Anyone taking interest in the Labour Party election?
He has fairly got the mini-Blairs running about crapping themselves.
And Blair denouncing Corbyn has to be a fillip for his campaign.
It is interesting to see the same political machines being rolled out as they were before the Scottish referendum.
I think he has it in the bag, and more power to him; it is the first time I have been interested in politics in a long while.
If his politics are "loonie leftie" and the Conservatives were just voted in on the basis of Labour's lack of economic nous then Labour are fucked for the next 2 or 3 elections.
Strange self destructive move by Labour if they vote him in. It would suggest they're happy to be in opposition for the foreseeable. They must surely know they won't win elections.
But surely Labour, in the position they are in have to take a couple of steps back before they move forward?
Their house was razed at the last elections.
Tony Blair is so deluded that he thinks his intervention will hurt Corbyn, quotes like 'if your heart says Corbyn get a translant' will only have the outcome of giving Corbyn more support. Alasteir Campbell is supposed to be the master of spin but he doesn't seem to realise that everytime he or Blair open there mouths Corbyn gets more support.
It will be interesting having prime ministers question time if Corbyn is the leader of the opposition and starts asks lots of awkward questions on the NHS privatisation, delays to the Chilcot enquiry etc.
It's called the Labour party and is supposed to be a socialist party, NHS privatisation, tuition fees for higher education, privatisation of the railways, the Post Office etc. should be things the Labour party stands against. What does it matter if one of the other blairite candidates get elected as PM if there policies are no different to the conservative party?
Aye but the electorate clearly told them that sucking up to the unions, not supporting the working man/woman etc. was what went against them at the polls. Red Ed was brought in on a union ticket also. If what I read is true that Corbyn is even more left than that again and is another Michael Foot then I don't see how they can regain any ground with the average working family with a mortgage and a couple of cars to run.
Quote from: Tony Baloney on August 15, 2015, 12:54:47 AM
Aye but the electorate clearly told them that sucking up to the unions, not supporting the working man/woman etc. was what went against them at the polls. Red Ed was brought in on a union ticket also. If what I read is true that Corbyn is even more left than that again and is another Michael Foot then I don't see how they can regain any ground with the average working family with a mortgage and a couple of cars to run.
A mortgage, a couple of cars, a privatised NHS and 40000 worth of debt and rising for every child who goes to university.
The Labour party membership has doubled in the last few months from 300000 to 600000 and numerous polls have Corbyn as the most popular politician across all age groups, not just among labour supporters. So it is far too early to predict how the next election would go.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-is-vastly-more-popular-with-londoners-than-his-rivals-poll-finds-10455830.html
I still find it hard to believe he might get elected as leader of Labour party. I'm tempted to back Andy Burnham at 22/5 as it wouldn't surprise me if the powers that be somehow find a way for him not to be elected.
Don't have a dog in the fight, but the Conservatives are delighted he's running so far ahead.
That tells me that, once again, Labour is not listening to the people, if they take this abrupt left turn.
Keep in mind that the Conservatives hammered Labour in the last election....in spite of UKIP getting almost 4,000,000 votes.
Quote from: whitey on August 15, 2015, 03:17:39 AM
Don't have a dog in the fight, but the Conservatives are delighted he's running so far ahead.
That tells me that, once again, Labour is not listening to the people, if they take this abrupt left turn.
Keep in mind that the Conservatives hammered Labour in the last election....in spite of UKIP getting almost 4,000,000 votes.
It was the SNP vote in Scotland that fucked labour, not UKIP.
He seems a very bright guy and he has a lot of policies that are popular within and beyond the labour party - renationalising certain industries, fairer tax system, social justice etc. He's also quite internationalist, campaigns a lot on the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. One of his big problems if elected will be dealing with the media. The Murdoch press and the Daily Mail will go to town on him. It sounds also like he'll struggle to bring the parliamentary labour party along with him also.
Whether this makes Labour unelectable? Well the last couple of elections suggests it has been that way for a while. They are fighting battles on multiple fronts, losing support in Scotland to the SNP, the north of England to UKIP and in marginal seats in the south to the tories, and it will get worse for them with the electoral boundary reform. If you look closely, Labour haven't been an Electoral force since 1997. Blair's 2nd and 3rd victories were on the back of diminished share of the popular vote and were as much a function of the tories being in disarray.
