Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Off Topic => Topic started by: albie on September 13, 2019, 04:29:23 pm
-
In a box;
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EEQQznQXsAUNcEL.jpg
If we are going to have a discussion with a GE coming up, best to know what is on offer.
Conference next week could make changes for the new manifesto.
-
Some good things and some not so good, they just need a decent leader to try and implement them
-
Skills-based immigration system? There will be one or two lefties on here against that!...........................................Unless, of course, they have changed their minds like good old socialists tend to do!
-
Skills-based immigration system? There will be one or two lefties on here against that!...........................................Unless, of course, they have changed their minds like good old socialists tend to do!
All sides of the political spectrum change their mind BB. Didn’t Boris Johnson recently ‘change his mind’ about closing Parliament?
-
Indeed Herbert. I know politicians change their minds, the difference being when it's a Tory he's called a liar!
-
Tax policies in a box;
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EEU4OD4VUAA6FPK.jpg
Looks good to me.
Private schools to pay their way as well;
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EEU4NiGU0AkergE.jpg
Good of the Telegraph to big up such a popular policy.
-
A 4 day week sounds good unless your admitted to hospital on a Friday as you will be there till at least monday
-
A 4 day week sounds good unless your admitted to hospital on a Friday as you will be there till at least monday
yeah because none of us work weekends, prat
-
Do you not find that if you go in hospital on a Saturday you don’t come out till Monday? Unless very serious does a doctor even see you at a weekend most of my family work or have worked in the Nhs I’m not sure what you find offensive about it you Pratt
-
https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrJS9QV5ntdI08AAip0g81Q;_ylu=X3oDMTByZzJoOXByBGNvbG8DaXIyBHBvcwM0BHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzcg--/RV=2/RE=1568429718/RO=10/RU=https%3a%2f%2fhealthydebate.ca%2f2013%2f08%2ftopic%2fquality%2ffewer-hospital-staff-on-weekends-puts-some-patients-at-risk/RK=2/RS=bWoJXcb.2sxlBe6ColLn_Dbtxj0- The article is out dated but it has been the same where there is far less at a weekend for at least 40 years,I’m sorry if you took offence as none was meant
-
In the last couple of years I have had X-Rays and an MRI scan on a Sunday at Bradford Royal Infirmary. That would have been unheard of a few years ago so I think a lot of jobs and appointments are now being attended to on a week-end.
-
That’s good idler hope all went well
-
Orgreave enquiry, that’ll be a nice money spinner,where to start, I doubt there is even a roster of the Police officers on duty that day. Hillsboro was a totally different kettle of fish there was a duty roster and it was preserved from day one.ialso wonder why the last labour government didn’t do something when they were in power for 13 years.
-
Recognise the State of Palestine! Then what do we do. Declare war on Israel?
-
20% tax on private health insurance,I reckon most folks will cancel theirs. And put more street on the NHS. I know I will.
-
Re privatising rail travel goof idea but cost £50. + Billion.
-
But British policy.. dead in the water as Labour will keep us in the EEC and Labour won’t have a say in it.
-
Tax laws:90% of all UK tax revenue comes from 10 % of the workforce....I would be very careful who I upset in relation to tax and taxation.you don’t shoot the Golden goose and cook it!
-
Tax laws:90% of all UK tax revenue comes from 10 % of the workforce....I would be very careful who I upset in relation to tax and taxation.you don’t shoot the Golden goose and cook it!
Sproty.
That's so incorrect, it's hard to know where to start. You regularly hear that sort of shite trotted out by right wing politicians and here you are repeating it.
The richest 10% pay about 55% of all income tax. But income tax is only 25% of all the tax the Govt takes.
-
Recognise the State of Palestine! Then what do we do. Declare war on Israel?
The Palestinians were there before WW2. I don't see the issue with the West Bank being Palestine?
-
Tax laws:90% of all UK tax revenue comes from 10 % of the workforce....I would be very careful who I upset in relation to tax and taxation.you don’t shoot the Golden goose and cook it!
Sproty.
That's so incorrect, it's hard to know where to start. You regularly hear that sort of shite trotted out by right wing politicians and here you are repeating it.
The richest 10% pay about 55% of all income tax. But income tax is only 25% of all the tax the Govt takes.
the top 1 percent pay around 10 percent the top 10 percent around 30 percent I believe, but it’s still a lot and if you try tax them to much I doubt you will achieve the result you wanted
-
Tax laws:90% of all UK tax revenue comes from 10 % of the workforce....I would be very careful who I upset in relation to tax and taxation.you don’t shoot the Golden goose and cook it!
Sproty.
That's so incorrect, it's hard to know where to start. You regularly hear that sort of shite trotted out by right wing politicians and here you are repeating it.
The richest 10% pay about 55% of all income tax. But income tax is only 25% of all the tax the Govt takes.
the top 1 percent pay around 10 percent the top 10 percent around 30 percent I believe, but it’s still a lot and if you try tax them to much I doubt you will achieve the result you wanted
Why's that then?
-
Recognise the State of Palestine! Then what do we do. Declare war on Israel?
The Palestinians were there before WW2. I don't see the issue with the West Bank being Palestine?
I suppose it just boils down to what Jeremy Corbin views as the state of Palestine, I suspect it's is the entire state of Israel .
It's a complex problem that won't be resolved on the Board, but I doubt you will ever see the West Bank back in Palestinian control.
-
The government has to raise taxes from somewhere to run schools, hospitals, police, armed services etc.
''Inheritance tax would be scrapped by the Brexit party – good news for the very rich
A minuscule number of wealthy people would benefit from such a move. Everyone else would be hit by higher taxes
There are bad ideas, really bad ideas, and there’s abolishing inheritance tax. This is the new top priority announced by the Brexit party – one of only two policies it has beyond Brexit.
Scrapping inheritance tax is a very expensive pledge: it raised £5.3bn for the Treasury last year. And it’s particularly expensive when there’s a political consensus that we need to spend more – earlier this month a Conservative government set out proposals to increase the size of the state, at the price of binning their fiscal rules''
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/sep/16/scrapping-inheritance-tax-wealthy-brexit-party
-
The government has to raise taxes from somewhere to run schools, hospitals, police, armed services etc.
''Inheritance tax would be scrapped by the Brexit party – good news for the very rich
A minuscule number of wealthy people would benefit from such a move. Everyone else would be hit by higher taxes
There are bad ideas, really bad ideas, and there’s abolishing inheritance tax. This is the new top priority announced by the Brexit party – one of only two policies it has beyond Brexit.
Scrapping inheritance tax is a very expensive pledge: it raised £5.3bn for the Treasury last year. And it’s particularly expensive when there’s a political consensus that we need to spend more – earlier this month a Conservative government set out proposals to increase the size of the state, at the price of binning their fiscal rules''
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/sep/16/scrapping-inheritance-tax-wealthy-brexit-party
You don’t have to be VERY rich to have to pay inheritance tax.
-
Like any political parties policies/promises they aren’t worth the paper they are printed on.
-
The current allowance whereby no inheritance tax is charged is on the first £325,000 (per person) of someone's estate – which is the value of their total assets they leave behind when they die. Couples can leave a home worth £650,000 without it attracting inheritance tax (singles £325,000).
Anything over this limit is subject to a 40% tax bill.Oct 24, 2014
Presently, anyone making a gift through outright transfers of values of assets, has to survive a period of at least seven years for that gift to remain free of inheritance tax. Any gifts that are made during that period are known as 'potentially exempt transfers' (PETs).Oct 28, 2015
-
Everyone should pay the same % tax on everything
-
Everyone should pay the same % tax on everything
Then your going to have to get people to pay a higher %age of their earnings in tax or cut services. This type of taxation would meant that their is no threshhold so you would pay tax from the first pound you earn.
-
Exactly, chances of ppl accepting it 0% since everyone on here wants others to pay for everything
-
Exactly, chances of ppl accepting it 0% since everyone on here wants others to pay for everything
I must have missed that poll LDR, but if you are correct and no one wants that it's not a very good idea to put up?
-
The point is surely it's the fairest way
-
According to whom?
-
Logic dictates everyone paying the same % is fairer than some paying more
-
Logic dictates everyone paying the same % is fairer than some paying more
Only if you don't give a rats about those on lower wages
Added: and what follows those that don't have kids don't contribute to the education budget, young people that don't get sick as much as older people don't pay their insurance stamp? this is not a well thought out idea is it?
-
So you saying equality of % is not fair?
-
So you saying equality of % is not fair?
I never mentioned fair you did read my addition above, I talking about the real world with real people
-
That's a bit disingenuous editing your reply after I respond and then questioning whether I read it dont you think?
-
Back in the good old days fire brigades were private and you had to pay a subscription so when people mainly lived in wooden houses a fire brigade as they were then could pass a burning house to get to the one on fire that paid. Is this the Trumpian world you would like to live in where the user pays.
-
What the f**k are you on about? I raised a point about fairness in taxes
-
What the f**k are you on about? I raised a point about fairness in taxes
And I countered your idea with what happens when people start to think about looking after themselves and looking at what is best that suits themselves and not the greater good, my point is, where would it stop, you obviously don't want to pay a cent more tax than necessary but not all people think as you do and the reward is that Britain is generally a place where people want to live, some very rich people I might add. If you don't look after the poorest in your society who will?
-
Hang on, I suggest that everyone pays the same Is fair, you acknowledge that would mean paying more and now I'm trying to minimise paying? You even contradict yourself
-
Give it up LDR it's like reasoning with a drunk.
-
You know BB, BST, Filo, Glyn and Wilts. I have a differing opinion to them but I respect them all as they will have a discussion with you and answer questions, this guy is just a coward
-
Ldr,
I think what Sydney is saying is that you need to raise x amount to pay for public services.
If you reduce the amount higher tax payers contribute, then to stay the same you have to take more from the lower tax payers.
You end up taking a much higher % of the income from ordinary working people, and the wealthy get more from the deal.
Is that fair?
-
Tax laws:90% of all UK tax revenue comes from 10 % of the workforce....I would be very careful who I upset in relation to tax and taxation.you don’t shoot the Golden goose and cook it!
Sproty.
That's so incorrect, it's hard to know where to start. You regularly hear that sort of shite trotted out by right wing politicians and here you are repeating it.
The richest 10% pay about 55% of all income tax. But income tax is only 25% of all the tax the Govt takes.
the top 1 percent pay around 10 percent the top 10 percent around 30 percent I believe, but it’s still a lot and if you try tax them to much I doubt you will achieve the result you wanted
Why's that then?
No response, bpool?
-
Ldr,
I think what Sydney is saying is that you need to raise x amount to pay for public services.
If you reduce the amount higher tax payers contribute, then to stay the same you have to take more from the lower tax payers.
You end up taking a much higher % of the income from ordinary working people, and the wealthy get more from the deal.
Is that fair?
It would certainly be more equitable
-
Re privatising rail travel goof idea but cost £50. + Billion.
Sproty,
I am glad you have raised privatisation. I don't recognise the figure you give....where is it from?
To look at it in the round, you need to consider the ongoing COSTS of privatisation as well;
https://weownit.org.uk/blog/waste-privatisation-we-cant-afford
You can link through to the IPPR report from that summary.
Still not clear how Ldr intends to deal with ability to pay....it seems a big deal to me!
-
You know BB, BST, Filo, Glyn and Wilts. I have a differing opinion to them but I respect them all as they will have a discussion with you and answer questions, this guy is just a coward
Would you like to explain that in a reasonable manner or go away and sulk like a child?
-
Ldr.
https://www.drfc-vsc.co.uk/index.php?topic=273862.msg904482#msg904482
-
That's where it all falls down BST equitable means the country cannot function without either increasing the tax burden of the less well off or cutting back on services, so a truly fair society is impossible
-
I don't follow your argument Ldr.
We've had 40 years of the top 10% and in particular the top 1% being allowed to cream off almost all the profits of economic growth.
We can address that by increasing tax on them and forcing them to put back into society what they have taken out.
It's just a matter of will and priorities.
-
Recognise the State of Palestine! Then what do we do. Declare war on Israel?
We recognise countries all over the world without the need to fight their wars for them. Do you think its mandatory that we should?
-
Tax laws:90% of all UK tax revenue comes from 10 % of the workforce....I would be very careful who I upset in relation to tax and taxation.you don’t shoot the Golden goose and cook it!
What? Only 10% of people pay VAT?
-
Logic dictates everyone paying the same % is fairer than some paying more
And what percentage rate will it have to be to get the same tax revenues?
-
Tax laws:90% of all UK tax revenue comes from 10 % of the workforce....I would be very careful who I upset in relation to tax and taxation.you don’t shoot the Golden goose and cook it!
What? Only 10% of people pay VAT?
He didn’t say that only 10% of people pay VAT.
-
Tax laws:90% of all UK tax revenue comes from 10 % of the workforce....I would be very careful who I upset in relation to tax and taxation.you don’t shoot the Golden goose and cook it!
What? Only 10% of people pay VAT?
He didn’t say that only 10% of people pay VAT.
I know. He said 90% of all UK tax revenue comes from 10% of the workforce.
Only 31% of that 'all UK tax revenue' is from Income Tax. 21% of it is from VAT. The rest is from all the other various taxes and duties.
-
Tax laws:90% of all UK tax revenue comes from 10 % of the workforce....I would be very careful who I upset in relation to tax and taxation.you don’t shoot the Golden goose and cook it!
What? Only 10% of people pay VAT?
He didn’t say that only 10% of people pay VAT.
I know. He said 90% of all UK tax revenue comes from 10% of the workforce.
Only 31% of that 'all UK tax revenue' is from Income Tax. 21% of it is from VAT. The rest is from all the other various taxes and duties.
I also know what he said but you apparently read it differently, hence your question about only 10% of people paying VAT.
-
Tax laws:90% of all UK tax revenue comes from 10 % of the workforce....I would be very careful who I upset in relation to tax and taxation.you don’t shoot the Golden goose and cook it!
What? Only 10% of people pay VAT?
He didn’t say that only 10% of people pay VAT.
I know. He said 90% of all UK tax revenue comes from 10% of the workforce.
Only 31% of that 'all UK tax revenue' is from Income Tax. 21% of it is from VAT. The rest is from all the other various taxes and duties.
I also know what he said but you apparently read it differently, hence your question about only 10% of people paying VAT.
Even if the missing 10% of all tax revenue that's missing is accredited to VAT, that still leaves 11% of VAT that Sproty is claiming is only paid for by 10% of the workforce...and that that 10% of the workforce is also paying 100% of every other tax levied in the the country.
-
Tax laws:90% of all UK tax revenue comes from 10 % of the workforce....I would be very careful who I upset in relation to tax and taxation.you don’t shoot the Golden goose and cook it!
What? Only 10% of people pay VAT?
He didn’t say that only 10% of people pay VAT.
I know. He said 90% of all UK tax revenue comes from 10% of the workforce.
Only 31% of that 'all UK tax revenue' is from Income Tax. 21% of it is from VAT. The rest is from all the other various taxes and duties.
I also know what he said but you apparently read it differently, hence your question about only 10% of people paying VAT.
Even if the missing 10% of all tax revenue that's missing is accredited to VAT, that still leaves 11% of VAT that Sproty is claiming is only paid for by 10% of the workforce...and that that 10% of the workforce is also paying 100% of every other tax levied in the the country.
I am just putting you right on what you clearly had said incorrectly.
I am not interested in the rest of what you have said, even if it is true.
-
Glyn
Further to your reply to Sproty, it's not even true that 90% of even INCOME TAX receipts come from the top 10% of earners. According to the IFS figures for 2017, the top 10% paid about 55% of all income tax receipts. Which sounds about right, given the income levels of the top 10%.
The Right have had a free run at this for years, suggesting and hinting that the overwhelming majority of taxes are paid by a slack handful of rich people, that we should all be grateful, and that we shouldn't squeeze them.
It's b*llocks, right down the line.
-
Whatever people think about paying tax and it's quite obvious that many haven't a clue how and why, it's no good squeezing stones coz they don't have any more to give. Therefore if you base a tax system on everyone paying an equal %age the system will eventually collapse unless of course you want to big up financial assistance for those in need or to introduce food banks across the country to feed the poor.
-
Logic dictates everyone paying the same % is fairer than some paying more
And what percentage rate will it have to be to get the same tax revenues?
You tell me Glyn, obviously higher of course. Always amuses me that the people the fiscally contribute the most (yes yes I hate the ones who dodge tax too) are the ones that are so much derided by socialists but those same socialists are so desperate to keep the high earners paying meaning the lower earners dont pay an equitable amount. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you
-
That's not a dig at anyone btw. It's an observation
-
Whatever people think about paying tax and it's quite obvious that many haven't a clue how and why, it's no good squeezing stones coz they don't have any more to give. Therefore if you base a tax system on everyone paying an equal %age the system will eventually collapse unless of course you want to big up financial assistance for those in need or to introduce food banks across the country to feed the poor.
Genuine question what would.you say the rates and bands would be fair set at?
One of the things I fundamentally disagree on is the level people are perceived as well off or rich.
-
Logic dictates everyone paying the same % is fairer than some paying more
And what percentage rate will it have to be to get the same tax revenues?
You tell me Glyn, obviously higher of course. Always amuses me that the people the fiscally contribute the most (yes yes I hate the ones who dodge tax too) are the ones that are so much derided by socialists but those same socialists are so desperate to keep the high earners paying meaning the lower earners dont pay an equitable amount. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you
Why should I come out with a figure? I'm not the one who's claiming it's 'fair'. You are - so what's your projected tax rate?
-
Ah I thought you had it in mind mate. I'm not an economist so wouldn't know exact. Basic maths tells us it would need to be nearer the higher rate than the lower rate though
-
Ah I thought you had it in mind mate. I'm not an economist so wouldn't know exact. Basic maths tells us it would need to be nearer the higher rate than the lower rate though
Yes, but how much? And what about allowances - would you keep them, change them or abolish them?
-
Ah I thought you had it in mind mate. I'm not an economist so wouldn't know exact. Basic maths tells us it would need to be nearer the higher rate than the lower rate though
Yes, but how much? And what about allowances - would you keep them, change them or abolish them?
