy that directly led to Black Wednesday did not stop them blaming the Tories for the dire economic consequences of joining the ERM.

I was a youngish chap when the ERM fiasco happened and I always thought it rather unfair that Labour so skillfully landed the blame for the ERM on the Tories. But come the financial crisis I was older and wiser and it seemed entirely fair to blame Labour for what happened on their watch, despite the Tories probably broadly supporting the regulatory and fiscal policies that Labour ran with.

kingstongraham

Joelsim wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

Although the Tories are just about to pale into insignificance any overspending that Labour did by 'Brexit means Brexit'.

Well nobody knows this yet. Or indeed what Brexit means, other than it meaning Brexit.

Well, yes, up to a point.

But we do know that there is absolutely no chance of it being positive economically or morally, whatever form Brexit takes.

I don't know that, but that's for another thread.

morstar

Stevo 666 wrote:

morstar wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

morstar wrote:

ddraver wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

But just remember that the last Labour administration was not far left and look at the financial mess they left. The Labour govt before that had inflation at 25%, strikes crippling the country and us going cap in hand to the IMF. Better safe than sorry

Maybe we can use the term Rightiebollox to describe anyone who pins the sub-prime mortgage crisis and it's effect on the UK PLC squarely on the Labour Government...

I'd like to claim that I invented RightyShite please...

No, this doesn't work. Only countries ruled by left wing governments like George Bush's USA were hit by the GLOBAL recession and it was entirely their own making.

As Bompington said, what are your thoughts on the mess left by Labour in the late 70's?

And there you go shifting the goal posts again. Jez mon has already clarified the sequence of posts to which mine was a contribution.
You lost that point so bait and switch. I won't even attempt to match your fervor for this topic. I'm not particularly a left winger. My personal preference is for free trade with social responsibility but fear it is an oxymoron. Your opinions posted throughout political threads embodies many things I dislike about our current political climate. If it's within the rules it's OK. The fact that the rules are made by the successful to suit the successful and are even then stretched to the limits of interpretation bothers me. It doesn't you. You continue with your fervor and I'll drop in the odd comment here and there.
I'd like a strong opposition and Labour isn't it.

Whatever. You still didn't try to answer my questions about Labour in the 70's.

My point was, I'm not going to. You lost the point so quickly digress to ground you're comfortable on. GB in 1979 was a sad state of affairs. It's also a vastly different economic climate to now so is of little relevance.
Let's talk about education, housing, poverty and the NHS in 2016. Surely they matter far more than Callaghans government.
If the Conservatives are the party of strong economic management and the NHS is a money pit. Where is the vision to actually make something that is sustainable and works? Where are the clever solutions that make it work in a streamlined but more focused way. I don't see them. I see a government happy to let it collapse under it's own weight and simply walk away with a 'well it's clear it was unsustainable'.

Lookyhere

morstar wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Whatever. You still didn't try to answer my questions about Labour in the 70's.

My point was, I'm not going to. You lost the point so quickly digress to ground you're comfortable on. GB in 1979 was a sad state of affairs. It's also a vastly different economic climate to now so is of little relevance.
Let's talk about education, housing, poverty and the NHS in 2016. Surely they matter far more than Callaghans government.
If the Conservatives are the party of strong economic management and the NHS is a money pit. Where is the vision to actually make something that is sustainable and works? Where are the clever solutions that make it work in a streamlined but more focused way. I don't see them. I see a government happy to let it collapse under it's own weight and simply walk away with a 'well it's clear it was unsustainable'.

the tories dont have any answers because the only one is to spend more money, so called efficiency's only go so far, there comes a point when Doctors, nurses, medication and hospitals have to be paid for, we have advances in treatment, longer lives and poorer health.
for the tories and people like Steve0, will just hide behind their BUPA subscriptions and dont give a xxxx about anyone else.

Hearing TM today accusing the jnr Dr's of playing politics jeez! she sounded just like any other right wing tory of the last 40 odd years.

we need to realise that we cannot spend billions on defence, over seas aid, grandiose schemes like HS2, let the food industry feed us carp and still have decent health and education services, unless we pay more in taxes, which as a society, we dont appear to want.

joelsim

Lookyhere wrote:

morstar wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Whatever. You still didn't try to answer my questions about Labour in the 70's.

My point was, I'm not going to. You lost the point so quickly digress to ground you're comfortable on. GB in 1979 was a sad state of affairs. It's also a vastly different economic climate to now so is of little relevance.
Let's talk about education, housing, poverty and the NHS in 2016. Surely they matter far more than Callaghans government.
If the Conservatives are the party of strong economic management and the NHS is a money pit. Where is the vision to actually make something that is sustainable and works? Where are the clever solutions that make it work in a streamlined but more focused way. I don't see them. I see a government happy to let it collapse under it's own weight and simply walk away with a 'well it's clear it was unsustainable'.

the tories dont have any answers because the only one is to spend more money, so called efficiency's only go so far, there comes a point when Doctors, nurses, medication and hospitals have to be paid for, we have advances in treatment, longer lives and poorer health.
for the tories and people like Steve0, will just hide behind their BUPA subscriptions and dont give a xxxx about anyone else.

Hearing TM today accusing the jnr Dr's of playing politics jeez! she sounded just like any other right wing tory of the last 40 odd years.

we need to realise that we cannot spend billions on defence, over seas aid, grandiose schemes like HS2, let the food industry feed us carp and still have decent health and education services, unless we pay more in taxes, which as a society, we dont appear to want.

Putting the tax rates up decreases the yield, as those who can afford to (who pay the majority of tax) simply move it elsewhere.