The Blairites can shriek all the like about Corbyn but the fact that he is leading the polls is as much an indictment of the other candidates lack of ability to connect with the party as it is off the party's self-destructiveness.
Quote from: dferg on August 15, 2015, 12:52:45 AM
Tony Blair is so deluded that he thinks his intervention will hurt Corbyn, quotes like 'if your heart says Corbyn get a translant' will only have the outcome of giving Corbyn more support. Alasteir Campbell is supposed to be the master of spin but he doesn't seem to realise that everytime he or Blair open there mouths Corbyn gets more support.
It will be interesting having prime ministers question time if Corbyn is the leader of the opposition and starts asks lots of awkward questions on the NHS privatisation, delays to the Chilcot enquiry etc.
It's called the Labour party and is supposed to be a socialist party, NHS privatisation, tuition fees for higher education, privatisation of the railways, the Post Office etc. should be things the Labour party stands against. What does it matter if one of the other blairite candidates get elected as PM if there policies are no different to the conservative party?
In power, there is a chance of getting some of the changes you want. Socialism doesn't wash with the GB public, and hasn't in a long long time. They need to convince the electorate they'll be better off in their pocket under Labour. That's ultimately what the voter cares about. Talking in very vague terms about unfair societies etc etc doesn't wash. The first objective for a party like Labour should be to look at what they need to do to get into power, and after that try and tackle some of the broader social issues. But they have to be realistic about what they can achieve and what the voters will buy. Outside the Blair years,for the past 30 years Labour have been too idealistic and not pragmatic enough. If they want to go down that failed path again, that's their choice. But they'll be on the fringes again having deep philosophical discussions and feeling smug with themselves about the type of society we need, but Joe Bloggs won't give a stuff. It's maddening to watch it unfold because there really needs to be a strong second party to reign in the Tories.
Quote from: Armamike on August 15, 2015, 11:25:38 AM
Quote from: dferg on August 15, 2015, 12:52:45 AM
Tony Blair is so deluded that he thinks his intervention will hurt Corbyn, quotes like 'if your heart says Corbyn get a translant' will only have the outcome of giving Corbyn more support. Alasteir Campbell is supposed to be the master of spin but he doesn't seem to realise that everytime he or Blair open there mouths Corbyn gets more support.
It will be interesting having prime ministers question time if Corbyn is the leader of the opposition and starts asks lots of awkward questions on the NHS privatisation, delays to the Chilcot enquiry etc.
It's called the Labour party and is supposed to be a socialist party, NHS privatisation, tuition fees for higher education, privatisation of the railways, the Post Office etc. should be things the Labour party stands against. What does it matter if one of the other blairite candidates get elected as PM if there policies are no different to the conservative party?
In power, there is a chance of getting some of the changes you want. Socialism doesn't wash with the GB public, and hasn't in a long long time. They need to convince the electorate they'll be better off in their pocket under Labour. That's ultimately what the voter cares about. Talking in very vague terms about unfair societies etc etc doesn't wash. The first objective for a party like Labour should be to look at what they need to do to get into power, and after that try and tackle some of the broader social issues. But they have to be realistic about what they can achieve and what the voters will buy. Outside the Blair years,for the past 30 years Labour have been too idealistic and not pragmatic enough. If they want to go down that failed path again, that's their choice. But they'll be on the fringes again having deep philosophical discussions and feeling smug with themselves about the type of society we need, but Joe Bloggs won't give a stuff. It's maddening to watch it unfold because there really needs to be a strong second party to reign in the Tories.
It's called the labour party. It's supposed to.be a socialist party. If Labour is identical to the conservatives there is no strong alternative. Socialism is far from dead. The Labour party had a bald ginger welshman who shouted a lot in the 80s. He was the perfect candidate for the tory party in England. John Smith was set for victory I'm 1997. In.the last election Milliband was still suffering from the legacy of Blair as well as the rise of the Snp. There was more people voted for the winner of X-factor than voted in the last election. There is a large untapped vote waiting for a real alternative to the Tories.
Would electing a real socialist party in any one Country matter today? You'd have a lot of big business transfer their operations to lower tax lower wage economies immediately,and chaos would ensue.Does it not need a global move towards socialism
Quote from: gallsman on August 15, 2015, 08:35:41 AM
Quote from: whitey on August 15, 2015, 03:17:39 AM
Don't have a dog in the fight, but the Conservatives are delighted he's running so far ahead.