As above Glyn
-
Ah I thought you had it in mind mate. I'm not an economist so wouldn't know exact. Basic maths tells us it would need to be nearer the higher rate than the lower rate though
Yes, but how much? And what about allowances - would you keep them, change them or abolish them?
As above Glyn
Then there's benefits and pensions - would you have those fully taxable or exempt?
-
Glyn, your pressing for answers I dont have, unlike some on here, if I dont know I'll say I dont know not deflect (and that's not you btw)
-
Glyn, your pressing for answers I dont have, unlike some on here, if I dont know I'll say I dont know not deflect (and that's not you btw)
Then how do you know what's 'fair' and isn't 'fair' if you haven't taken these questions - and probably several others - into account?
-
From a basic premise of equitable. In this case same % rate to all. You pay x% I pay x% otherwise it becomes inequitable
-
From a basic premise of equitable. In this case same % rate to all. You pay x% I pay x% otherwise it becomes inequitable
Should someone on Universal Credit pay x% of their benefits in tax, without any allowance? Is that equitable or inequitable?
-
Why would someone on benefits pay paye?
-
Why would someone on benefits pay paye?
What's PAYE got to do with it? That's a method of collection, nothing to do with the tax rate.
Benefit and pensions are currently taxable after allowances because they are income and therefore subject to Income Tax. I'm just trying to find out what you think is really equitable, so would they be fully taxed like everyone else or would you put an inequality into the system to account for them?
-
In theory then have them taxed at the same level but increase the amount they are paid to compensate, therefore removing the proposed inequality.
-
Glyn, an example child benefit. Should someone earning 60k as a one income family pay back child benefit but a family with two earning 50k each pay back nothing?
Given house prices etc is the 40% tax band too low?
-
In theory then have them taxed at the same level but increase the amount they are paid to compensate, therefore removing the proposed inequality.
Then you have to increase the bureaucracy in order to give with one hand and then take away agan with the other (which has to be paid for) - and the increased welfare payments would mean the tax rate would have to be even higher for everybody else.
-
But far more equitable no?
-
Glyn, an example child benefit. Should someone earning 60k as a one income family pay back child benefit but a family with two earning 50k each pay back nothing?
Given house prices etc is the 40% tax band too low?
Child benefit is to be spent on the child - who as far as I know doesn't have any income and has the same basic need regardless of what their parents earn.
What on earth have house prices got to do with income? They're expenditure.
-
But far more equitable no?
Perhaps, but you still can't say what you think an equitable tax rate is.
On top of that, you'd greatly harm the economy by reducing disposable income across the swathe of people who suddenly are paying more of their money in tax as well as reducing the circulation of money in the economy overall. Which would probably lead to greater unemployment, and a spiralling welfare bill that needs to be paid for...by increased taxation.
-
So, in essence, you want service, but want someone else to bear the brunt of the financial burden?
-
So, in essence, you want service, but want someone else to bear the brunt of the financial burden?
How about each paying according to their means?
-
Wow, now we go beyond socialism and straight to Karl Marx.
And to be picky, that still doesnt rule out everyone paying the same %
-
Wow, now we go beyond socialism and straight to Karl Marx
But isn't it just as equitable?
-
Apols, had nodded my reply as you were replying. (Though I could be a t**t and accuse you of not reading my reply properly as has been done on here before)
-
There's a far, far bigger issue than tax rates which the next generation needs to address.
It's where the proceeds of growth go.
Back in the 1970s, for every £1 that GDP went up, average wages went up by 90p. The other 10p went into profits for company owners/investors.
Thatcher's revolution changed all that, and we all went along willingly and ignorantly.
By 2015, for every £1 of growth, 57p went into wage growth and 43p into profits.
That is utterly staggering.
Pay rises have been depressed for more than a generation as a result. If pay rises as a proportion of GDP increase had stayed at the 1970s rate, our salaries, on average, would be about 50% higher than they are today.
Effectively, the working and middle classes lost a war in the 1980s and the capitalist class imposed a settlement in us that meant that we'd standstill and they would become fabulously rich from our efforts.
By far the biggest task over the next 40-50 years is to reset that situation and give ordinary workers the share they deserve.
Oh aye. Final point. Thatcher said she had to do this to reward the investors and business owners who drove the economy. She said a rising tide would lift everyone.
Bullshit on two counts.
1) Our GDP growth from 1980-2010 was exactly the same as it was in the 1970s. So rewarding the investors didn't help. And then we had the great crash driven by these finance people, and the idiocy of Austerity, meaning our growth has collapsed since 2010.
2) The rising tide DIDN'T lift everyone. Or at least, it lifted most of us very slightly and shot a tiny number up into the stratosphere.
Got to change folks. For all my criticisms of Labour, they understand this and the Tories have no idea.
-
BST weren't tax rates much higher in the 70s? If so wasnt that give with one hand take away with the other
-
Glyn, an example child benefit. Should someone earning 60k as a one income family pay back child benefit but a family with two earning 50k each pay back nothing?
Given house prices etc is the 40% tax band too low?
Child benefit is to be spent on the child - who as far as I know doesn't have any income and has the same basic need regardless of what their parents earn.
What on earth have house prices got to do with income? They're expenditure.
Exactly right, but you are aware the child benefit is reduced pending the parents income and that in the scenario above this is exactly what happens. A family earning 60k can lose it via repayment, another earning 100k may not.
The point on house prices, given the size of them in modern times and the size subsequently of mortgages, is it not the case that middle incomes pay too much tax?
-
BST weren't tax rates much higher in the 70s? If so wasnt that give with one hand take away with the other
I haven't got the figures for the 1970s, but the first graph in this report by the independent and usually well-balanced IFS says that in 1980, tax receipts as a proportion of GDP (dark green line) were no higher than they are now.
https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/9178
Income tax rates then we're a lot higher, but VAT was a lot lower.
-
Glyn, an example child benefit. Should someone earning 60k as a one income family pay back child benefit but a family with two earning 50k each pay back nothing?
Given house prices etc is the 40% tax band too low?
Child benefit is to be spent on the child - who as far as I know doesn't have any income and has the same basic need regardless of what their parents earn.
What on earth have house prices got to do with income? They're expenditure.
Exactly right, but you are aware the child benefit is reduced pending the parents income and that in the scenario above this is exactly what happens. A family earning 60k can lose it via repayment, another earning 100k may not.
The point on house prices, given the size of them in modern times and the size subsequently of mortgages, is it not the case that middle incomes pay too much tax?
Not too sure on Child Benefit as I'v never had kids, but I have my own ideas on how I'd like to see t used.
As for mortgages, it's not the tax system's fault that people have bought houses beyond their means.
-
What are those ideas glyn?
Mortgages, dont people have to live somewhere? This is an economic problem whereby 40% level in the north is probably at a better place than the south when factoring in cost of living. In london no way are the bands high enough.
-
Child Benefit? Larger than current amount for first child. Same amount as current for second child. Then decreasing amounts for every subsequent child. To encourage smaller family size and re-use of previous childrens' stuff.
You don't need a mortgage to live somewhere. I don't have one.
-
Whatever people think about paying tax and it's quite obvious that many haven't a clue how and why, it's no good squeezing stones coz they don't have any more to give. Therefore if you base a tax system on everyone paying an equal %age the system will eventually collapse unless of course you want to big up financial assistance for those in need or to introduce food banks across the country to feed the poor.
Genuine question what would.you say the rates and bands would be fair set at?
One of the things I fundamentally disagree on is the level people are perceived as well off or rich.
I don't know have the answer to that bfyp, but my thinking is every type of benefit should be means tested with tapering, and tax scales have to be graduated with a threshold set at a liveable or some point so that the lower paid are not paying an amount of tax that keeps them in poverty.
What did someone post a while back, poor people are seen to need to be kept on low wages as an incentive to work harder whilst rich people need high wages as an incentive to work harder.
-
Well now.
I was saying yesterday that the biggest economic problem facing us is the way in which investors and company owners have grabbed all the proceeds of growth.
Sounds like the witterings of a jealous lefty doesn't it?
Well here's the chief economist at that well known left wing propaganda rag, the Financial Times, saying exactly the same.
https://amp.ft.com/content/5a8ab27e-d470-11e9-8367-807ebd53ab77?__twitter_impression=true
And he says more. He says that the way the rich have set up Rentier Capitalism is actually destroying Capitalism because it's squeezed out the incentive to innovate, so productivity has collapsed.
Read that article. It's not difficult. And then ask yourself if that's the world you want.
It's got to change folks. And you know damn well that parties like the Tories and the Farragists who are in bed with the money men aren't going to change it.
-
Well now.
I was saying yesterday that the biggest economic problem facing us is the way in which investors and company owners have grabbed all the proceeds of growth.
Sounds like the witterings of a jealous lefty doesn't it?
Well here's the chief economist at that well known left wing propaganda rag, the Financial Times, saying exactly the same.
https://amp.ft.com/content/5a8ab27e-d470-11e9-8367-807ebd53ab77?__twitter_impression=true
And he says more. He says that the way the rich have set up Rentier Capitalism is actually destroying Capitalism because it's squeezed out the incentive to innovate, so productivity has collapsed.
Read that article. It's not difficult. And then ask yourself if that's the world you want.
It's got to change folks. And you know damn well that parties like the Tories and the Farragists who are in bed with the money men aren't going to change it.
A very depressing if accurate account of how we are succumbing to the greed of the big companies and their boards and shareholders.
-
Idler.
The start of this problem was the way that we neutered the unions in the 1980s.
Thatcher's naive dream was that this would unleash a tidal wave of innovation from brilliant entrepreneurs who'd been held back by union muscle preventing change.
In fact, what happened when the unions were killed off was that there was no way for workers to fight for a better share of profits. So all the profits have gone to the tiny number of owners.
It needs a revolution as huge as the one Thatcher unleashed, to put this right.
-
Quote of the week from Glynn!
You don't need a mortgage to live somewhere. I don't have one.
Yes but we can’t all live with our Mum Glynn!
-
Child Benefit? Larger than current amount for first child. Same amount as current for second child. Then decreasing amounts for every subsequent child. To encourage smaller family size and re-use of previous childrens' stuff.
You don't need a mortgage to live somewhere. I don't have one.
Glyn, how much do you think either a mortgage or 3 bed house in london would be? Now tell me the tax rates there are correct. They might be ok in donny, but not in london.
-
Never heard of renting, gents?
-
Child Benefit? Larger than current amount for first child. Same amount as current for second child. Then decreasing amounts for every subsequent child. To encourage smaller family size and re-use of previous childrens' stuff.
You don't need a mortgage to live somewhere. I don't have one.
Glyn, how much do you think either a mortgage or 3 bed house in london would be? Now tell me the tax rates there are correct. They might be ok in donny, but not in london.
It doesn't matter, you're missing the point. Mortgages are a life choice, if you can't afford one don't have one. No-one forces you to have a mortgage. What do you think people are going to do when interest rates eventually go up again and the cost of mortgages rockets?
-
Child Benefit? Larger than current amount for first child. Same amount as current for second child. Then decreasing amounts for every subsequent child. To encourage smaller family size and re-use of previous childrens' stuff.
You don't need a mortgage to live somewhere. I don't have one.
Glyn, how much do you think either a mortgage or 3 bed house in london would be? Now tell me the tax rates there are correct. They might be ok in donny, but not in london.
It doesn't matter, you're kissing the point. Mortgages are a life choice, if you can't afford one don't have one. No-one forces you to have a mortgage. What do you think people are going to do when interest rates eventually go up again and the cost of mortgages rockets?
a mortgage was a no brainer for me when I bought, it was cheaper than renting
-
Child Benefit? Larger than current amount for first child. Same amount as current for second child. Then decreasing amounts for every subsequent child. To encourage smaller family size and re-use of previous childrens' stuff.
You don't need a mortgage to live somewhere. I don't have one.
Glyn, how much do you think either a mortgage or 3 bed house in london would be? Now tell me the tax rates there are correct. They might be ok in donny, but not in london.
It doesn't matter, you're kissing the point. Mortgages are a life choice, if you can't afford one don't have one. No-one forces you to have a mortgage. What do you think people are going to do when interest rates eventually go up again and the cost of mortgages rockets?
a mortgage was a no brainer for me when I bought, it was cheaper than renting
And that was your choice of what was best for you at the time. Same as for everybody else when they have to make a similar choice.
-
Just a follow up to what I was saying further up the thread about income inequality.
Look at some of these figures from the USA. I suspect Britain is similar.
1) Look at how the income of the top 5% richest families (after allowing for inflation) has risen since the 1970s, while the poorest 20% have seen zero growth. And look at how they all free together in the generation after the War.
https://www.cbpp.org/income-gains-widely-shared-in-early-postwar-decades-but-not-since-then-2
2) And then look at just how concentrated that inequality is in the richest 1%.
https://www.cbpp.org/income-gains-at-the-top-dwarf-those-of-low-and-middle-income-households-6
Thing is, I DO understand where this anger comes from agsinst The Elite. The anger that fuelled Trump winning and Brexit.
But Jesus! It is precisely Trump and Johnson and Rees-Mogg and Lord Ashcroft and Farage and Banks and co who are this 1% who have f**ked all over us for a generation.
They f**ked all over us, stole our money and then blame Poles and Romanians and Mexicans and EU bureaucrats.
It staggers me that ordinary people don't see how they have been ripped off then lied to.
-
And here's the one that really smashes it home.
(https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Willem_Schramade/publication/318575309/figure/fig1/AS:568861780963328@1512638625654/Global-income-growth-1988-2008.png)
That shows the percent increase in income from the mid 80s to 2010 across the world. Poorest people at the left. Richest at the right.
So, apart from the very, very poorest, most of the lowest 2/3rds or so did well. That's China and Brazil and Mexico and India and Indonesia and Vietnam dragging themselves out of abject poverty.
But most of the richest quarter of people in the world didn't see much growth.
That's thee and me. And ordinary folk in the USA.
But it's not because our countries didn't have growth. It's because pretty much all that extra wealth went into the pockets of the very richest at the far right of the graph. That's Rees-Mogg and Banks and Trump.
Funny old world, int it?
-
Child Benefit? Larger than current amount for first child. Same amount as current for second child. Then decreasing amounts for every subsequent child. To encourage smaller family size and re-use of previous childrens' stuff.
You don't need a mortgage to live somewhere. I don't have one.
Glyn, how much do you think either a mortgage or 3 bed house in london would be? Now tell me the tax rates there are correct. They might be ok in donny, but not in london.
It doesn't matter, you're missing the point. Mortgages are a life choice, if you can't afford one don't have one. No-one forces you to have a mortgage. What do you think people are going to do when interest rates eventually go up again and the cost of mortgages rockets?
When I rented it was not cheaper than a mortgage, my point remains that rent or mortgage it is tough in parts of the uk for people to live and the tax rates do not help.
-
I always thought to rent was dearer than having a mortgage. It is basic rental arithmetics.
-
And in true labour style, rather than talk about policy etc they're having internal fights again....
-
The issue with Watson is his allegedly taking money from Israeli lobbyists to stir up the anti sematism debate in the party.
That's the latest reason that momentum want rid of him.
-
And in true labour style, rather than talk about policy etc they're having internal fights again....
maybe they should stop fighting and just remove the whip from all the mp's who disagree with Corbyn. You know, Tory style...
-
The issue with Watson is his allegedly taking money from Israeli lobbyists to stir up the anti sematism debate in the party.
That's the latest reason that momentum want rid of him.
A much more basic reason is that he as Deputy Leader behaves as a maverick when he keeps coming out with stuff contrary to the Party Leader. It doesn't matter whether you agree with Corbyn, Watson, neither or both - no party looks good when that happens.
-
Ahhh McCluskey the Stalinist following his idol's example.
We're about to go into an existential battle like Stalin was in the late 30s. Tell you what! Let's have a purge! That's a grand idea.
Whispers are that even Corbyn is furious about this little stunt by McCluskey and Lansman. Those people WILL purify the Labour party if they are not brought to boot. But it will be the death of the party. Because everything the Stalinist left touches, it destroys.
-
Wey-hey.
Finally. FINALLY. Corbyn faces down McCluskey.
https://mobile.twitter.com/ShehabKhan/status/1175339743745384448
If he'd done this 9 months ago over Brexit, Labour wouldn't have lost 5 million supporters this year.
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/49781152
Course, if the Labour party thought there was a need to show Corbyn standing up to the idiots on the far left, they could scarcely have set this up better...
-
Here's an interesting take on JC and labour
''Faced with the Tories’ no-deal extremism and a glaring crisis in capitalism, the financial establishment is losing its fear of a radical Labour government''
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/sep/21/bankers-corbyn-tories-no-deal-capitalism-radical-government
-
This is a scathing attack on the 4Ms from Andrew Fisher. It won't make any difference because they still control Corbyn's decision making on most issues.
https://mobile.twitter.com/ShippersUnbound/status/1175543112288153600?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet
When Labour lose in November, those 4 bas**rds, McCluskey, Milne, Murphy and Murray want throwing off a cliff.
-
And in true labour style, rather than talk about policy etc they're having internal fights again....
maybe they should stop fighting and just remove the whip from all the mp's who disagree with Corbyn. You know, Tory style...
Which they shouldn't have done.....
The thread is about labour policy though. Their brexit policy is still stupid at the moment. I mean the answer from Corbyn on whether hed campaign for or against his own deal is laughable.
-
Andrew Fisher on twitter is a great source of info on what is happening on the policy front at conference;
https://twitter.com/fisherandrew79?lang=en
Sometimes it is better to sidestep the headlines designated by the media, which do not address the key policy issues.
People have disagreements in politics all the time.....nothing new here.
Clearly the Sunday Times and other Murdoch outlets will big it up, that is what they do!
-
Albie.
Is that the best you can do? Using "It's the Murdoch Press" to shut down debate like a Get Out Of Jail Free card?
Convenient.
You don't have to address polls because...well you don't believe in polls. Now you don't have to address Corbyn's longest personal adviser saying that the 4Ms have a lack of professional competence and human decency, (his own words, written by his own hand) because it's a Sunday Times reporter reporting it?