The single most important problem for this country is Brexit. If we leave every single service will suffer.

kingstongraham

Those bastards with their BUPA subscriptions, paying extra and relieving the pressure on the NHS without a thought for anyone else.

Stevo_666

KingstonGraham wrote:

Those bastards with their BUPA subscriptions, paying extra and relieving the pressure on the NHS without a thought for anyone else.

Politics of envy?

Stevo_666

Joelsim wrote:

Putting the tax rates up decreases the yield, as those who can afford to (who pay the majority of tax) simply move it elsewhere.

I've been explaining this to people on this forum for ages, with real life cases but they just don't listen. Or want to.

Stevo_666

morstar wrote:

My point was, I'm not going to. You lost the point so quickly digress to ground you're comfortable on. GB in 1979 was a sad state of affairs. It's also a vastly different economic climate to now so is of little relevance.
Let's talk about education, housing, poverty and the NHS in 2016. Surely they matter far more than Callaghans government.
If the Conservatives are the party of strong economic management and the NHS is a money pit. Where is the vision to actually make something that is sustainable and works? Where are the clever solutions that make it work in a streamlined but more focused way. I don't see them. I see a government happy to let it collapse under it's own weight and simply walk away with a 'well it's clear it was unsustainable'.

I think you'll find we covered those topic at least once in this thread - just a case of finding them. I'm probably just as guilty of raising Labour in the 70's again, but as nobody ever wants to address the massive failures of the last properly left wing government we had in the UK....

You're right that the answers are not forthcoming on how to streamline etc from any party. There are no easy answers but as mentioned above, trying to mil people and companies for ever increasing amounts without it being matched by increasing economic activity is easier said than done. Sometimes the best thing the state can do is to stop interfering and let businesses/people get on with wealth generation which is key to all of this.

wallace_and_gromit

Stevo 666 wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

Putting the tax rates up decreases the yield, as those who can afford to (who pay the majority of tax) simply move it elsewhere.

I've been explaining this to people on this forum for ages, with real life cases but they just don't listen. Or want to.

I'm a big fan of keeping taxes as low as they need to be for the scale of services offered by the state, but how many people do you seriously think would up sticks and leave if the basic rate of income tax went up by (for example) 2p and VAT by 1%? These would raise an extra circa £15b per year, which might be quite handy.

wallace_and_gromit

Lookyhere wrote:

...we need to realise that we cannot spend billions on defence, over seas aid, grandiose schemes like HS2, let the food industry feed us carp and still have decent health and education services, unless we pay more in taxes, which as a society, we dont appear to want.

What also doesn't help is that it is nigh on impossible to discuss alternative means of health care provision. Many media commentators and politicians push the view that if you move away from the NHS model then you can only end up with the American system. It's very hard to get such types to even consider either that there are intermediate schemes (as close as just across the Channel) that deliver better health outcomes or that few, if any, other countries have replicated our NHS.

tangled_metal

Wallace and Gromit wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

Putting the tax rates up decreases the yield, as those who can afford to (who pay the majority of tax) simply move it elsewhere.

I've been explaining this to people on this forum for ages, with real life cases but they just don't listen. Or want to.

I'm a big fan of keeping taxes as low as they need to be for the scale of services offered by the state, but how many people do you seriously think would up sticks and leave if the basic rate of income tax went up by (for example) 2p and VAT by 1%? These would raise an extra circa £15b per year, which might be quite handy.

Basic rate up 2p and VAT 1p? Are you serious about that? I'm on basic rate so I'm not sure what the next level is, £40,000 I think. So average pay is £25,000 or so, tax threshold about £10,000. That means a lot of people probably affected with less than the average pay. VAT increases affects everyone irrespective of pay.

So you're solution is to get your £15b a year mostly from those who are likely to the lowest levels of disposable or spare income to cope with it. Add in the affect of low levels of affordable housing.

Let's put it bluntly. If you can't tax the rich, wealth creators you certainly can't tax those struggling at the lowest levels of earnings such as basic rate taxpayers. Your £15 bn a year is fiction, it'll not happen. Even the Tories won't do that.

tangled_metal

One more thing, you're totally right about basic rate taxpayers won't up sticks and leave uk though. That isn't the same as higher rate taxpayers. They're more likely to be able to up sticks.

Stevo_666

Wallace and Gromit wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

Putting the tax rates up decreases the yield, as those who can afford to (who pay the majority of tax) simply move it elsewhere.

I've been explaining this to people on this forum for ages, with real life cases but they just don't listen. Or want to.

I'm a big fan of keeping taxes as low as they need to be for the scale of services offered by the state, but how many people do you seriously think would up sticks and leave if the basic rate of income tax went up by (for example) 2p and VAT by 1%? These would raise an extra circa £15b per year, which might be quite handy.

As TM says, there is probably a lot of political reluctance to tax people on average incomes more. If you were going to raise more tax from people then in general I am more in favour of increasing VAT rather than income tax as VAT to some extent is discretionary depending on whether you decide to spend.

And when it comes to top rates, here's what happened when Labour raised the top rate of income tax from 40% to 50%:
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130129110402/http:/www.hmrc.gov.uk/budget2012/excheq-income-tax-2042.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwj5rouHufHOAhXrIMAKHVawDUcQFggnMAQ&usg=AFQjCNGurUmzeQrVHGjRJWHlM49YnYfiGQ
According to HMRC's own figures, pretty much nothing. The main reasons - the behavioural response. The same applies with corporate rates - even easier to mitigate as I know pretty well from experience.