That tells me that, once again, Labour is not listening to the people, if they take this abrupt left turn.
Keep in mind that the Conservatives hammered Labour in the last election....in spite of UKIP getting almost 4,000,000 votes.
It was the SNP vote in Scotland that fucked labour, not UKIP.
That's only part of the story. UKIP got 14% of all votes cast in England.
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/labours-loss-has-been-ukips-gain/16962#.Vc8sE3D3arU
Quote from: dferg on August 15, 2015, 12:10:34 PM
Quote from: Armamike on August 15, 2015, 11:25:38 AM
Quote from: dferg on August 15, 2015, 12:52:45 AM
Tony Blair is so deluded that he thinks his intervention will hurt Corbyn, quotes like 'if your heart says Corbyn get a translant' will only have the outcome of giving Corbyn more support. Alasteir Campbell is supposed to be the master of spin but he doesn't seem to realise that everytime he or Blair open there mouths Corbyn gets more support.
It will be interesting having prime ministers question time if Corbyn is the leader of the opposition and starts asks lots of awkward questions on the NHS privatisation, delays to the Chilcot enquiry etc.
It's called the Labour party and is supposed to be a socialist party, NHS privatisation, tuition fees for higher education, privatisation of the railways, the Post Office etc. should be things the Labour party stands against. What does it matter if one of the other blairite candidates get elected as PM if there policies are no different to the conservative party?
In power, there is a chance of getting some of the changes you want. Socialism doesn't wash with the GB public, and hasn't in a long long time. They need to convince the electorate they'll be better off in their pocket under Labour. That's ultimately what the voter cares about. Talking in very vague terms about unfair societies etc etc doesn't wash. The first objective for a party like Labour should be to look at what they need to do to get into power, and after that try and tackle some of the broader social issues. But they have to be realistic about what they can achieve and what the voters will buy. Outside the Blair years,for the past 30 years Labour have been too idealistic and not pragmatic enough. If they want to go down that failed path again, that's their choice. But they'll be on the fringes again having deep philosophical discussions and feeling smug with themselves about the type of society we need, but Joe Bloggs won't give a stuff. It's maddening to watch it unfold because there really needs to be a strong second party to reign in the Tories.
It's called the labour party. It's supposed to.be a socialist party. If Labour is identical to the conservatives there is no strong alternative. Socialism is far from dead. The Labour party had a bald ginger welshman who shouted a lot in the 80s. He was the perfect candidate for the tory party in England. John Smith was set for victory I'm 1997. In.the last election Milliband was still suffering from the legacy of Blair as well as the rise of the Snp. There was more people voted for the winner of X-factor than voted in the last election. There is a large untapped vote waiting for a real alternative to the Tories.
Don't agree with that view of it at all. Socialism to the extent that Corbyn and co believe in is trapped in a time warp. Protecting the NHS is fine, but some of the socialism moves like nationalisation for the sake of it is history. People don't want to know about that. Maggie Thatcher got kicked out of power when she started affecting people in their pockets (ie poll tax). That's the bread and butter stuff for voters, not whether there should be missiles off the coast of Scotland or whether there's too many food banks. A smart party and leadership would be pragmatic enough to know what socialist ideals they could realistic achieve and what's just pie in the sky. Labour don't seem to have anyone with that leadership potential at the moment.
Quote from: gallsman on August 15, 2015, 08:35:41 AM
Quote from: whitey on August 15, 2015, 03:17:39 AM
Don't have a dog in the fight, but the Conservatives are delighted he's running so far ahead.
That tells me that, once again, Labour is not listening to the people, if they take this abrupt left turn.
Keep in mind that the Conservatives hammered Labour in the last election....in spite of UKIP getting almost 4,000,000 votes.
It was the SNP vote in Scotland that fucked labour, not UKIP.
Not true...UKIP won 14% of all votes cast in England.mLabour lost ground to UKIP in some of their traditional heartlands.
From what I could tell, Labour had your back if you were on benefits, but if you were a blue collar worker, they had nothing for you
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/labours-loss-has-been-ukips-gain/16962#.Vc8sE3D3arU
300000 new people joined the labour party in the last few months, most of which will support Jeremy Corbyn because they do care about things like too many good banks.
Anything to the left or to the right uses the same ATM no matter where they are. The middle class bank.