You can keep on ignoring the world outside, but it has a tendency to suddenly smack you in the face.
-
BST don’t you find that the attitude of modern labour? Fingers in ears not listening, any criticism is propaganda?
-
Ldr.
No.
I think there is a lot of clear listening and clar thinking and changing of opinion by many people in the Labour party, especially McDonnell, Thornberry and Starmer. But I do think it's the approach of a small number of overly powerful people around Corbyn who have had 40 years to hone their rock-solid dogma, and who see anyone who doesn't agree with them as a threat to be taken down.
Milne, McCluskey, Murray and Murphy WILL kill the Labour party if they are not neutered.
-
But dont they hold the power particularly the unions? I'm clearly no expert on labour but dont the unions hold over 50% of voting rights so can dictate the policy?
-
This from McCluskey is breathtaking.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/len-mccluskey-unite-labour-party-tom-watson-plot-coup-conference-a9115256.html%3famp
Corbyn took over the Labour party promising a new approach,with the members deciding policy.
What's happened here is the very, very worst of the old Stalinist top-down trade union control.
McCluskey has told Corbyn what the Brexit policy will be. Corbyn has spent twelve months going against what the majority of the membership want because (in his own words) he has to take "the wider movement" (ie the big unions) with him.
Having controlled Corbyn, McCluskey is here, at this time, so close to an election, telling other senior Shadow Cabinet members that they can suck it up and keep their gobs shut, or f**k off.
How in God's name did this party get to here, with a 60 year out of date ideological fossil dictating policy out of sight? A man elected as General Secretary of his union on a 12% turnout, telling the party what to do.
-
Did you see the actual interview Billy? The question was, if Labour have a neutral position should Shadow Cabinet members be allowed to campaign for remain.
Since when has sticking to an agreed Cabinet or Shadow Cabinet position been 'Stalinist'? If you don't like the policy that the leadership has, any policy of any party at any time, then you shouldn't be in the leadership. Campaign from the back benches.
That was what McCluskey said. Your post might be what you think but in the context of what McCluskey said it is complete rubbish and nothing but disgraceful propaganda.
-
Yes I saw his interview. He's speaking with his own mouth in the video clip in that link I posted. What do you think I'm basing my opinion on?
He said Corbyn has said what the policy is (that New Politics of inclusivity in decision making seems like a long time ago...) and if Shadow Cabinet members don't like it, they are free to step down.
That's where we are now. People like Thornberry and McDonnell are the enemy to the laager around Corbyn.
The point is it is NOT an "agreed Shadow Cabinet position." Corbyn discussed with the 4Ms and told the Shadow Cabinet what the policy was.
-
Staying on topic, Labour have produced figures setting out the costs of the policy iniatives:
http://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Funding-Britains-Future.pdf
I wish all parties did proper costings with their offer.
-
Shame policies will take a backseat to personality, Corbyn is killing Labour
-
The 4 day week one is interesting, in principle a good idea and socially one we would all like. Putting on my business head though, how do we make it work and pay?
-
Cracking speech by John McDonnell just now at the conference. How can you not vote for what he's said?
-
You cant it's that simple..There is no way business in this Country can afford to operate a 4 day week,pay the amount of money to keep people at the same level of wages..Throw in a few new bank holidays and the added tax no doubt will come under Labour as well and expect them to be competitive with the rest of the world..High unemployment,high interest rates and soaring inflation would be the outcome of that plan... Like it is with past Labour goverments..
-
The 4 day week one is interesting, in principle a good idea and socially one we would all like. Putting on my business head though, how do we make it work and pay?
People working on day 5 are soooo inefficient. Not only that but with 4 days, their inspiration, enthusiasm, health, and so on is all improved. It's a no brainer.
Where it is a negative is that it allows people more time to think, to be dissatisfied with the bullshit they are fed my Tory media and elitists. Scary eh?
-
I increasingly feel McDonnell is the most Prime Ministerial figure we have at the moment.
-
You cant it's that simple..There is no way business in this Country can afford to operate a 4 day week,pay the amount of money to keep people at the same level of wages..Throw in a few new bank holidays and the added tax no doubt will come under Labour as well and expect them to be competitive with the rest of the world..High unemployment,high interest rates and soaring inflation would be the outcome of that plan... Like it is with past Labour goverments..
It's a myth you're falling for.
-
I increasingly feel McDonnell is the most Prime Ministerial figure we have at the moment.
I agree, but possibly works better as a number 2. Just like some players lose it when made captain... a footy analogy, sorry if that's off topic here.
-
You cant it's that simple..There is no way business in this Country can afford to operate a 4 day week,pay the amount of money to keep people at the same level of wages..Throw in a few new bank holidays and the added tax no doubt will come under Labour as well and expect them to be competitive with the rest of the world..High unemployment,high interest rates and soaring inflation would be the outcome of that plan... Like it is with past Labour goverments..
It's a myth you're falling for.
Really??? Well I run my own business that employs 20 odd men..I would be delighted for you to explain the economics on how I am expected to pay for all these things,remain competitive with places like Poland and Romania etc etc...And still be able to sleep at night worrying how I'm going to pay for it...You are away with the fairy's you really are...
-
Exactly though the devil will be in the detail of course but I'm in agreement with WC.
-
I increasingly feel McDonnell is the most Prime Ministerial figure we have at the moment.
I've thought that for quite a while.
Radical but hard headed and realistic.
-
realistic???? Already since his speech, every business organisation from the FSB to the CBI have said the 32 hour week he wants to implement are just totally unrealistic..I've just been chatting to the lads in the canteen at snap and even the labour lads are worried about it..
I asked them can you do the same amount of productivity in 4,8hr shifts as you can in 5???? Nobody thought they could...I tell you what I would do right now..The few contracts I can get which are higher percentage profit ones I could service,however all those I take on currently with less than 10% profit margins which I use to keep staff in employment during slacker times between the higher rate ones, which contribute to the overheads will then be loss contracts..End result I wont need 20 men I will need 10..Thats just economics because once again we wont be playing on a level playing field with other countries...
-
You cant it's that simple..There is no way business in this Country can afford to operate a 4 day week,pay the amount of money to keep people at the same level of wages..Throw in a few new bank holidays and the added tax no doubt will come under Labour as well and expect them to be competitive with the rest of the world..High unemployment,high interest rates and soaring inflation would be the outcome of that plan... Like it is with past Labour goverments..
It's a myth you're falling for.
Really??? Well I run my own business that employs 20 odd men..I would be delighted for you to explain the economics on how I am expected to pay for all these things,remain competitive with places like Poland and Romania etc etc...And still be able to sleep at night worrying how I'm going to pay for it...You are away with the fairy's you really are...
It won't be a hard cap. If you and your staff are happy for things to stay the same, then you don't have to change them.
-
So it’s poiness then as people could just do that now?
-
Exactly what a total waste of time it will never happen..Labour can count themselves lucky everybody in the media is talking about Thomas Cook today rather than ripping apart another shocking non thought out or costed policy...
-
I would think if you went back to look people would have said the same thing about the 40 hour week
-
Sydney maybe listen to people like wing c who has his own business? France tried it going to 35 hours and that was a flop 2
-
You cant it's that simple..There is no way business in this Country can afford to operate a 4 day week,pay the amount of money to keep people at the same level of wages..Throw in a few new bank holidays and the added tax no doubt will come under Labour as well and expect them to be competitive with the rest of the world..High unemployment,high interest rates and soaring inflation would be the outcome of that plan... Like it is with past Labour goverments..
It's a myth you're falling for.
Really??? Well I run my own business that employs 20 odd men..I would be delighted for you to explain the economics on how I am expected to pay for all these things,remain competitive with places like Poland and Romania etc etc...And still be able to sleep at night worrying how I'm going to pay for it...You are away with the fairy's you really are...
The target was stated as within 10 years, nothing going to happen immediately. I'd guess the reduction would be in stages. I'm not sure how they'd manage the same wage thing in the reduction of basic hours. There's no doubt however that productivity in the time worked woud increase in most cases, maybe there's a reason it wouldn't in yours?
-
I would think if you went back to look people would have said the same thing about the 40 hour week
And the Minimum Wage.
-
Sydney maybe listen to people like wing c who has his own business? France tried it going to 35 hours and that was a flop 2
Wing Commander is not the only person to own a business bp and I respect his comments, what I can't always get my head around is why someone that works in the hospital system? that would lose every time a tory government is elected appears to support them?
-
Sydney maybe listen to people like wing c who has his own business? France tried it going to 35 hours and that was a flop 2
Maybe it's WC who should listen to business leaders? A YouGov poll reckons...
— 64% of business managers back a four-day week
— Majority of Britons (63%) also back the idea
— But only 17% back it if it means being poorer
— 71% of Brits say it would make them happier
https://twitter.com/alexwickham/status/1176117763624116224
-
Wilts I’m surprised it’s not higher I don’t no anyone that wouldn’t want a 4 day week, does not mean it will work of course
-
Some people have miserable home lives tbh, or are paid by the hour and think they'll only be losing out if it was to happen.
I think they did a trial in Finland or somewhere like that recently and they found that people were actually more productive with their time on the four days.
-
I wouldn't worry about it. Labour have as much chance of being elected as the man in the moon.
-
If it was 2 happen soon as labour got in(I know it’s not but can’t work figured out as don’t not what wages will be in ten years) a 16 year old working 32 hours with no experience surely it will just make youth unemployment rocket as who in a little business is going pay that sort of money
-
Yeah businesses never employ people with no experience do they.
-
We HAVE to move towards a shorter working week, with a flat rate basic wage paid by the State. It's a no brainer.
Automation and AI is going to rapidly takeover many millions of existing jobs.
In the USA, 20% of jobs are associated with driving (taxis, lorries, deliveries, warehouse Jobs filling the vehicles). The vast majority of those won't exist by 2040 because of driverless vehicles and automated storage plants. It'll be similar in the UK, except no-one has researched the exact numbers. Do you just shrug your shoulders as 6 million UK jobs vanish and say "find something else"? We need radical plans NOW for the biggest and fastest impending industrial revolution ever.
What we have to do is tax the companies who make mega profits out of this and redistribute that money across the whole population as a guaranteed minimum income. Then people can top that up by working fewer hours in the fewer jobs that do remain.
The alternative will be mass unemployment and poverty like no-one alive has ever seen.
-
Meanwhile, as we ought to be looking to the future, the big unions are dragging Labour back to the 1970s.
https://mobile.twitter.com/Open_Selection/status/1176078591957917696
So much for Labour policy being decided by the members eh? It's dominated by the decisions if Stalinist dinosaurs like McCluskey, elected on a 12% turnout of his union electorate, dictating what Labour should do.
-
Yeah businesses never employ people with no experience do they.
of course they do but if your a small business would you employ a 16 year old with no experience or someone with experience for the same money?
-
Yeah businesses never employ people with no experience do they.
of course they do but if your a small business would you employ a 16 year old with no experience or someone with experience for the same money?
You do realise this is how the employment market already operates don't you? making the week shorter would make absolutely no difference to these practices.
-
That depends if you get enough work done in the 32 hours to get the job done if not your going to have to hire someone else as there will be no zero hour contracts
-
And as 1 of the policies which the thread is about is giving 16 year olds the same pay as someone older it is relevant, I’m sure you will argue what ever but carry on you must have nothing better to do
-
That depends if you get enough work done in the 32 hours to get the job done if not your going to have to hire someone else as there will be no zero hour contracts
Yes but OTHER companies will also be working 32 hours... so you'll in turn have not as much on yourself. And before you say not everyone will work the same hours, that is, you guessed it, also the case in the present day.
And I don't really see an issue with paying a 16 year old the same amount of money as an older person. Just because the person is older doesn't necessarily mean they've got more experience in the job does it?
-
no it’s not always the case but many times it is, so let’s just say that is the case which will people end up employing? My wife’s a nurse and the hca that work there earn around 9 pound a hour for a pretty stress full job, unless they end up getting quite a lot more than the 10 pound they will just leave and get a less stressful job for the same money, and yes I know I changed topic
-
32 hour week is a pipe dream,example cutting Police hours to 32 Per week instantly gets rid of the 20,000 increase in staff. It reduces your nurses from 320,000 to 275,000 etc etc.
-
no it’s not always the case but many times it is, so let’s just say that is the case which will people end up employing? My wife’s a nurse and the hca that work there earn around 9 pound a hour for a pretty stress full job, unless they end up getting quite a lot more than the 10 pound they will just leave and get a less stressful job for the same money, and yes I know I changed topic
I'm struggling to see the relevance.
But if you want to go down the road of paying for experience, many companies that pay salary rather than the hourly rate already DO pay people more based on experience.
-
32 hour week is a pipe dream,example cutting Police hours to 32 Per week instantly gets rid of the 20,000 increase in staff. It reduces your nurses from 320,000 to 275,000 etc etc.
Exactly my point and exactly the same in a continuous manufacturing environment. Take a basic manufacturing lean business. The scientific process doesnt speed up and the staff still required so the costs go up. Add in increased wages and how do you ever compete?
-
Interesting also some talk that the brexit vote today was manufactured to get a win for Corbyn. It kinda flies in the face of the party choosing policy..... what a mess they made of that.
-
A firm in New Zealand did a study on it's 240 employees when they reduced working hours from 40 hours to 32 and the results were stress was decreased by 7%, work satisfaction increased by 5% and their actual job performance levels didn't change at all.
https://zapier.com/blog/four-day-work-week/ (https://zapier.com/blog/four-day-work-week/)
-
A firm in New Zealand did a study on it's 240 employees when they reduced working hours from 40 hours to 32 and the results were stress was decreased by 7%, work satisfaction increased by 5% and their actual job performance levels didn't change at all.
https://zapier.com/blog/four-day-work-week/ (https://zapier.com/blog/four-day-work-week/)
Of course it would work for a will writing company, no market forces no crucial dead lines, no over crowded hospital wards and bed pans to sluice out.
-
Every improvement in the conditions of workers has been met with this "can't be done" blank stare.
Stopping kids working down pits
Introducing pensions.
Introduction mandatory minimum holiday allowance.
Introducing the dole.
Introducing the NHS.
Introducing the minimum wage.
Sometimes you need to think outside the box that experience and the way things are imposes on you.
-
Can anyone explain though what is the Labour position on Brexit.
Whenever one of their MPs is asked that question, including the boss, there isn’t a direct answer to the question.
Only ifs, buts and maybes.
Please bear in mind that I don’t follow the political scene like some of you but having watched the news over the last few days I don’t see a commitment to either direction.
-
Every improvement in the conditions of workers has been met with this "can't be done" blank stare.
Stopping kids working down pits
Introducing pensions.
Introduction mandatory minimum holiday allowance.
Introducing the dole.
Introducing the NHS.
Introducing the minimum wage.
Sometimes you need to think outside the box that experience and the way things are imposes on you.
Stopping kids going down mines was probably down to the Silkstone pit disaster.
The NHS was born out of a Labour govt spending our Marshal plan money on health rather than re building industry, history is the judge of that, look at Germany!
-
Yes, quick look over there!
-
Can anyone explain though what is the Labour position on Brexit.
Whenever one of their MPs is asked that question, including the boss, there isn’t a direct answer to the question.
Only ifs, buts and maybes.
Please bear in mind that I don’t follow the political scene like some of you but having watched the news over the last few days I don’t see a commitment to either direction.
I can answer that for you hound.Heres a quote from Keir Starmer the shadow brexit minister to explain all..
"I have mixed feelings about the Labour leader staying neutral on the issue of brexit”.
Which basically translates to I'm unsure about our unsure policy..You cant make it up.
How can they be so stupid?? They have seen their standing in the polls which is lower than a snakes belly,read how little confidence the public has in either Corbyn or the party even compared to the Tory's yet they still beat to the drum of Mcluskey and a handful of radical idiots like some of breast thumping loons who stood up on the platform yesterday.
While they were whipping themselves into a frenzy of socialist solidarity with speeches that I could only smile at,the rest of the Country was shaking it's head..Labour voters moan that you don't get coverage from the right wing press but after whats come out of this conference if I was you I would consider that a blessing...
-
Every improvement in the conditions of workers has been met with this "can't be done" blank stare.
Stopping kids working down pits
Introducing pensions.
Introduction mandatory minimum holiday allowance.
Introducing the dole.
Introducing the NHS.
Introducing the minimum wage.
Sometimes you need to think outside the box that experience and the way things are imposes on you.
Stopping kids going down mines was probably down to the Silkstone pit disaster.
The NHS was born out of a Labour govt spending our Marshal plan money on health rather than re building industry, history is the judge of that, look at Germany!
I rather think that housing people was a much higher priority for Germany than it was for us at that time.
-
I recall the Airy Houses and prefabs galore in this country.
-
Every improvement in the conditions of workers has been met with this "can't be done" blank stare.
Stopping kids working down pits
Introducing pensions.
Introduction mandatory minimum holiday allowance.
Introducing the dole.
Introducing the NHS.
Introducing the minimum wage.
Sometimes you need to think outside the box that experience and the way things are imposes on you.
Stopping kids going down mines was probably down to the Silkstone pit disaster.
The NHS was born out of a Labour govt spending our Marshal plan money on health rather than re building industry, history is the judge of that, look at Germany!
Give your head a shake, Sproty. We had a manufacturing based economy to rival anybody until Thatcher torched it.
-
I recall the Airy Houses and prefabs galore in this country.
Yep. We were building down to a price while Germany was building up to a standard.
Not much seems to have changed over the intervening years.
-
I agree about Labour and Germany, they want us to be the best country that East Germany could be.
-
I’m no Corbyn fan but having just watched his conference speech, how anyone could vote for anyone but labour in the next GE I’ll never know.
If they had a different leader they would win at a canter.
-
I agree about Labour and Germany, they want us to be the best country that East Germany could be.
I get a strong feeling you update your free bus pass on a more regular basis than you do your knowledge of current affairs.
-
I’m no Corbyn fan but having just watched his conference speech, how anyone could vote for anyone but labour in the next GE I’ll never know.
If they had a different leader they would win at a canter.
It was an excellent speech, but here's the problem.
These figures show the worst poll ratings for each Leader of the Opposition for the last 40 years.
https://mobile.twitter.com/keiranpedley/status/1175007654533566464
Let's be brutally honest. He's not winning a majority in any election from that position. Full stop.
And before anyone from the Cult of Corbyn piles in to remind me about how superbly well he did when he didn't get a majority in 2017, he started off that campaign on -25% net satisfaction rating.
I'm sure it's the rest of us who are all wrong though.
-
What counts most is the poll for the party, not the leader.
For sure Corbyn's rating matter, it's one of those factors that effects the floaters when they're in the voting booth. He has the chance in this run up to the election to impress people. The relentless slurs on him will have had their effect but in a way the media has shot their load on that. I think his ratings will improve now, how much is down to him - being less shouty would help!
On the other hand, Johnson's rating will drop. Swinson is very vulnerable, could go either way, though she is still in the honeymoon period, like Johnson, and it's more than likely both of them will be losing that positive effect.
-
Sorry BRR someone posted the exact opposite the other day
-
I’m no Corbyn fan but having just watched his conference speech, how anyone could vote for anyone but labour in the next GE I’ll never know.
If they had a different leader they would win at a canter.
It was an excellent speech, but here's the problem.
These figures show the worst poll ratings for each Leader of the Opposition for the last 40 years.
https://mobile.twitter.com/keiranpedley/status/1175007654533566464
Let's be brutally honest. He's not winning a majority in any election from that position. Full stop.
And before anyone from the Cult of Corbyn piles in to remind me about how superbly well he did when he didn't get a majority in 2017, he started off that campaign on -25% net satisfaction rating.
I'm sure it's the rest of us who are all wrong though.
I know that. They could have Sam Dingle up there saying the same thing and he would probably get a majority, Corbyn has little to no chance.
I don’t think it’s right personally but that’s people fore you.
Having said that, I spoke to a friend of mine today. Proper Tory. Went to an all boys nodding school, worth plenty, all the usual... he said to me he can’t vote for them and will be voting Labour. I would never have thought in a million years he would even consider that. Maybe it is not as clear as you, I and the polls think.
-
Is it any coincidence that the only leader to have a positive net rating (Blair) was also the only Labour leader I can ever remember being supported by the right wing press?
That's not a dig at Blair, more a comment on how it seems that leaders, parties, and policies don't matter. What wins elections is who the Sun tell the ignorant to vote for.
-
Is it any coincidence that the only leader to have a positive net rating (Blair) was also the only Labour leader I can ever remember being supported by the right wing press?
That's not a dig at Blair, more a comment on how it seems that leaders, parties, and policies don't matter. What wins elections is who the Sun tell the ignorant to vote for.
Or do the Sun just back who they know will win?
-
Corbyns speech key points;
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EFQT8l4W4AIN5Ff.png
Green New Deal a big initiative, with a 2030 date.
-
All the big ideas are coming from Labour.
What does Johnson have?
An unbuildable bridge and a massive tax cut for the wealthiest.
All Governments run out of ideas after a while. The stress of governing militates against fresh thinking whilst opposition's have the opportunity to refresh their ideas.
Problem with the Tories is that they came to power with no f**king ideas in the first place.
They latched onto Austerity as an election winning gimmick, and what else did they have in the locker?
Big Society. Remember that? Meant f**k all.
March of the Makers? If you're too young to remember 2010, I shit you not - this was their Big Idea. It meant f**k all.
They did launch into a shambolic and massively expensive reorganisation of the NHS that ran out of control, has been slowly unpicked over the rest of the decade and was described by senior Tories as a disaster. So that was good.
And they cut open and infected a wound at the centre of society by the idiotic Referendum. Which they never planned to have in the first place.
So they came to power with no ideas. And now they've run out of the no ideas they originally had.
What a f**king disaster of a decade.
-
All the big ideas are coming from Labour.
What does Johnson have?
An unbuildable bridge and a massive tax cut for the wealthiest.
All Governments run out of ideas after a while. The stress of governing militates against fresh thinking whilst opposition's have the opportunity to refresh their ideas.
Problem with the Tories is that they came to power with no f**king ideas in the first place.
They latched onto Austerity as an election winning gimmick, and what else did they have in the locker?
Big Society. Remember that? Meant f**k all.
March of the Makers? If you're too young to remember 2010, I shit you not - this was their Big Idea. It meant f**k all.
They did launch into a shambolic and massively expensive reorganisation of the NHS that ran out of control, has been slowly unpicked over the rest of the decade and was described by senior Tories as a disaster. So that was good.
And they cut open and infected a wound at the centre of society by the idiotic Referendum. Which they never planned to have in the first place.
So they came to power with no ideas. And now they've run out of the no ideas they originally had.
What a f**king disaster of a decade.
all your doing is preaching to yourself or others like minded Corbyn will never be trusted because of his foriegn policy you can say whatever about boris true or false and it makes no difference labour will never get in while Corbyn is in charge
-
My opinions might and probably are wrong and I talk shit, but it’s my opinion, yourself glum Sydney and red dik are like trolls the minute someone has a different opinion you demand answers even if your right the way you go about things would make people disagree with you, I will leave this topic as I think it’s poor that I resort to call fellow rovers fans
-
Stand firm pal and f**k 'em.
-
Stand firm pal and f**k 'em.
They have wifi at Skeggy then?
-
My opinions might and probably are wrong and I talk shit, but it’s my opinion, yourself glum Sydney and red dik are like trolls the minute someone has a different opinion you demand answers even if your right the way you go about things would make people disagree with you, I will leave this topic as I think it’s poor that I resort to call fellow rovers fans
Spot on again bp.
-
Lets discuss the policies and their merits, and stop having digs at people who have a different opinion.
Food banks and Universal Credit to be removed;
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/labour-pledges-end-food-bank-20158183
I agree with both these objectives.
If you disagree, please say why?
-
Both these two major parts of labour policy are admirable but promising to remove food banks will not be easy, it's almost saying labour will remove poverty. I for one would hope they are both achievable.
-
My opinions might and probably are wrong and I talk shit, but it’s my opinion, yourself glum Sydney and red dik are like trolls the minute someone has a different opinion you demand answers even if your right the way you go about things would make people disagree with you, I will leave this topic as I think it’s poor that I resort to call fellow rovers fans
Hahaha red dik, how f**king mature.
-
Both these two major parts of labour policy are admirable but promising to remove food banks will not be easy, it's almost saying labour will remove poverty. I for one would hope they are both achievable.
All parties promise the Earth when campaigning in a GE.
Delivering is the hard bit.
Most fail.
-
I agree with that post, Hound.
But the journey has to start somewhere. You will never deliver on these things if you do not even try.
There is a full summary here, now the Conference is over:
https://labourlist.org/2019/09/policies-announced-and-motions-passed-at-labour-conference-2019/
-
Agreed, that the tories have allowed the country to disintegrate to such a degree that families have to queue for hand-outs is deplorable, indefensible and should never be forgotten nor forgiven.
-
The question on that is what is the cause. It doesnt feel to me that it should be too hard to get by but for some it genuinely is.
-
Labour to announce the end of Universal Credit;
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/labour-confirm-theyll-scrap-universal-20318280?1
Anybody dealing with hardship this has caused will raise a cheer for this.
Still got to vote for it, fellas!
-
Labour to announce the end of Universal Credit;
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/labour-confirm-theyll-scrap-universal-20318280?1
Anybody dealing with hardship this has caused will raise a cheer for this.
Still got to vote for it, fellas!
Albie, I have just put the telly on and a Labour MP (Andrew someone, I did not catch his surname) was being interviewed about this.
When the presenter asked him what they would do to replace it.......he couldn’t say.
-
well one obvious answer is to go back to the previous model, what's your suggestion hound?
-
To be strictly accurate they are not scrapping the policy of having one benefit instead of several different ones.
What they are proposing are radical changes to the way it is administered, who is eligible, how people apply and what they might receive - so that there is almost nothing left of the current system.
It's very complex so impossible for me to summarise better than that - but there is a lot more detail here:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/27/labour-promises-to-overhaul-cruel-universal-credit-system
-
well one obvious answer is to go back to the previous model, what's your suggestion hound?
My suggestion?
I don’t have one.
But then again I am not saying I will replace anything am I.
-
Hound.
It took the Tories 5 years to devise and implement the nasty, vicious, demeaning horror that is UC. You expect a Labour MP to be able to explain to you in 30 seconds how Labour will unpick it?
The point is, for now, there is an intention to replace it and a proposed budget. Details will follow. Slowly, I suspect.
-
No BST, I don’t expect them to do anything because Labour can’t win with Jeremy in charge.
He can promise whatever he wants b3cayse he will never have to deliver.
-
I agree that Labour won't win a majority.
Saying Corbyn won't be PM is a whole different thing.
-
Actually, he might be PM this time next week...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-49863544
-
Worryingly, he might be an interim PM if Boris is removed from his position.
-
It's not as worrying as Boris still being PM.
-
It's not as worrying as Boris still being PM.
They both worry me.
-
If he's interim PM, he's not going to nationalise the Queen and move us all to Venezuela, is he?
-
Nope hes going to end up in the same position as boris, powerless.
-
Nope hes going to end up in the same position as boris, powerless.
They'll all have planned together what they want to get done as a short-term Government before calling an election. If Corbyn strays from that that support will disappear and he'll just look a berk. It'll be much better for him to look like he's able to bring parties together and can work with others before going into a General Election. He'd look more statesmanlike, in sharp contrast to Boris and his petty gameplaying.
-
New update on the opening post;
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EFaij1AXkAAYk05.jpg
200 policies summarised in a box.
Discuss.
-
New update on the opening post;
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EFaij1AXkAAYk05.jpg
200 policies summarised in a box.
Discuss.
Irrelevant, the leadership is too big a problem in the eyes of a lot of the public to be elected in a majority
-
Bit more detail on the Labour plans for the football industry;
https://labourlist.org/2019/10/corbyn-calls-for-football-reforms-to-empower-fans/
Steps in the right direction.
-
As above
-
Well that's one of the 4Ms gone.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/oct/08/karie-murphy-corbyns-chief-of-staff-moved-to-labour-hq-after-strategy-spats
Interesting stuff. Think where we are now.
The PM (that's Cummings, not Johnson, of course) has said in a rambling message to a Spectator journalist today that the Tory party is going balls out on a No Deal platform in the upcoming election.
That works for them because it neutralises the Brexit party threat and pretty much guarantees the Tories a 35% vote share from the No Deal Death Cult supporters.
Which means, if Labour and the LDs and Green continue to split the anti-No Deal support as they are currently doing, we are f**ked. We'll leave with a No Deal that no majority of the country has ever wanted or voted for.
So it's vital that the ideologically throttling stranglehold that the 4Ms have on Corbyn is broken, to allow some clearer thinking in Labour HQ on what needs to be done to unite the anti-No Deal vote.
Getting rid of Murphy is the first step.
-
Couple of other people gone as well Billy. Apparently it was over Andrew Fisher's resignation & wanting to 'clear out the amateur's' before a GE campaign.
On your stats I presume you have also seen the British Election Study out today that shows 49% of the population have no fixed political view and are floating voters.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-general-election-brexit-uk-study-opinion-poll-a9147376.html
And there is no possibilty whatsoever of formerly uniting the Remain parties. The LD's hate Labour more than they do Brexit. They are trying to grab Tory voters in the south, south-west because that is where they win seats and they think the further away they are from Labour the more chance they have of doing that.
As for informal, local tactical voting, well...
-
The LD target seats list shows why Swinson pivots to the right;
http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/liberal-democrat
She thinks that greater gains are to be made from soft Tories by a strong anti-Corbyn line.
Ironically, Swinson may lose her own seat to the SNP, as she did in 2015, with a small 6% swing.
If Labour did not stand a candidate in her patch, the chance would be significantly boosted.
The LD do not pose a major risk to Labour in most marginal seats.
-
Albie
It's not about the LDs winning seats off Labour for God's sake.
It's about them splitting the vote and letting the Tories in in Lab-Tory marginals.
I'd have thought that was bleeding obvious.
-
God this is terrifying.
To think that thisTory bunch of liars and psychopaths are likely to win the next election is just madness off the scale.
But the likelihood is that they will and I can't comprehend it.
The opposition parties have got to get together somehow to stop it.
-
The focus though has to be on attracting voters rather than getting votes because the opposition are shit, otherwise it isnt sustainable.
I still have yet to see who I'd vote for, I'd definitely be in the floating voter mix.
-
The focus though has to be on attracting voters rather than getting votes because the opposition are shit, otherwise it isnt sustainable.
I still have yet to see who I'd vote for, I'd definitely be in the floating voter mix.
Did you hear or read the details of Labour's policies outlined by Corbyn at the Confetence?
A raft of good policies to get the country moving.
But as I suspected it has largely escaped everyones notice.
-
Notice the opposition are in disarray when faced with a no deal Brexit or Corbyn as Priminister they would prepare the former not the later.
-
BST,
You were arguing that the remain interests needed to bury the hatchett.
The reason I posted the LD targets is to show the reason why Swinson will not do that.
Her aim is to capture seats in Con/LD marginals.
As Wilts says, the key variable is the extent to which tactical voting takes place in about 70 seats.
It makes no sense to vote LD if you support remain unless that vote will count.
In most Labour seats it does not, so to vote LD in those seats is irrational in the present system.
-
inb4 Wolfie PR rant
-
Albie.
It will certainly be about tactical voting but you are assuming that voters will be sophisticated enough to make those decisions AND not do what people on the far left did in 2010, which is to put principle above pragmatism. As I've said times many, it's hypocritical for people on the Left who refused to vote for Brown on principle in 2010 (and gave us this shit tip of a decade) to expect people who are anti Brexit to criticise those who put their principles first and vote for an avowedly anti-Brexit party.
The Corbyn office didn't need to put Labour in this position. It's their decision to fudge Labour's position over the past year that has resurrected the LDs and split the Left vote. I truly hope that this doesn't give Johnson a majority in Nov/Dec but I think it's likely that it will.
-
Here's something to bookmark and keep because you wont see it in the Tory press:
Posters on social media - Labour will ruin the economy
Yer actual real world economists (OK its that noted left-wing think tank, The Institute for Fiscal Studies along with that noted leftie institution Citi Bank for that leftie rag, the Financial Times) - studying the policies announced recently:
A Corbyn led Labour Government will leave the country 5% better off than a Johnson led Tory one by 2022.
Thats £110 billion pounds.
https://twitter.com/ChrisGiles_/status/1181443140143779840
https://www.ft.com/content/7cdfa832-e908-11e9-a240-3b065ef5fc55
-
inb4 Wolfie PR rant
In the 1951 election Labour received more votes than the Conservatives and the Liberals combined, yet Churchill won a majority and came back to power.
Incredible int it. Surprised we weren't clamouring for PR back then.
-
Aye but we don't really have one big election for the Prime Minister. We have 650 elections, right across the country, and you're electing the MP in your area, not the PM (directly at least).
-
BST,
You were arguing that the remain interests needed to bury the hatchett.
The reason I posted the LD targets is to show the reason why Swinson will not do that.
Her aim is to capture seats in Con/LD marginals.
As Wilts says, the key variable is the extent to which tactical voting takes place in about 70 seats.
It makes no sense to vote LD if you support remain unless that vote will count.
In most Labour seats it does not, so to vote LD in those seats is irrational in the present system.
That misses the point though Wilts.
In 9 of the LDs' top 11 target seats that they want to take from the Tories, the Tory majority in 2017 was less than the Labour vote. So if the LDs and Labour had a deal whereby Labour stood down in those seats and the LDs did the same in a similar number of Lab-Tory marginals, that would most likely make a 36 seat swing against the Tories (18 more non-Tory MPs, 18 fewer Tory MPs).
It's a no brainer IF you put stopping Johnson with a majority as Aim No1.
It won't happen, I realise that. And when Johnson gets a majority, the people who stop it happening will bear a heavy responsibility.
-
By the way. On the topic of what the electorate thinks of Labour's Brexit policy.
https://mobile.twitter.com/britainelects/status/1181585075282087936
Yes, I know all the arguments about why it is brilliantly nuanced and why it's the fault of the media for not giving Labour a fair hearing.
I know all that and it means f**k all. Because out there, in the real world, Labour's Brexit policy, foisted on the party by Corbyn's cabal is an utter car crash which is very, very likely to give Johnson unfettered power after the Election.
Self-indulgent stupidity by people who have put ideology above pragmatism. Like the Far Left always does.
This was easy to avoid. If the message for the last year had been "We think Brexit will be a disaster. We will give you Ref2 and we will campaign enthusiastically to Remain. We know that 20% of our supporters don't agree with that, but we have a raft of other policies that are what they want and need." Labour now would be on 35% in the polls and the LDs would be on 7%.
-
The only party to offer the option for ALL the people to decide what happens.
A second referendum with a viable leave option and remain.
There you go, feel free to take that and use it, no need to thank me.
You wont see it written like that in the press or media though because they don't want to simplify the message, they want to present it as confusingly as possible so as to make Labour unelectable and turn voters against them. And there are plenty of people out there ready to help them...
-
Wilts..
That doesn't help. At all.
Labour's problem has been the complexity of its Brexit message. That was what lost the f**king Brexit vote in 2016 for a start, when Corbyn was wringing his hands and saying 7/10 while Johnson was hammering the table and shouting Take Back Control.
It's a total lack of simple, crisp clarity. It's no good YOU saying you understand what Labour's policy is. I do too. Because we breathe this. It's the 68% out there that haven't picked up a clear message that is the issue.
-
The other point to add to BST, is how many voters really sit on the fence on the issue? If Brexit is your main reason for choosing a party and you've made your mind up on what you want you're voting LD, Tory, SNP, a NI party or Brexit party in reality.
Note sensible people will realise an election is much more important than just Brexit despite it dominating everything.
-
BFYP.
Corbyn's stance comes from 2 sources.
1) He doesn't want Brexit to be the key factor in how people vote. He wants it to be about other policies because he (probably correctly) thinks Labour will do well on that.