Does anyone seriously think SYRIZA will go after the Greek shipping magnates? Does anyone seriously think the IMF will?
'Tax the rich', from the left, means tax the f*ck out of anyone earning more than the average industrial wage. But extremely high earners will offset most of their income or simply become tax exiles. 'Reduce taxes', from the right, means (for example in Ireland) corporation tax of 12.5%, but the 52% marginal rate applies to most workers. Worse again, when big private business (e.g. banks) really screw up, who pays?
The UK seems to be moving towards a further left party and further right party. But regardless of which is in power, those who pay the bills will remain the same.
Quote from: muppet on August 15, 2015, 02:21:25 PM
Anything to the left or to the right uses the same ATM no matter where they are. The middle class bank.
Does anyone seriously think SYRIZA will go after the Greek shipping magnates? Does anyone seriously think the IMF will?
'Tax the rich', from the left, means tax the f*ck out of anyone earning more than the average industrial wage. But extremely high earners will offset most of their income or simply become tax exiles. 'Reduce taxes', from the right, means (for example in Ireland) corporation tax of 12.5%, but the 52% marginal rate applies to most workers. Worse again, when big private business (e.g. banks) really screw up, who pays?
The UK seems to be moving towards a further left party and further right party. But regardless of which is in power, those who pay the bills will remain the same.
Unfortunately I think you might be right
Quote from: Fionntamhnach on August 15, 2015, 04:24:06 PM
Quote from: whitey on August 15, 2015, 01:16:50 PM
Quote from: gallsman on August 15, 2015, 08:35:41 AM
Quote from: whitey on August 15, 2015, 03:17:39 AM
Don't have a dog in the fight, but the Conservatives are delighted he's running so far ahead.
That tells me that, once again, Labour is not listening to the people, if they take this abrupt left turn.
Keep in mind that the Conservatives hammered Labour in the last election....in spite of UKIP getting almost 4,000,000 votes.
It was the SNP vote in Scotland that fucked labour, not UKIP.
Not true...UKIP won 14% of all votes cast in England.mLabour lost ground to UKIP in some of their traditional heartlands.
From what I could tell, Labour had your back if you were on benefits, but if you were a blue collar worker, they had nothing for you
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/labours-loss-has-been-ukips-gain/16962#.Vc8sE3D3arU (http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/labours-loss-has-been-ukips-gain/16962#.Vc8sE3D3arU)
Spiked! as a critical review source is about as reliable as World Net Daily. Not somewhere for serious analysis.
Labour's vote share across the UK actually went up 1.5% compared to 0.8% for the Tories - in England this was +3.6% and +1.4% respectively. But for Labour, like the Lib Dems in 2010, in spite of an increasing vote share they ended up losing seats. Their collapse of the vote in Scotland was the most significant factor, but the turning of vote shares in the South-West of England was also crucial. Outside of Bristol, Exeter & Plymouth, Labour do not have much impact here and most seats are between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. The major collapse of the Liberal Democrats across Britain meant seat turnover to the Tories on a significant scale there.
UKIP did pick up a significant vote share in England & Wales but lost one of its sitting MPs, gained none, and their one MP that retained did so on a lower majority than either his by-election victory or his win as a Conservative in 2010. Without the cult of personality that is Nigel Farage, UKIP would quickly implode. They did notably well in parts of Northern England where Labour have long dominated and where the Tories aren't strong down to pushing buttons on the likes of immigration and moping up protest votes that would have previously gone to the Lib Dems. UKIP are such a rag bag of vastly different political outlooks that only have an anti-EU policy uniting them.
Ed Milliband was cast in many pro-Tory sections of the media as a dangerous leftist but to be honest, he wasn't that much different to much of what can be described as the moderate or centrist wing of the Conservatives. As an example when Milliband proposed freezing regulated energy prices, shitstorms surfaced. When Cameron proposed in the run up to the general election freezing regulated train fares, cricket chirps and tumbleweed from the same sources. There isn't much idealogical between the two parties significantly at present (though that might widen if Corbyn wins the Labour leadership contest), it's like Irish Man Utd & Liverpool followers getting on each other's tits.
The fact that the Conservatives managed to increase their vote at all, is quite an achievement given their leakage to UKIP. In most constituencies it didn't matter, as they were strongly Conservative constituencies to begin with and never going to lose. In some constituencies they did in fact eat into Labour support, but my understanding is that was the exception rather than the norm and that they-UKIP-took a lot more votes from the Conservatives and Lib Dems.