2) He cannot, for ideological reasons, bring himself to unequivocally support Remain. Despite leading a party whose members and supporters are overwhelmingly Remain supporters, Corbyn is in a tiny group that still see the EU as an block to the true road to socialism. Watch how he campaigns on domestic issues that he cares about. It's brilliant. Full of passion and fire. Then go and see if you can ever find that side of him when (supposedly) campaigning for Remain in 2016.
So. For both reasons, he needs Labour's policy to be that we don't have a stance on Brexit. But that is a disaster because it's the defining issue in politics now.
-
I don't disagree, it's obvious to me that the labour party has a huge issue in that at some point they will have to support leaving or remaining. Their problem even more so than the Tories is their voter base and the party MP's are much more aligned to remain whereas the leader is not. We could see a Corbyn government in and there would still be a problem for them.
Likely irrelevant though as I don't see them winning an election as mentioned without tactical voting they just don't have the vote share.
Also worth adding I actually agree with Corbyn's points that there are other important issues to consider. We need to know what those policies are for all parties, in the last election that came a bigger issue which undermined Theresa May's campaign, I don't at this minute see that the Tories have learnt from that but we are in unpredictable times.
-
Labour voters overwhelmingly are remainers? Try telling that to labour voting Doncaster with one of the highest leave vote percentage.
If the Brexit party stood in Doncaster they would wipe the floor with labour this year.
-
They will stand in Doncaster, Padge. Why else was Farage doing his rounds a couple of weeks back?
-
Labour voters overwhelmingly are remainers? Try telling that to labour voting Doncaster with one of the highest leave vote percentage.
If the Brexit party stood in Doncaster they would wipe the floor with labour this year.
Have Doncaster folk always been far right? People who want public services like the NHS to be privatised? As a working class area you'd assume they'd be up for investment into public services, we're not exactly the richest of folk.
-
Padge
It's a fact. Across the country, Labour voters at the moment pan out 75/25 for Remain over Leave.
As for Farage winning in Doncaster, as DO says, vote for him if you want the NHS privatised. Vote for him if you want his No1 tax policy, abolishing Inheritance Tax which will put fortunes into the pockets of millionaires and f**k all into the pockets of most folk in Doncaster. Vote for him if you want a party with, what one prominent BP bigwig calls "a Thatcherite ideology." Cos Thatcherism did wonders for Donny didn't it.
Put it bluntly. You're being played. You're being played by a bunch of City of London spivs who couldn't give two f**ks about you, and will use your support to piss all over Donny.
-
Labour voters overwhelmingly are remainers? Try telling that to labour voting Doncaster with one of the highest leave vote percentage.
If the Brexit party stood in Doncaster they would wipe the floor with labour this year.
Take it from me Padge, the BP are definitely standing in Doncaster; but they badly need the Tories to make a pact and give them a free run in Northern Labour seats, and so far, the Tories have refused.
Even though it will be a close run thing, I can't really see Milliband being shifted in Doncaster North, although it pains me to have to say it.
-
What you BP supporters need to reflect on is what the REAL intention of the BP is.
It's got nothing to do with Brexit. They want to weaponise and use genuine working class anger at the way the working classes have been shit on this decade. They want to use that to move British politics much further to the right. And that will be a catastrophe for the working class.
Vote for them by all means. But be man enough to accept that you're voting for the kind of scum that published that disgusting poster yesterday. Be aware of what sort of society they want, when the Brexit issues that they've lied to you about have faded away. If that's what you want to support, then vote for them. But don't kid yourself they give a shite about you, once you've done your job for them.
And every time you hear them telling you they are on your side against The Elite, be grown up enough to look at their backgrounds. How many of them are millionaire ex-public schoolboys. And ask yourself if you really want to be on their side.
-
Does what school they went to really matter bst there are many labour mps that went to public school and there are many millionaires in the Labour Party are they not classed as the same?
-
Does what school they went to really matter bst there are many labour mps that went to public school and there are many millionaires in the Labour Party are they not classed as the same?
I dunno but with the Labour Party promising to raise income tax for the top earners and the Brexit Party promising to lower income tax for the top earners and scrap inheritance tax - which party do you think has policies which will benefit millionaires and which party will be taxing millionaires to pay for public services for the rest of us?
-
Article explaining the Labour promise to produce cheaper drugs for the NHS:
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/health/2019/10/why-would-government-make-its-own-drugs
Big Pharma have been making a killing for too long!
-
Many trusts make their own as soon as the drugs come off exclusivity already
-
I think its a bit more than that, Ldr.
Alongside this is a proposal that drugs developed with the help of research supported by public funding should have to pay back that initial investment earlier.
A number of different ways to do this are under consideration.
For me, anything that reduces the cost of life saving medication to the NHS is worth looking at.
People denied treatment on the grounds of cost is just not right, if the drugs can be manufactured at a fraction of the cost.
-
Many trusts make their own as soon as the drugs come off exclusivity already
Contract manufacture ldr?
-
Nah, the trust where I work has a huge production facility for drugs. Typically manufacturers get a period of exclusivity on a new drug, following that anyone can manufacture it. This whole big pharma thing is an internet bandwagon.
-
John Le Carre, who knows a thing or two about the ruthless and unprincipled side of human nature once spent two years researching Big Pharma as background for his book The Constant Gardner. He said what he found shocked him to the core and made the things that happened in Cold War espionage look like kids playing about.
-
I have no doubt that happens within the exclusivity period mate, none at all
-
Wasn't that. It was the unregistered testing of drugs in people in the third world, and the ways they had if ensuring that no-one blew the whistle on it.
-
Lottery to get a reboot with Labour;
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/labour-promises-give-more-lottery-20556103
I wonder how much S Yorks puts into the lottery, and what comes back?
Anybody know?
-
As we have a box with all the policies lined up, best to have a box with how to raise some of the money as well;
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EHPKKKjXkAALiD7.png
Get yer teeth into that, then!
-
First observation, is that a double tax on health insurance?
Some of those are good sensible policies. Some are indifferent.
-
BFYP,
Which are which, in your opinion.
-
BFYP,
Which are which, in your opinion.
Not got time for that, I will reply at some.point but not tonight.
-
John McDonnell on the coming Labour manifesto;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOVy_InZ4v0
Treasury moving out of London.....I reckon Thurnscoe is the ideal location.
Can't wait!
-
Update on the box of policies;
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EI9rlHKXkAIyBd9.jpg
Because it is the POLICIES we are voting on, right?
-
Recruit 5,000 more Prison Offiers, end short Prison sentences, close all Detention centres🤔
-
Update on the box of policies;
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EI9rlHKXkAIyBd9.jpg
Because it is the POLICIES we are voting on, right?
Yes and no Albie, yes it’s about labour policies because you/they/I have a social conscience but no because it’s not a priority of many others and I’m not pointing the bone at anyone here in particular but if it applies to you don’t let fear hold you back and own it.
There are a great number of people that just don’t see a safety net, fairness, equality, public housing, a living wage etc as something that is high on their list. They may see loyalty in Brexit taking back control as against the wisdom that Brexit gives control to a cohort ready to exploit the very lack of oversight.
-
Sydney.
You are in danger of sliding down the shit hole that has sucked many of us down on the Left from time to time.
Don't ever assume that people not on the Left don't have a social conscience.
Some people on all sides of the political debate don't. Some do.
The problem of the Left has frequently been to assume that because THEY know their policies are intended to provide the best for most people, EVERYONE should agree. Or they are immoral.
The world doesn't work like that. People can have genuine disagreements and still both be morally reasonable. Or unreasonable.
-
Ah yes thanks, my you/they/I should quite correctly not be viewed as we are holier than thou.
-
Tory Fibs
53 seconds pure television gold today showing both Sky News & the BBC destroy the Tory fake news on Labour’s spending.
At one point, the Sky journalist struggles to contain their laughter at the ludicrousness of Tory claims
-
Thread on proposed tax rises from Labour;
https://twitter.com/ToryFibs/status/1194143413328863232
Anybody object to this?......no squillionaires to reply!
-
Well, the squillionaires on here have all gone shy.
I assume then that they all agree it is a good thing to ask them to pay a bit more.
There is an interesting piece on the impact of the Labour plan to renationalise certain sectors;
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nationalise-royal-mail-energy-water-savings-bills-national-grid-a9203636.html
It looks to be in the interest of the customer to me.
Anyway, lets here why not from a Spaffmeister fanboy!
-
some pretty good looking pledges in there :aok:
-
What chuffing buses?
-
Well yeah Sproty.
Precisely.
40 years of "the market must decide everything" and that's what you end up with.
I live a couple of miles out of Sheffield city centre. When I moved here 22 years ago, we had 13 buses an hour each way and it cost 50p.
Now we have 5 buses each way. Every single one is rammed and the ticket price is 2 quid.
So that's a 60% reduction in service and a compound annual increase in fare of 6.5%, in an era when inflation has typically been 2-4%.
f**king grand, eh?
And here's the really stupid consequence.
If we want to go into the city centre shopping, we can stand and wait for a bus that will cost us £11.20 return for 2 adults and two kids. Or we can drive in and pay £2 to park for two hours.
So, obviously, we drive. Which adds to congestion and pollution in the city centre.
THAT'S the problem with The Market. First Bus operate the service to maximise their shareholder value. But no-one manages the damaging knock-on effects for the country and the region and the city and the people.
Nationalise them and run them as a public service, not a business. Make them free like they do in those benighted, third world he'll holes like Luxembourg and Gothenburg. Get cars off the road. It's a no-brainer. Just needs folk to snap out of this mindset that everything has to be market and profit driven.
-
Where would the money come from if they were to make it free?
-
Where would the money come from if they were to make it free?
Thats all we ever hear, the same was said of the Clement Attlee government of 1945, the Country was on it’s knees and broke after 6 years of War, the right wing were howling about if Labour won the election the Nazi’s were going to take over. Well they won and that Government saw the introduction of the NHS, the birth of the Welfare State and Nationalisation of essential industries, not bad going from a bankrupt Country was it?
-
Taxes of course. Like it does in Gothenburg.
-
That still didn’t answer where the money would come from,that was 2 filo lol
-
How much do you raise taxes thou
-
Here's a list of the countries with the highest tax levels.
https://www1.compareyourcountry.org/tax-revenues
Here's a list of countries by reported level of happiness.
https://www.inc.com/melanie-curtin/the-top-10-happiest-countries-on-earth-according-to-un.html
See the link? Every single European country in that list of the happiest has tax takes WAY higher than ours.
Taxes are not something to be afraid of. If they are used to make life better.
-
Will look at links shortly bst thank you, no I don’t have a problem with a little higher taxes, not sure if I saw on here or somewhere else, someone recommended raising tax by a penny and giving it to local councils which I thought was a good idea, of course if taxes went up quite a lot you would want to know your money was being spent wisely thou
-
Bpool.
Have you ever been to Holland or Sweden?
Have you seen the quality of life there?
The quality of their houses and cities and transport systems?
Holland has a tax take 5.5% higher than ours. Sweden's is 11% higher.
If we raised our tax take to those levels, it would bring in an additional £150-300bn every year.
The Right will tell you that you can't do that because it will wreck the economy.
But they do it in Holland. They do it in Sweden. So why can't we?
-
Do you have a source for that claim Bpool?
-
Labour have already been open about how they propose everything to be funded, and their manifesto will be costed. So far they predict no income tax rises for anyone on less tan £80,000 a year (95% of the UK). The free broadband, for example, would be funded by enforcing a suitable tax rate on the likes of amazon.
-
Labour have already been open about how they propose everything to be funded, and their manifesto will be costed. So far they predict no income tax rises for anyone on less tan £80,000 a year (95% of the UK). The free broadband, for example, would be funded by enforcing a suitable tax rate on the likes of amazon.
Unlike the Tory manifesto, as according to Kwasi Kwarteng they are not going to bandy about figures, unless ofcourse when they have a pop at Labour and they’ll bandy about figures all over the place
-
Have took it off for now till have found it, I did find this link but don’t no how trustworthy source is as I no nothing about 🇸🇪 https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKCN1RL0WU
-
My worry with your thinking bst, is that you say make the buses free, well there not free as your just paying for them a different way, some people might never get a bus and again they will have to foot the bill,it’s putting a lot of trust in a government to give them your hard earned money and trust them to spend it on the right things
-
Free at the point of use. Like the NHS.
Thanks for that link by the way, but I'm not sure it does anything to undermine my point.
It says that high tax takes in the 1970s drove people abroad. And that they reduced their taxes after that.
But even after those reductions, their taxes are still 1/3rd higher than ours. And there's no evidence of a flood of high earners leaving the country now.
It's a balance. If you tax 100%, no one will get out of bed to work. So the Govt has zero money.
If you tax at 0% the Govt has zero money. Somewhere in between is a sweet spot. The state of Sweden and Holland compared to us suggests that they are much closer to the sweet spot than we are.
-
It was not put up to undermine your point as I have no idea if it works or not it was just the latest piece I saw, I will have a proper look after thanks
-
By the way. Those of you still asking how Labour will pay for the things it is planning to invest in. Here you go.
https://mobile.twitter.com/novaramedia/status/1195738297395548160
-
By the way. Those of you still asking how Labour will pay for the things it is planning to invest in. Here you go.
https://mobile.twitter.com/novaramedia/status/1195738297395548160 it doesn’t say if it will raise enough thou!
-
Bpool
It's the principle.
It separates out current funding (payment for day to day stuff like pensions, teachers, police, nurses) and capital investment.
Absolutely correctly, it says that if you don't bring in enough in taxes to pay for current costs, you're in trouble. It's like paying more on day to day expenses than you earn - you end up with an increasing overdraft until you go bust.
Labour has said that it will run a current balance. It will not borrow to pay salaries.
But capital investment IS different. As that video says, you spend large amounts but you have something to show for it afterwards. Bridges and roads and school buildings and broadband infrastructure. So it's more like a mortgage. You pay for it over a long time.
But it's subtly different to a mortgage, because the things we pay for also make the country economically better in future. And THAT is how we pay for them. By growing the economy, getting richer and using some of that new wealth to pay the debt.
And the final key point...interest rates for Govt borrowing are the lowest they have ever been. So Govt can borrow to pay for this infrastructure at effectively zero interest. In fact NEGATIVE interest if you take inflation into account.
It is boneheadedly stupid not to do it. And anyone parrotting "but how will they pay for it" now has zero excuse for asking that.
-
Billy, if they stick to their manifesto like the promises they gave out in 2017, the best place to publish it would be on the back of a toilet door. Just a list of more empty promises.
I hope they don't use phrases like "Honour the wishes" in this publishing of fantasies for the gullible.
-
Labour have already been open about how they propose everything to be funded, and their manifesto will be costed. So far they predict no income tax rises for anyone on less tan £80,000 a year (95% of the UK). The free broadband, for example, would be funded by enforcing a suitable tax rate on the likes of amazon.
Labour have already been open about how they propose everything to be funded, and their manifesto will be costed. So far they predict no income tax rises for anyone on less tan £80,000 a year (95% of the UK). The free broadband, for example, would be funded by enforcing a suitable tax rate on the likes of amazon.
Unlike the Tory manifesto, as according to Kwasi Kwarteng they are not going to bandy about figures, unless ofcourse when they have a pop at Labour and they’ll bandy about figures all over the place
God he is a nauseating figure ! One of the most nauseating in that Party and GOD does he have competition
Johnson
Javed
Hancock
Barclay
Gove
Leadsom
I could go on and on
-
I can just see what would happen if I stretch my imagination far enough to visualise a Labour victory. "Ooh, we didn't realise the books were so bad! Sorry, we can't deliver our manifesto, it's the Tories fault!"
-
I see the usual crew are determinedly refusing to engage with facts and discussion and just pouring out their prejudices again.
Odd behaviour.
-
The subject is about how Labour would finance their promised manifesto. I don't think they would, and I don't think they will have to anyway.
-
"Odd" Billy, I call it experienced. The greatest ambitions the labour party have had are always with money taken from someone else, while the real rich investors in the UK take their money elsewhere for better returns on their investments.
Only when the terms are right will people invest money, like yourself people will not work for no return, and now it is even easier to invest in industries outside our borders, other countries making it easier and easier to do so aided by new technologies.
A vote for labour will only accelerate money leaving these shores quicker than ever before, and the people who will be the first to suffer will be those that can least afford it.
When you point the finger at the usual crew, think that nearly all have started out like you, being brought up to think that the labour party are the party with their best interests at heart, but have learnt by Experience it is a load of empty promises that 1) they can't implement and 2) had no intention of going ahead with their policies in the first place.
-
Good luck with Boris then...god help you if you fall on hard times though.
-
Selby.
You're doing precisely what I said. Not engaging with facts and just trotting out prejudiced opinion.
If you were right in what you say, why do all the Scandinavian countries, and Holland have economies and standards of living so much higher than ours when they charge taxes that are way, way higher than anything Corbyn is proposing?
How did we, alone in the entire OECD, have 11 years of constant, steady growth under the last Labour Govt, before the Global Financial Crash smacked everyone in the head. (Go look it up. We were the only OECD country to grow every single year between 1997 and 2008. How does that tally with your nonsense about Labour forcing business away?)
Frankly, I couldn't give two tosses about your opinions. They are worthless, as are mine. If you're going to make these sweeping generalisations, back them up with some evidence. Otherwise you're just playing the pub bore role.
-
Bradwell, don't worry about me mate, It would be a long fall. And Billy that was the labour party nearest to the conservatives in a Financial boom time throughout the world, when new technologies were introduced throughout the world, and transport became cheap as chips to travel the world.Cars became the transport of the working man, and not just the elite, at the cost of the railway system. there was a revolution in heating the homes we lived in, and cheap to run, jobs were plentiful for unskilled workers as well as skilled, and we watched TV and the American shows with fitted kitchens, and household gadgets and wanted the same for ourselves, just the same as poor African and Far Eastern peoples try so hard to get here for the same sort of things.
Now the powers that be, or should I say mostly the opposition want to change that,take singular transport away to reduce the carbon footprint, limit the way you heat your home, etc ,etc. well the best of luck with that, again my experience of life is when you try to force or take things away from people it causes trouble, and will the elite show us the way, will they bo**ocks, someone will make vast amounts of money out of every scheme they come up with, and to hell with anyone it causes trouble to. They will tax people till the pips squeak, and think nothing of it.
-
That's a rather long winded way of saying "no I'm not going to engage in evidence-based discussion."
-
Just watching a film on tv, The Kingsman.
Samuel L Jackson playing the deranged baddy has just announced free broadband for everyone, forever.
Just saying like.
-
They said Copernicus was mad for suggesting the earth circled the sun.
They said Da Vinci was mad for suggesting that man could ever fly.
Just saying like.
-
Ah but some people think that a Corbyn will be PM.
Now that is crazy.
-
They said the 1945 Labour Govt would introduce the Gestapo to Britain.
They said that the NHS would bankrupt the country.
They said that equal wages for women and the minimum wage would destroy the economy.
They've said a lot whenever radical ideas are put forward. They've usually been totally wrong.
-
Who's they? Economists?
-
Who's they? Economists?
Churchill said the first one. In a Party Political Broadcast.
-
We will see soon enough whether that run continues BST.
-
That's all well and good BST, but if you have a mortgage you have to make sure you can pay it off and resist the temptation to not build some surplus if it does yield benefits and that is the problem, that doesnt happen. There is a wider question as to if we can trust that point given the interlinking of the global economy these days.
There are of course real questions as to the cost benefit of some of these schemes like free broadband which economically doesnt have a huge benefit. Granted a big infrastructure project can have a huge impact but I'm not sure some of the proposals would eg free bus travel, absolutely pointless.
-
"Odd" Billy, I call it experienced. The greatest ambitions the labour party have had are always with money taken from someone else, while the real rich investors in the UK take their money elsewhere for better returns on their investments.
Only when the terms are right will people invest money, like yourself people will not work for no return, and now it is even easier to invest in industries outside our borders, other countries making it easier and easier to do so aided by new technologies.
A vote for labour will only accelerate money leaving these shores quicker than ever before, and the people who will be the first to suffer will be those that can least afford it.
When you point the finger at the usual crew, think that nearly all have started out like you, being brought up to think that the labour party are the party with their best interests at heart, but have learnt by Experience it is a load of empty promises that 1) they can't implement and 2) had no intention of going ahead with their policies in the first place.
Somebody had best take selby's pc/tablet/phone away from him before he see's this or he will go mad:
Tory spending promises will mean tax rises for everybody say Institute of Fiscal Studies.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/general-election-tory-tax-spending-sajid-javid-boris-johnson-ifs-economy-a9203511.html
Your friendly reminder of course that Labour plan to raise taxes for only those earning over £80k, that is the top 5%
-
Selby doesn't mind as 'he's a long way to fall' says a lot about Selby don't you think? :)
-
Who's they? Economists?
Churchill said the first one. In a Party Political Broadcast.
He also said “Politics is the ability to foretell what is going to happen tomorrow, next week, next month and next year. And to have the ability afterwards to explain why it didn’t happen.”
-
BFYP,
Why do you think the broadband policy does not show a strong cost benefit outcome?
The point of these policies is that they speak to each other, and show compounded improvements over and above the direct impact of any one specific measure.
Free or low cost public transport is essential to meet climate obligations, but it also reduces local pollution impacts, and changes the dynamics of residential and commercial location.
What Labour are trying to do is rebuild the public realm...to say to people these are benefits to all, needed for social progress and creating a prosperous future in which we all have a stake, as owners as well as users.
The Thatcher years of privatisation have failed in numerous sectors, and in some cases just made former utilities monopoly suppliers.
Can you move to another water company to get a better deal?
-
BFYP.
Free public transport is a no brainer if you want to really encourage people to leave their cars at home and reduce urban pollution and carbon footprint.
You reckon those are pointless?
-
Free public transit is gaining popularity in European cities
How do you encourage people to take public transit more? One option is to make it free.
That’s what the city of Dunkirk, France, did in September when it made buses free and accessible to all passengers, even visitors. With a population of roughly 200,000, Dunkirk is the largest city in Europe to offer free public transit,
https://qz.com/1442882/free-public-transit-is-gaining-popularity-in-european-cities/
-
Who's they? Economists?
Churchill said the first one. In a Party Political Broadcast.
He also said “Politics is the ability to foretell what is going to happen tomorrow, next week, next month and next year. And to have the ability afterwards to explain why it didn’t happen.”
So? What the fecks that got to do with his Gestapo smear?
-
BFYP.
Free public transport is a no brainer if you want to really encourage people to leave their cars at home and reduce urban pollution and carbon footprint.
You reckon those are pointless?
No that actually is a fair point. It requires a massive investment in cleaner vehicles thiugh. The average bus emits far more than a car meaning it requires a certain level of occupancy to be viable, here I see the point in free travel. However it is not just cost is it? It has to be time effective and able to get you to your destination. That requires an awful lot of vehicles to be added to the roads.
I work opposite a train station for example, it just isnt viable to get there from home via train. These ideas work in London etc but I dont think the structure round here is really built for it and how many vehicles would you need to pull it off?
-
Who's they? Economists?
Churchill said the first one. In a Party Political Broadcast.
He also said “Politics is the ability to foretell what is going to happen tomorrow, next week, next month and next year. And to have the ability afterwards to explain why it didn’t happen.”
So? What the fecks that got to do with his Gestapo smear?
It's to do with his point that politicians get things wrong (as turned out to be the case in his Gestapo political broadcast) and that they need the ability to explain afterwards why their forecasts didn't happen.
-
For routes within a few miles of a population centres good bus services are much more efficient than cars averaging a 1.6 person occupancy rate.
For routes further out shuttles can be used to connect.
Private public transport systems chase the dollar and shut down unprofitable routes instead of cross subsidizing as a state owned system would/should.
Privatize then subsidise.
-
The subject is about how Labour would finance their promised manifesto. I don't think they would, and I don't think they will have to anyway.
You don't even know what's on their manifesto though and neither do the Tory party. It was only finalised yesterday and doesn't get released until Thursday.
-
Privatize then subsidise.
Isn't that the system we already have, that isn't working?
-
BFYP.
Free public transport is a no brainer if you want to really encourage people to leave their cars at home and reduce urban pollution and carbon footprint.
You reckon those are pointless?
No that actually is a fair point. It requires a massive investment in cleaner vehicles thiugh. The average bus emits far more than a car meaning it requires a certain level of occupancy to be viable, here I see the point in free travel. However it is not just cost is it? It has to be time effective and able to get you to your destination. That requires an awful lot of vehicles to be added to the roads.
I work opposite a train station for example, it just isnt viable to get there from home via train. These ideas work in London etc but I dont think the structure round here is really built for it and how many vehicles would you need to pull it off?
There are electric busses now that don't produce emissions. Their range is rather limited I believe though and they are expensive. A better option would be a trolley bus system I think.
-
Yep trolley buses like we used to have (my parents never owned a car, lived in a puddle too) or even as an interim, natural gas buses which are already in service in some places. although the greenhouse effect of burning natural gas is pretty bad it doesn't have the fine particle matter pollution which diesel puts out, there is no safe level of pm2.5
-
They said the 1945 Labour Govt would introduce the Gestapo to Britain.
They said that the NHS would bankrupt the country.
They said that equal wages for women and the minimum wage would destroy the economy.
M
They've said a lot whenever radical ideas are put forward. They've usually been totally wrong.
The wasted use of our Marshal plan money on the NHS certainly crippled the country.
-
I see Corbyn's gone back into "I'm going to sabotage Labour because I can't possibly just park my student obsessions" mode today.
He was asked on Marr if he agreed that NATO was the most successful military alliance in history. His immediate reaction was "Well I'm not sure if describe it as that exactly."
Jesus f**king wept. He appears oblivious to how many supporters this sort of self indulgent idiocy loses.
-
I know. It makes you want to weep doesn't it (or maybe that's just me).
Once again, proof that Corbyn is not a credible politician but a placard protesting contrarian.
History will be very unkind to JC and his clique. By being so utterly ineffective and unelectable as an opposition, they've allowed the UK equivalent of the Alt Right to get to the verge of majority government - by the 13th December it could well be in power - with all the profound implications that that would have for the economy and the social fabric of this nation for years to come.
-
If the worst case scenario was to happen and Labour did win, you would have to recall the last time 300,000 nutters took over a political movement and got into power!
-
I take it you two both watched the interview. Because this is what Corbyn actually said:
When asked whether NATO is the most successful military alliance in history: “I’m not sure I’d define it as that – I would define it as a product of an attempt to bring people together during after the second world war and that we are obviously members of NATO and our voice will be in NATO there to try to reduce tensions.”
On the role for NATO going forward: “I think there has to be some kind of relationship and alliance in order to make sure there aren’t conflicts between member states but the whole point is Turkey is a member state and is now in conflict with the views of many, many others. President Macron takes the view there has to be a stronger European voice rather than a NATO voice – that’s always been his position; I think there has to be a coming together around the world.”
He added: “The USA is increasingly moving to an Asian-Pacific position in what it does and the tensions that could arise in the Pacific are actually as dangerous and as great as anything on the borders of western Europe and Russia.”
I would not define it as a military alliance - I would define it as an attempt to bring people together.
https://labourlist.org/2019/11/sunday-shows-corbyn-on-brexit-nato-and-trident/
-
If the worst case scenario was to happen and Labour did win, you would have to recall the last time 300,000 nutters took over a political movement and got into power!
Mate if Labour don't win - 90, 000 nutters will have taken over a political movement and got into power. And they expelled their moderates.
-
Yes Wilts. I did see the whole thing.
You realise, I'm sure,that this is a General Election campaign, not a North London Poly Socialist Students Society debate.
Which part of that ramble do you think gets the prominence? The first 8 words of course.
And why do you think it strikes home?
Could it be because he's spent his career campaigning against NATO as a concept? He's accused it of being one of if not THE greatest threat to world peace.
And yet...Putin can flatten Aleppo, can annex Crimea, can destroy Grozny and not a word of criticism.
If the Labour leadership knew anything about the Election campaign, they'd know that this was Corbyn's biggest Achilles Heel by a million miles. And it was a subject bound to arise. So you deal with it by shutting it down. Not by starting a wild ramble with a few ill thought out words that are going to be thrown back at you.
But he can't. Because he's spent his entire career preaching to the converted that NATO is the Great Evil.
-
And when I say "ramble" just re-read this word salad.
“I think there has to be some kind of relationship and alliance in order to make sure there aren’t conflicts between member states but the whole point is Turkey is a member state and is now in conflict with the views of many, many others. President Macron takes the view there has to be a stronger European voice rather than a NATO voice – that’s always been his position; I think there has to be a coming together around the world.”
It's utterly incoherent. It suggest a total lack of strategic thinking on one of the biggest issues facing any PM.
But he's not got a lack.of strategic thinking on the subject. He was clear for decades on what he thought, right up to Autumn 2015.
He's had a lifetime of wanting us out of NATO and wanting us out of the EU. What he now does, because he cannot say either of those two things, but he equally cannot find it in him to praise them, is, he spouts incoherent bullshit. Like the night before the EU Ref when he explained to a left wing video blog that he understood the Left argument against the EU (he would: he espoused it for 35 years) but in balance he was in favour of Remain because plastic bags dropped into the sea off Colombia can end up in Japan.
I have to pinch myself a go and check everytime I write that, that it did actually happen because it sounds like something from a shite satire.
It did. 25:10 here.
https://www.democracynow.org/2016/6/21/jeremy_corbyn_why_i_am_voting
That was his approach to campaigning in the last few hours before the Brexit Ref.
-
Go tell that to Macron then. This is what he is talking about:
https://www.economist.com/europe/2019/11/07/emmanuel-macron-warns-europe-nato-is-becoming-brain-dead
https://www.politico.eu/article/annegret-kramp-karrenbauer-emmanuel-macron-german-defense-minister-hits-back-nato-criticism/
A NATO member is currently committing a war crime. The main power behind NATO has threatened to pull out of it unless other countries does at it says. A futher power wants to create a rival to NATO.
You might like the world to be as you see it. Unfortunately that is not the world as it is - or is likely to be in the near future.
Corbyn sees NATO as a vehicle for keeping the peace. You appear to see it as a vehicle for waging war.
-
Wilts.
That final paragraph is utterly outrageous.
1) It shows that you have no knowledge whatsoever of what Corbyn has said throughout his career about NATO. You make a fool of yourself when you pontificate from a position of such ignorance. Do you want some evidence of Corbyn's lifelong opinion of NATO? Do you?
2) Your comment on my opinion of NATO is simply stupid and you will not find anything I have ever said in here to support that. What you are doing is what the Far Left has always done on this subject. Infantilise it to "Ooh, ooh! You don't agree with us! You must want WAR then!"
I've heard that for years. It is f**king idiotic but it refuses to die. Because it allows a group of people to convince themselves that they are right, without the difficult bit of engaging with facts and critique.
-
Macron wants a European army thou so don’t know if that’s the reason he saying this?
-
Well. No need for anyone to ask how Labour will pay for their policies.
It's all here. 44 pages of detail and analysis.
https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Funding-Real-Change.pdf
I'm sure the Tories will be producing a similarly comprehensive document just like they *checks notes* errr...didn't do in 2017.
-
By the way. Those of you concerned (as I have been) about Corbyn's foreign and defence policy, need to see Labour's manifesto.
Quotes from it.
"We will maintain our committment to NATO."
"Labour supports the renewal of the Trident nuclear deterrent."
"Labour's committment to spend at least 2% (NATO target, which few countries match) of GDP on defence..."
That is a manifesto on defence that could have come from Blair, or Wilson or Attlee.
-
Billy, and it boils down to procuring land from land owners at prices before planning permission is granted, and higher taxes for the middle classes, borrowing money which will put up interest rates, and crushing anyones aspirations for a better life.
Meanwhile your leader, who is a millionaire himself will no doubt rent his ex council house out while living the high life at No 10 surrounded by all his devoted socialist friends with their snout in the trough raising a glass to the workers revolution.
-
Whats not to like about that manifesto?
-
"'and crushing anyones aspirations for a better life''
Everyone? Why? Selby
-
Go on Selby.
Where in the document does it say any of that?
I'm not in the slightest bit interested in your unsupported assertions. Heard plenty of those and they've never yet been backed up by facts. I want to see your analysis of what is in Labour's costing document that supports what you've just claimed.
-
Meanwhile, that Kitson Cummings is at it again.
https://www.labourmanifesto.co.uk/#
You can see the guiding hand of Steve Bannon all over this. Our politics didn't used to be like this, but these f**king vermin are killing it.
-
Go on Selby.
Where in the document does it say any of that?
I'm not in the slightest bit interested in your unsupported assertions. Heard plenty of those and they've never yet been backed up by facts. I want to see your analysis of what is in Labour's costing document that supports what you've just claimed.
He's probably been told by the right wing media that the ideas are hard Communist ideas without even looking at them.
-
Billy, the first thing big business will do is pay their taxes off shore in other countries, which means that if a labour government carry out their policies, the tax burden will fall on the working population. You know they will not win, against big business, it will cost jobs, which will be transferred abroad, wealth will be transferred abroad, and interest rates will go up because of the borrowing.
-
Absolute b*llocks Selby
-
Selby,
Why will interest rates go up because of Labour borrowing?
Genuine question.....I really don't see why you think that!
Is there any evidence on which you make that claim?
-
Selby.
Changes of behaviour to avoid tax are built into the calculations of how much money will be raised.
Albie. Good point. See, this current Govt has borrowed more than all the previous Govts in history put together. And interest rates haven't gone up.
Selby saying that they would go up because of borrowing betrays a total lack of understanding of how the bond markets work.
-
To all of you sitting with your mouths open waiting for utopia to spring up, the last Labour Party manifesto was only fit to be hung on a nail at the back of a toilet door, and this will join it.
-
There's some real good bits in there and the other parties should react to some of them and at least match them. Nobody can knock much of the healthcare points at all, though I still dispute the role private companies can play, some private element is a good thing at times, but not in large scales. The free dental care is a major plus point.
The extension to maternity and paternity pay and some improvements to workers rights are good things, though not as strong as the Lib Dems take on this. The Lib Dem working childcare commitments are superb. Though I'm less convinced on the role of unions, that often leads to disruption.
The energy and environmental aspirations are good, it's vital for the future to implement these things.
However, I fail to see how they can make these grand schemes pay, how will they stop some of these things they have pledged being passed on to the consumer?
The snippet I found the most humerous was in relation to when things go bad we'll scrap the fiscal rules - just abolish them anyway then.....
A number of mentions on investment in electrical steel - what about the stronger other forms of steel and would that investment harm the major steel plants in the UK? I would think so. We can't rely on recycled steel solely and disappointing given the issues at British Steel and Tata of no real mention there - not surprising though it is tricky given the environmental impacts.
A pledge to make payments happen on time on public sector contracts, but no pledge for the public sector to pay on time (Labour councils, prison service and the NHS are terrible payers to private companies).
The Brexit policy is bobbins, we knew that already and my biggest bugbear is the excessive taxation, too much of it but how else could they do it? I suspect they'd have to go further to make the whole thing work, the assumptions on some of the receipts etc are very optimistic, note the use of the words "we hope" a number of times. I'd also be very worried about the nationalisation and use of bonds to do so, need to think more about the impact on private investors. There is not a huge amount of evidence to show what impact nationalisation would have on the whole country, investment and end consumer.
Oh and as unfeasible as it is, if you're being consistent in being against tuition fees write off student debt aswell on the fees that your party introduced, it'd save me thousands a year in repayments (and don't blame the tories for that, i graduated a week before Cameron took power!).
Also to add, R&D tax credits, how can removing that be seen as a positive, it's a ridiculous policy and contradicts other statements in there.
-
BFYP
The issue about the Fiscal Rule is key! It's Economics 101. It's not a political get out, it is absolutely fundamental to rational running of the economy.
That clause on suspending the Fiscal Rule in the case of a serious recession was drawn up by a globally-renown Professor of Macroeconomics at Oxford University.
This is why it is so important.
Basic macroeconomic theory says that the most crucial lever for managing the economy is interest rates. When the economy is booming, there's a threat of inflation getting out of control, so you raise interest rates to cool down the economy. Make it less attractive to borrow and more attractive to save.
When the economy is flagging, you want the opposite. You want to discourage saving. You want to encourage consumers to spend and industry to borrow and invest to kick start the economy. So you reduce interest rates.
Problem is, in a severe recession like 2008-09, reducing interest rates isn't enough. Back then, we effectively reduced rates to zero. We made borrowing free. And it still didn't kick start the economy. You COULD try negative rates - charge people a penalty for saving and pay them to borrow, but that has all sorts of democratic problems.
So. In that situation, the economic textbook says that Govt spending on day to day stuff must increase. Cut taxes. Increase benefits and wages. Push through quick infrastructure projects. That keeps the economy turning over while the private sector recovers from the shock of the recession.
That requires Govt to borrow more than it had planned. And THAT is why the knock-out clause to the Fiscal Rule is so crucial. It is absolutely NOT a political get out. Any politician who says it is, either doesn't know basic economic theory, or is deliberately lying to you.
-
By the way, that issue about the Fiscal Rule is THE most important one in the entire election.
If a Govt gets macroeconomic policy wrong, nothing else really matters because the country is on a long term path to a weaker, poorer future. The Tories got this spectacularly wrong in 2010, when they obsessed about Govt debt at a time that Govt borrowing and spending was crucial. As a result of that monumental mistake, the 2010s have been the worst decade for economic growth since the 19th century.
Read that again.
The 2010s have been the worst decade for economic growth since the 19th century. And that happened because of a conscious choice of Govt policy.
It must NEVER, EVER be allowed to happen again.
-
To all of you sitting with your mouths open waiting for utopia to spring up, the last Labour Party manifesto was only fit to be hung on a nail at the back of a toilet door, and this will join it.
Sitting here with mouth open, head back half asleep waiting for you to back up your statements. If you want respect then support your arguments Selby.
-
To all of you sitting with your mouths open waiting for utopia to spring up, the last Labour Party manifesto was only fit to be hung on a nail at the back of a toilet door, and this will join it.
It’s fully costed, lets see what the set of lying t**ts come up with shall wee, I’m sure they’ll bandy about any figures though
-
The IFS has a view on that Filo mate.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2019/nov/21/general-election-2019-corbyn-to-launch-labours-manifesto-of-hope-live-news?page=with%3Ablock-5dd69b7d8f083aa6d5788670
-
It might be fully costed Filo but it is very optimistic and fanciful.
Plenty of respected political observers have said as much.
That IFS piece says much about it being so too.
-
It might be fully costed Filo but it is very optimistic and fanciful.
Plenty of respected political observers have said as much.
That IFS piece says much about it being so too.
Look up Clement Attlee and the Labour manifesto of 1945, many said the same thigs then, the manifesto was deliveredin full whenthe Country was on its knees after WW2
-
It might be fully costed Filo but it is very optimistic and fanciful.
Plenty of respected political observers have said as much.
That IFS piece says much about it being so too.
Look up Clement Attlee and the Labour manifesto of 1945, many said the same thigs then, the manifesto was deliveredin full whenthe Country was on its knees after WW2
If I suppose we will have to wait and see whether they get elected first.
-
It might be fully costed Filo but it is very optimistic and fanciful.
Plenty of respected political observers have said as much.
That IFS piece says much about it being so too.
Look up Clement Attlee and the Labour manifesto of 1945, many said the same thigs then, the manifesto was deliveredin full whenthe Country was on its knees after WW2
If I suppose we will have to wait and see whether they get elected first.
Straight question mate, ignore the costs, do you like what you see in the Labour manifesto?
-
It might be fully costed Filo but it is very optimistic and fanciful.
Plenty of respected political observers have said as much.
That IFS piece says much about it being so too.
Look up Clement Attlee and the Labour manifesto of 1945, many said the same thigs then, the manifesto was deliveredin full whenthe Country was on its knees after WW2
If I suppose we will have to wait and see whether they get elected first.
Straight question mate, ignore the costs, do you like what you see in the Labour manifesto?
Some things, yes.
Not all of it though.
-
For anyone interested the manifesto apparently contains a commitment for a Labour government to review the Mineworkers Pension Scheme surplus that MP's have been asking for and the government has so far blocked.
https://twitter.com/IanLaveryMP/status/1197599881948487681
https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN01189
-
It might be fully costed Filo but it is very optimistic and fanciful.
Plenty of respected political observers have said as much.
That IFS piece says much about it being so too.
Look up Clement Attlee and the Labour manifesto of 1945, many said the same thigs then, the manifesto was deliveredin full whenthe Country was on its knees after WW2
If I suppose we will have to wait and see whether they get elected first.
Straight question mate, ignore the costs, do you like what you see in the Labour manifesto?
Some things, yes.
Not all of it though.
So give it a chance, if you don’t like what happens afterwards you can vote for someone else next time
-
It might be fully costed Filo but it is very optimistic and fanciful.
Plenty of respected political observers have said as much.
That IFS piece says much about it being so too.
Look up Clement Attlee and the Labour manifesto of 1945, many said the same thigs then, the manifesto was deliveredin full whenthe Country was on its knees after WW2
If I suppose we will have to wait and see whether they get elected first.
Straight question mate, ignore the costs, do you like what you see in the Labour manifesto?
Some things, yes.
Not all of it though.
So give it a chance, if you don’t like what happens afterwards you can vote for someone else next time
5 years later, I dont think that is a risk worth taking personally.
Interesting to see McDonnell cocked up big style confirming something wont happen then it appears in the manifesto. The funniest thing was one of the north east labour mps trying to articulate the brexit policy of which he had no idea. A somewhat hilarious interview.
-
It might be fully costed Filo but it is very optimistic and fanciful.
Plenty of respected political observers have said as much.
That IFS piece says much about it being so too.
Look up Clement Attlee and the Labour manifesto of 1945, many said the same thigs then, the manifesto was deliveredin full whenthe Country was on its knees after WW2
If I suppose we will have to wait and see whether they get elected first.
Straight question mate, ignore the costs, do you like what you see in the Labour manifesto?
Some things, yes.
Not all of it though.
So give it a chance, if you don’t like what happens afterwards you can vote for someone else next time
5 years later, I dont think that is a risk worth taking personally.
Interesting to see McDonnell cocked up big style confirming something wont happen then it appears in the manifesto. The funniest thing was one of the north east labour mps trying to articulate the brexit policy of which he had no idea. A somewhat hilarious interview.
So the alternative, a serial lier as PM is a risk worth taking?
-
Bfyp, you're very good at casting doubt without actually saying what why and how, it comes across as being an apologist for Johnson and the spivs even if you insist you're not.
-
It might be fully costed Filo but it is very optimistic and fanciful.
Plenty of respected political observers have said as much.
That IFS piece says much about it being so too.
Look up Clement Attlee and the Labour manifesto of 1945, many said the same thigs then, the manifesto was deliveredin full whenthe Country was on its knees after WW2
If I suppose we will have to wait and see whether they get elected first.
Straight question mate, ignore the costs, do you like what you see in the Labour manifesto?
Some things, yes.
Not all of it though.
So give it a chance, if you don’t like what happens afterwards you can vote for someone else next time
5 years later, I dont think that is a risk worth taking personally.
Interesting to see McDonnell cocked up big style confirming something wont happen then it appears in the manifesto. The funniest thing was one of the north east labour mps trying to articulate the brexit policy of which he had no idea. A somewhat hilarious interview.
I get the feeling you are struggling for excuses to justify you voting Conservative
-
£140 billion a year tax increases!.... I would count on Corbyn being able to rustle up the coat of his hearse to the Crematorium, the sooner the better!
-
It might be fully costed Filo but it is very optimistic and fanciful.
Plenty of respected political observers have said as much.
That IFS piece says much about it being so too.
Look up Clement Attlee and the Labour manifesto of 1945, many said the same thigs then, the manifesto was deliveredin full whenthe Country was on its knees after WW2
If I suppose we will have to wait and see whether they get elected first.
Straight question mate, ignore the costs, do you like what you see in the Labour manifesto?
Some things, yes.
Not all of it though.
So give it a chance, if you don’t like what happens afterwards you can vote for someone else next time
Filo, as I have said many times, Labour will win the Doncaster seats.
My individual vote won't make any difference.
If I vote Labour they will win by one extra vote.
If I got for someone else then Labour will win by one less vote.
To be honest, I don't like or trust BJ but I have the same feelings for JC, but even more so.
-
Sproty.
Where did you get that number from?
-
Hound.
You have ample evidence of Johnson lying over matters large and small. From EU regulations on bent bananas, through the existence of his bas**rd love child, to his claim that he is funding the building of 40 new hospitals when the actual figure is 6.
So there's no question whatsoever that Johnson can't EVER be trusted not to lie.
Where's the even stronger evidence against Corbyn?
-
Hound.
You have ample evidence of Johnson lying over matters large and small. From EU regulations on bent bananas, through the existence of his bas**rd love child, to his claim that he is funding the building of 40 new hospitals when the actual figure is 6.
So there's no question whatsoever that Johnson can't EVER be trusted not to lie.
Where's the even stronger evidence against Corbyn?
I don't like him and don't trust him.
He is evasive over brexit too which doesn't endear him to me.
-
It might be fully costed Filo but it is very optimistic and fanciful.
Plenty of respected political observers have said as much.
That IFS piece says much about it being so too.
Look up Clement Attlee and the Labour manifesto of 1945, many said the same thigs then, the manifesto was deliveredin full whenthe Country was on its knees after WW2
If I suppose we will have to wait and see whether they get elected first.
Straight question mate, ignore the costs, do you like what you see in the Labour manifesto?
I don't, despite the fact that as a Civil servant I will get a pay rise, you have to put these bribes to one side and look at the greater good of the Nation, these pirate raids on big business will see massive disruptions and job losses, we will all end up working for a State that haemorrhages money on a biblical scale(causing more damage than the great flood of Noah's time) they are alright a chucking money at silly quangos and creating nanny state black holes(such as the much vaunted Government offices) and they just can't spend money wisely just watch those management wiring diagrams go crazy.. no thanks
The Labour agenda is clearly to stay in Europe so there won't be any privisation the Brussels fat cats won't allow it!
-
So you have an issue with him on one topic and as a result you don't trust him. But you want (I assume) a man with a 30 year track record of pathological lying to win?
-
Sproty.
Where did you get that number from?
Kueneberg on the BBC ten o'clock news.
-
So you have an issue with him on one topic and as a result you don't trust him. But you want (I assume) a man with a 30 year track record of pathological lying to win?
This is what I don’t get, people are that blinkered by brexit, nothing else matters as long as they get their Holy Grail
-
So you have an issue with him on one topic and as a result you don't trust him. But you want (I assume) a man with a 30 year track record of pathological lying to win?
There is more than one topic that I don't trust him on. His proposed IHT changes are something I don't like either for a starter.
By the way, I haven't stated anywhere that I will vote Tory so I don't know why you would assume that.
-
So you have an issue with him on one topic and as a result you don't trust him. But you want (I assume) a man with a 30 year track record of pathological lying to win?
This is what I don’t get, people are that blinkered by brexit, nothing else matters as long as they get their Holy Grail
I voted to stay in the EU Filo.
-
But most of your posts sound like your campaigning for a party that will crash out at the first opportunity??
-
But most of your posts sound like your campaigning for a party that will crash out at the first opportunity??
Sorry, but you are reading that into my posts.
I have not said who I will be voting for.
I actually do get pissed off though by the constant bombardment of Labour campaigners like yourself trying to indoctrinate everyone that unless we all vote Labour that there is something wrong with our mentality.
-
Apart from the occasional bit of opinion from myself I post pieces from credible sources that reflect or support opinions on a way forward that is fairer for all, mainly of course for those less well off.
If you see facts as an attempted indoctrination then I can't help you, you could if you want to post facts about the conservative party, I wish you would-in fact but I won't hold my breath as their record is appalling so why would you with their record of mismanagement and outright lies.
-
Sproty.
Where did you get that number from?
Kueneberg on the BBC ten o'clock news.
You need to pay more attention Sproty.
a) It was Faisal Islam, not Laura Kuenssberg who mentioned £140bn.
b) He didn't say Labour would be raising taxes by that much. They'd be raising just over half that much from tax increases. The rest would come from borrowing to invest in infrastructure.
-
And what better time could there be to borrow to alleviate suffering without burning the house down, if you can't borrow at these historic rate when can you?
-
https://www.ifs.org.uk/election/2019/article/labour-manifesto-an-initial-reaction-from-ifs-researchers
-
https://www.ifs.org.uk/election/2019/article/labour-manifesto-an-initial-reaction-from-ifs-researchers
What's your take on the 'initial' reaction bp?
-
That they can’t afford what they are promising
-
Your take on the reaction from IFS??
-
As above
-
Here we go, where does it say that and what are they referring to?
-
For a start it says they doubt very much that the raise in corporation tax will bring in what labour hope for, but I’m sure you already no that? No?
-
It will be extremely hard to simply deliver the kind of capital spending they plan,certainly in a cost effective way
-
Yes I did read that but I had to ask you 3x :)
-
It is unlikely that labour can raise the amount they set out from taxes?
-
So we’re agreed then labour can’t actually afford what they have set out?
-
Yes I did read that but I had to ask you 3x :)
you had to ask me 3 times well I’m sorry dad
-
As they (ifs) haven't had time to do any modelling I think it's a fairly reasonable evaluation which will I'm sure be fleshed out when they see more detail, but overall I would think it (labours policy) would benefit you more than what's offered by others, unless you are a 'professional', a business owner or just plain old rich? :)
-
You need to be clear that the taxes needed will need to be widely shared and they need to stop pretending they will just come from companies and rich, that’s the last paragraph and the answer to your post above
-
So we’re agreed then labour can’t actually afford what they have set out?
I didn't say I agreed I said l'd read it, I will hold my overall judgement until it has been evaluated against the past 9 years and promises from elsewhere.
-
You need to be clear that the taxes needed will need to be widely shared and they need to stop pretending they will just come from companies and rich, that’s the last paragraph and the answer to your post above
Have you read the fine print?
-
Yes I no it’s not a full assessment but can go only off the initial findings, that was just one person the rest of them on there equally question the figures, pretty much the only way to fund free universities is to put a cap on the numbers, is that a good idea everyone is entitled to a education surley
-
Leavers for the past 3 years - dont listen to the experts or economists, they don't know what they are talking about
Leavers on seeing Labour's manifesto - listen to the experts and the economists, they know what they are talking about
Is there a word for this does anyone know?
-
So we’re agreed then labour can’t actually afford what they have set out?
This is brilliant. People have been brainwashed into thinking fully costed = can't afford it. Where as Tories can promise the world and have no costings but it's the Tories so we'll let them off.
-
https://twitter.com/bbcquestiontime/status/1197651546940608514?s=19
Hilarious.
-
Sproty.
Where did you get that number from?
Kueneberg on the BBC ten o'clock news.
You need to pay more attention Sproty.
a) It was Faisal Islam, not Laura Kuenssberg who mentioned £140bn.
b) He didn't say Labour would be raising taxes by that much. They'd be raising just over half that much from tax increases. The rest would come from borrowing to invest in infrastructure.
Billy when a government 'Borrows' money they have to get the funds from somewhere (Me and You) to pay it back. The money spent on housing won't generate any revenue, they are capping the rents and most social housing rent under the previous labour govt was paid by the Labour Govt!
-
Leavers for the past 3 years - dont listen to the experts or economists, they don't know what they are talking about
Leavers on seeing Labour's manifesto - listen to the experts and the economists, they know what they are talking about
Is there a word for this does anyone know?
Is it the name for someone who spills his seed upon the ground?
-
Leavers for the past 3 years - dont listen to the experts or economists, they don't know what they are talking about
Leavers on seeing Labour's manifesto - listen to the experts and the economists, they know what they are talking about
Is there a word for this does anyone know?
people for the last 3 years have been listening to economists saying brexit will cost the country a fortune,soon as them said people question labour....
-
Paul Mason gives an account of the IFS’s evaluation
https://twitter.com/paulmasonnews/status/1197796666482532353
-
The thing that worries me is how well thought out are these plans..Take the plan to build all these council houses within a short time frame.Everybody knows it's impossible to achieve.The CITB spokeman on 5live news and said that there just isn't enough skilled manpower to even get close to a third of that target and it would take a generation,yes a generation to achieve..
Of course you could argue that Wales has it's own Labour government,how many council houses did they build last year...the answer is 57...
-
Taking into consideration the corruption and lies surrounding the 2016 vote this sound like a fair option.
What Corbyn said about staying neutral in second Brexit referendum
Peter Walker
Peter Walker
This is what Jeremy Corbyn said about staying neutral in a second Brexit referendum.
One, we negotiate a credible deal with the European Union. Secondly, we will put that, alongside remain in a referendum. My role, and the role of our government will be to ensure that that referendum is held in a fair atmosphere, and we will abide by the result of it.
And I will adopt as prime minister, if I am at the time, a neutral stance so that I can credibly carry out the results of that to bring out communities and country together, rather than continuing in endless debate about the EU and Brexit. This will be a trade deal with Europe, or remaining in the EU. That will be the choice that we put before the British public within six months.
-
Lord knows I've had my complaints about Corbyn over Brexit. And I think he's made a massive political mistake in 2019 in not unequivocally coming out for Remain. If he'd done that, the LDs would be on 5% in the polls and Labour would be on 40%.
But I don't get this obsession with his own personal view. He has a credible policy which says "What *I* think doesn't matter. It's about what YOU, the people want."
The whole shit storm of the past 3 years has been down to politicians trying to tell the people what they did and didn't vote for in 2016. Why should it be more noble for Johnson to stand there and say, " You voted Leave. Now leave it to ME to interpret exactly what you meant by that".?
-
BST, the point is you have a man who wants to be the leader of a country who claims not to have an opinion. Just sit down and think what youd say if it was Farage saying it?
-
BFYP,
Corbyn is NOT saying he does not have an opinion.
He is saying that if PM he will not enter the debate, allowing others to determine the outcome from the option to be considered.
A bit like a referee, really!
He might support a particular team, but will not allow his support to influence the decisions he makes when reffing other teams.
Makes perfect sense to me.
-
Given how destructive and divisive Brexit has been, it might even be the ONLY sane policy, if you truly want to bring the country together. As soon as you go one way or the other,you've immediately alienated yourself to one camp.
And sooner or later, we have to start bringing the country back together.
-
BST, the point is you have a man who wants to be the leader of a country who claims not to have an opinion. Just sit down and think what youd say if it was Farage saying it?
If bloody Cameron had said that - and meant it - in 2016 we wouldn't be in the mess he left behind when he said he would stay on as PM whatever the result was - and then resigned when the side he campaigned for lost.
You are PM of the whole country. Not 52% of it. Or 48% of it. All of it.
-
BST, the point is you have a man who wants to be the leader of a country who claims not to have an opinion. Just sit down and think what youd say if it was Farage saying it?
Another disingenuous post by the Johnson apologist. You know full well that he doesn't claim to not have an opinion but you just can't help yourself can you.
-
We've had two remain PMs and one leaver PM, so it makes sense not to alienate either side of the debate and allow a vote on an actual leave deal, rather than let everyone interpret what leave means.
-
This is Corbyn's last stab.
It will come down to the general public, who increasingly I am very despondent with. Those who can't think on their feet will say he's sitting on the fence.
But think about it for a minute...
He is a leaver, who leads a remainer party, who's electorate voted to leave, who's general public have wanted to remain for broadly 2 years now (check the polls).
What is a 'genuine' leadership position in this complexity?
Theresa May, a remainer, who negotiated and support a very bad leave deal for the county?
Or Boris Johnson, who decided on the back of a fag packet which position he would take for his own political career?
No.
I'm voting for labour for the above reasons - they are trying to make something out of very complex situation, and they seem to be the only party with some... policies.
Unless you want the Brexit Party whos major policy is to scrap postal voting and whos climate strategy is to plant some more trees, then if that's what you want, vote for them.
-
The Tories can’t campaign based on their record in power because it’s awful.
They can’t campaign on their future plans because they know their reckless Brexit will tank the economy.
They can only campaign on lies and scaremongering about Labour.
Frankly it’s pathetic.
-
This is Corbyn's last stab.
It will come down to the general public, who increasingly I am very despondent with. Those who can't think on their feet will say he's sitting on the fence.
But think about it for a minute...
He is a leaver, who leads a remainer party, who's electorate voted to leave, who's general public have wanted to remain for broadly 2 years now (check the polls).
What is a 'genuine' leadership position in this complexity?
Theresa May, a remainer, who negotiated and support a very bad leave deal for the county?
Or Boris Johnson, who decided on the back of a fag packet which position he would take for his own political career?
No.
I'm voting for labour for the above reasons - they are trying to make something out of very complex situation, and they seem to be the only party with some... policies.
Unless you want the Brexit Party whos major policy is to scrap postal voting and whos climate strategy is to plant some more trees, then if that's what you want, vote for them.
He's also the leader of the most democratic party around, so what does his position even matter? He will help enact the will of the parties members and/or the will of the public. It doesn't matter what his personal opinion is. He will honour any vote.
-
Laura Kuenssberg @ CCHQ Propaganda Dept
Who does Corbyn think he is?
He visited Amazon & told multinationals that if they want to sell goods in the UK, they must pay their way & not hide profits in tax havens!
Personally, I prefer the situation where rich people like me can screw you over. That's why I vote Tory.
-
BFYP,
Corbyn is NOT saying he does not have an opinion.
He is saying that if PM he will not enter the debate, allowing others to determine the outcome from the option to be considered.
A bit like a referee, really!
He might support a particular team, but will not allow his support to influence the decisions he makes when reffing other teams.
Makes perfect sense to me.
Exactly. This way is what Harold Wilson got right in 1975 and what David Cameron didn't learn from in 2016.
-
Wilson didn't stay neutral.
https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=M7QsAAAAIBAJ&sjid=lQoEAAAAIBAJ&pg=2825%2C608551
-
It has gone a bit quiet after that link BB.
-
Wilson didn't stay neutral.
https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=M7QsAAAAIBAJ&sjid=lQoEAAAAIBAJ&pg=2825%2C608551
Wilson didn't campaign though. What he did that Cameron got wrong was to make it about what the people decide and not about him, that's why he allowed the suspension of Cabinet Collective Responsibility and stood back from the campaign - and therefore the vote wasn't about him. Which is the lesson that Cameron didn't learn. He made himself so identified with the Remain campaign that when it went the other way he had to resign. And a lot of people voted against Cameron just to give him a kicking and damn the consequences.
-
Wilson didn't stay neutral.
https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=M7QsAAAAIBAJ&sjid=lQoEAAAAIBAJ&pg=2825%2C608551
I can't see that anyone here has said he did? Have I missed something?
-
....
-
Arms for Saudi Arabia?
https://www.google.com/search?q=pictures+of+bomb+and+munitions&client=firefox-b-d&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj0mdPL1ILmAhXVQ30KHYQMB9wQ_AUoAXoECAwQAw&biw=1279&bih=647&dpr=1.5#imgrc=_rVzyUmaZ2eigM:
-
...
-
BST, the point is you have a man who wants to be the leader of a country who claims not to have an opinion. Just sit down and think what youd say if it was Farage saying it?
Another disingenuous post by the Johnson apologist. You know full well that he doesn't claim to not have an opinion but you just can't help yourself can you.
Ridiculous, criticising one doesnt mean you like the other does it?
-
You criticised - incorrectly in this example - Corbyn and defend Johnson repeatedly. Johnson apologist.
-
You criticised - incorrectly in this example - Corbyn and defend Johnson repeatedly. Johnson apologist.
Get away, you cannot expect a leader to take up a position of not leading surely? Or are we saying that we should have everything decided by what the majority of the country want in every case? Surely as voters we have a right to know what he wants.
You are a classic example as to why labour is set to lose again. Any sort of debate on something you dont like and these are the kind of things that get thrown at you. You simply cannot debate with the left, it's their way or no way. Not all like that but a lot are.
-
Now you're trying to create a diversion because you've been called out. You said Corbyn claims not to have an opinion, you know that isn't what Corbyn is saying and you've been called out on it. Now you're trying to turn your argument into something else.
-
You have got to hand it to labour policies, they are already working, the National Grid company is now resident in Hong Kong( lost tax take) and SSE are resident in Switzerland ( a double up).
So the big hitters are already on the march out of their way, they will now have to pay the going rate for any of their shares that will put the price up toa premium, and we have lost their tax return to the economy.
Well Done, I wonder how many more in the next month?
Don't vote Labour to make yourselves poorer.
-
You have got to hand it to labour policies, they are already working, the National Grid company is now resident in Hong Kong( lost tax take) and SSE are resident in Switzerland ( a double up).
So the big hitters are already on the march out of their way, they will now have to pay the going rate for any of their shares that will put the price up toa premium, and we have lost their tax return to the economy.
Well Done, I wonder how many more in the next month?
Don't vote Labour to make yourselves poorer.
Vote Conservatives for more food banks and homelessness! :D
-
Now you're trying to create a diversion because you've been called out. You said Corbyn claims not to have an opinion, you know that isn't what Corbyn is saying and you've been called out on it. Now you're trying to turn your argument into something else.
Ok chap you win.
-
A genuine question here.
I honestly don’t know whether people have to prove that they actually need to use a food bank or can anyone just roll up and ask for stuff.
There are plenty of freeloaders out there who could just take advantage of a free hand out.
-
A genuine question here.
I honestly don’t know whether people have to prove that they actually need to use a food bank or can anyone just roll up and ask for stuff.
There are plenty of freeloaders out there who could just take advantage of a free hand out.
I believe it has been proven that freeloaders often turn up at food banks...
-
You'd think Tories would have enough money?
-
You have got to hand it to labour policies, they are already working, the National Grid company is now resident in Hong Kong( lost tax take) and SSE are resident in Switzerland ( a double up).
So the big hitters are already on the march out of their way, they will now have to pay the going rate for any of their shares that will put the price up toa premium, and we have lost their tax return to the economy.
Well Done, I wonder how many more in the next month?
Don't vote Labour to make yourselves poorer.
How can companies that run British utilities be allowed to be based outside the UK! Madness. No wonder the National Grid went down for the first time ever a couple of months ago.
British utilities for British people. Bring them back - re-nationalise.
-
The tax dodger apologists don't like them but how popular are Labour's policies with the public, lets see:
-
Wilts, I think you're confusing this Apologists Branch of Britainstan with a debate about how the country can come together prosper and look after those less well off if those at the top of the heap sacrifice a bit of their wealth.
-
A genuine question here.
I honestly don’t know whether people have to prove that they actually need to use a food bank or can anyone just roll up and ask for stuff.
There are plenty of freeloaders out there who could just take advantage of a free hand out.
I believe it has been proven that freeloaders often turn up at food banks...
Cheers MM for that info.
The reason I asked is because it has been quoted on the forum that four million people HAVE HAD to use food banks in the UK.
I wondered how many of the four million were freeloaders and whether the four million were genuinely in need.
-
This is a depressingly out of date topic lads.
Folk don't just turn up at a food bank and take home a bag of M&S Finest. I assume you DO realise that?
There's a process that people go through, whereby they are assessed and given a referral and vouchers if they are deemed to need emergency support.
https://www.trusselltrust.org/get-help/emergency-food/
What you are doing here, MM, is repeating the deeply ignorant and stupid opinion of a Tory minister from a few years ago, who claimed (without any evidence to support his case) that if you provide free food, people will abuse it.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/demand-for-food-banks-has-nothing-to-do-with-benefits-squeeze-says-work-minister-lord-freud-8684005.html%3famp
It's inevitable that some people will abuse anything. There is zero evidence that such abuse is widespread or makes a significant effect on the total figures.
-
A genuine question here.
I honestly don’t know whether people have to prove that they actually need to use a food bank or can anyone just roll up and ask for stuff.
There are plenty of freeloaders out there who could just take advantage of a free hand out.
I believe it has been proven that freeloaders often turn up at food banks...
Cheers MM for that info.
The reason I asked is because it has been quoted on the forum that four million people HAVE HAD to use food banks in the UK.
I wondered how many of the four million were freeloaders and whether the four million were genuinely in need.
A bloke on the internet makes an unsourced statement and this becomes 'info'. Welcome to the world of 21st century propaganda.
A major academic study by Oxford University says you are wrong.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-40431701
No prizes for guessing that the false 'info' first appeared in an article in the Daily Mail tho
-
A genuine question here.
I honestly don’t know whether people have to prove that they actually need to use a food bank or can anyone just roll up and ask for stuff.
There are plenty of freeloaders out there who could just take advantage of a free hand out.
I believe it has been proven that freeloaders often turn up at food banks...
MM - rather than believe whatever is fed to you by the right wing press, why don’t you spend some time at a food bank, see the people who use them and then form an opinion?
-
Support for Labour's policies from 82 leading economists. Headed by David Blanchflower, who used to be on the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee. The body that carefully and soberly decides interest rate policy every month.
https://amp.ft.com/content/6da72060-cfd2-11e9-99a4-b5ded7a7fe3f?__twitter_impression=true
These are not rabble rousers or revolutionaries.
These are straightforward economists who have spent their lives studying economics, and built their careers on getting their judgements demonstrably correct.
Can we now stop this nonsense about Labour's approach not being feasible? These 82 are saying that, far beyond feasible, it is essential.
-
Lord knows I've had my complaints about Corbyn over Brexit. And I think he's made a massive political mistake in 2019 in not unequivocally coming out for Remain. If he'd done that, the LDs would be on 5% in the polls and Labour would be on 40%.
But I don't get this obsession with his own personal view. He has a credible policy which says "What *I* think doesn't matter. It's about what YOU, the people want."
The whole shit storm of the past 3 years has been down to politicians trying to tell the people what they did and didn't vote for in 2016. Why should it be more noble for Johnson to stand there and say, " You voted Leave. Now leave it to ME to interpret exactly what you meant by that".?
You see I have a slight problem with this BST,it's pretty obvious that most of the Labour supporters on here including yourself are remain.So that said Corbyn's neutral comments are the best you could have hoped for.Afterall while Corbyn remains neutral his front bench including the shadow Brexit secretary have all come out and said they would campaign for remain..So the only voices you will here from the big hitters would be for remain..Apart from that loon for Hartlepool of course..
However,playing devils advocate for a minute.If Corbyn would have been a closet remainer and his mp's and front bench would have been leave would you have been so happy with the Neutral stance,knowing full well it would sound like the party are campaigning for leave.i think not??????
Whilst this satisfies your position,it certainly doesn't appeal to Labour Leave voters..My best friend is a Labour voter (makes for great discussions in the boozer) he voted leave and he his fuming with what he considers a weak surrender to the party's remainers..So he's switching to Brexit Party for this election..I suspect many others will do too...
The country is looking for leadership,and not many are seeing that from Corbyn,wether you think so or not the Electorate who will decide this election think they should know what Labours official position is..Yes it appeases you but your voting Labour anyway,it doesn't convince the voters who need to swing over to Labour to give them even a small squeak of getting in..
-
If you're looking at this on a leadership basis WC then you have to consider Johnson's duplicity, a speech written backing either option? What does he believe in except his own vanity?
-
I fully accept that Sydney BJ would shout to align with Mars if he thought it would get him in,he's got more faces than big ben..However in some ways that reinforces my point..
For those of us who find politics interesting and follow it closely we know that,but that's not many of us.it's the man or woman on the street who only watches the news and takes a passing interest in it who matters and they have been left in no doubt on Boris position.Get Brexit done has been hammered home to them all election they have no doubts about that...Then they watch Corbyn and he appears to be dithering,undecided and split...
-
The bottom line is this.The General election was called on 29th October today is the 25th November,the manifesto's are out and we are 2/3rd's through this election campaign.And at best Labour are exactly were they started if not worse than that in the ratings..The tory's are now well odds on to get a majority and Labour now know the very best they can hope for is a hung parliament and try and bed with Sturgeon.She knows it and is now adding trident to her referendum red line before she lifts her skirt and backs them..Not a position of strength...
-
Wing Co.
Where do you get the idea that the country is looking for leadership? The country has been split down the middle by THE most reckless and destructive leadership. What leadership can anyone offer on Brexit that doesn't immediately alienate half the nation?
-
Leadership is apparently bringing a proportion of hardliner brexiteers together around a bad deal that breaks up the economic union of the UK.
-
Wing Co.
Where do you get the idea that the country is looking for leadership? The country has been split down the middle by THE most reckless and destructive leadership. What leadership can anyone offer on Brexit that doesn't immediately alienate half the nation?
But if the Brexiteers want to “get it done”, surely they will vote for the Torys because they are unsure where it would leave them if by chance, Labour were to win.
-
i get the idea because people are looking for leadership to take us forward,they want to see a position...Like i said this position suits your own personal view as a remainer, but if you were a leave labour supporter what would you be thinking now????
-
WingCo.
With respect, that entirely avoids the point I made.
How on earth can anyone a) take a strong position on Brexit and b) bring the country back together?
a immediate make b impossible in the current climate.
What Corbyn is saying [1] is that it is not his job to tell people what they should believe over Brexit. It's not the job of ANY politician. We've just had 3.5 years of every politician on the Right telling us their opinion of what people were saying when they voted Leave. Most of those opinions and mutually incompatible, few of them tally with what the same politicians said in 2016 and the result is the Great big f**king mess we are in now.
[1] For the record, I think Corbyn is wrong to take this stance. Not because it's unprincipled. Because it is too nuanced to cut through. I think he should have come out clearly and unequivocally for Remain. Because that would have maximised the changes of us stopping the damage that Johnson's Leave will wreak. But I accept that, had he done that, it would not have helped to heal the divisions in society that the idiocy of Brexit have caused.
-
Their are remain and leavers on the Tory side too,but he has made his opinion very clear that if he gets a majority we will be coming out on that deal (for this election anyway).He has all his candidates signed up to that mandate so no more split party...That doesn't seem to have made much of a difference to his polling figures..
Labour have tried to keep everyone onside,No campaigning from the leader either way because he says it's not down to him to tell the people how to vote.Yet his front bench are more than happy to tell the people which way they should vote a second time around..You cant have it both ways and it hasn't worked in the polls either..
-
Labour Press Team@labourpress
Brutal assessment of #Conservative Manifesto by the Institute for Fiscal Studies:
✖"Lack of significant policy action is remarkable".
✖Austerity "baked in".
✖No plan for social care.
-
The bottom line is this.The General election was called on 29th October today is the 25th November,the manifesto's are out and we are 2/3rd's through this election campaign.And at best Labour are exactly were they started if not worse than that in the ratings..The tory's are now well odds on to get a majority and Labour now know the very best they can hope for is a hung parliament and try and bed with Sturgeon.She knows it and is now adding trident to her referendum red line before she lifts her skirt and backs them..Not a position of strength...
Thats all big talk and bravado from Sturgeon, so she sticks to her red lines? And Labour don’t budge, she will facilitate a Tory Government and Take Scotland out of the EU, if that happens the SNP are toast and so is she
-
Filo she wouldnt be averse to leaving the EU, it boosts her plea for independence.
BST, I can see what you are saying, but do we really thing what he wants to do is achievable and it's open to the alternate view that it's not about bringing the country together but holding his party together.
-
The first 100 days set out, if Labour hold power;
https://tribunemag.co.uk/2019/12/100-days-to-transform-britain
Just in case we had forgotten the policies of Labour.......you know, what we are voting on!
-
Filo she wouldnt be averse to leaving the EU, it boosts her plea for independence.
BST, I can see what you are saying, but do we really thing what he wants to do is achievable and it's open to the alternate view that it's not about bringing the country together but holding his party together.
Speculation from 'the spectator' bfyp?
Added
''The real reason Nicola Sturgeon is campaigning against Brexit''
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2019/10/the-real-reason-nicola-sturgeon-is-campaigning-against-brexit/