This whole "Labour Increased their voter share more than the Tories" while true, is irrelevant in the grand scale of things. You dont win elections by just appealing to your base, you have to appeal to the marginal voters and that doesn't seem to have happened this time round. Lib Dems were going to get wiped out and all those seats were up for grabs. in spite of leakage to UKIP the Conservatives managed to pick up a good slice of these seats
FFS labour even lost a seat in Wales, while the Tories picked up 3.
http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21650733-labour-has-lost-election-how-exactly-borderline-catastrophe
Thanks-that's a great explanation
So let me ask your opinion-is Labours recovery better served by a move to the left or to the right?
(I didn't follow the election too closely, but I did listen to the last debate in its entirety. Jaysus, Milliband soundedike a complete fvckin moron. My Labour voting sister and English husband actually had to turn off the TV he was that bad)
A landslide victory.
Interesting times ahead.
Quote from: Clov on September 12, 2015, 11:46:22 AM
A landslide victory.
Interesting times ahead.
[/
Chefs and politicians really overuse the word "passion".
Great work by the Conservatives.
Quote from: ashman on September 12, 2015, 11:51:45 AM
Quote from: Clov on September 12, 2015, 11:46:22 AM
A landslide victory.
Interesting times ahead.
Chefs and politicians really overuse the word "passion".
And people in Ballymena. But that's generally when they're talking about the weather.
Things will definitely get spicey if big brother Milliband comes home from New York .
Regardless whether you agreee with their policies or not, very important for a country imo anyway to have a strong left leaning / socialist party. (something Ireland never had).
Quote from: Canalman on September 12, 2015, 12:53:02 PM
Things will definitely get spicey if big brother Milliband comes home from New York .
Regardless whether you agreee with their policies or not, very important for a country imo anyway to have a strong left leaning / socialist party. (something Ireland never had).
Unless it leaves the scenario where there is no realistic competition for the Conservatives.
Quote from: Maguire01 on September 12, 2015, 12:21:52 PM
Quote from: ashman on September 12, 2015, 11:51:45 AM
Quote from: Clov on September 12, 2015, 11:46:22 AM
A landslide victory.
Interesting times ahead.
Chefs and politicians really overuse the word "passion".
And people in Ballymena. But that's generally when they're talking about the weather.
;D
Quote from: Maguire01 on September 12, 2015, 12:21:52 PM
Quote from: ashman on September 12, 2015, 11:51:45 AM
Quote from: Clov on September 12, 2015, 11:46:22 AM
A landslide victory.
Interesting times ahead.
Chefs and politicians really overuse the word "passion".
And people in Ballymena. But that's generally when they're talking about the weather.
And when they have their tea.
What's the story with corbyn and sinn fein? Him and Gerry big mates?
A politician with some principles, no wonder so many labour backbenchers in the UK are so upset. This guy might just ignite some people in the UK to vote that never voted before. Definitely interesting times ahead.
Quote from: mylestheslasher on September 12, 2015, 08:44:34 PM
A politician with some principles, no wonder so many labour backbenchers in the UK are so upset. This guy might just ignite some people in the UK to vote that never voted before. Definitely interesting times ahead.
Yes, the demise of Labour.
Won't last a year.Will never keep the party together,and policies idiotic and unworkable (except in fantasy land).
It is not enough to have good intentions, you have to have a plan for achieving then. Corbyn is a hurler on the ditch, maybe good at pointing out issues but we'll see if he can actually do anything about them.
Labour will never get elected unless they make some recovery in Scotland. That will never happen with right wing Blairites in charge.
And if I'm wrong and somehow it happens and you beat the Tories by becoming the Tories what's the point?????
This is a good day. Corbyn's candidature has engaged people and captured imaginations. None of his opponents had anything to offer. He might not be able to get Labour elected but none of the others had a prayer either.
Labour need to be left leaning and frankly anyone who disagrees with that needs to leave.
Unfortunately the left has lost its way. Giving people a helping hand while they get themselves back in the game, becomes handouts to scroungers who have no intention of making any effort. Helping refugees from a desperate situation becomes unlimited unrestricted immigration (see other thread). Since people do not accept the latter those espousing these policies will not get elected, so won't achieve anything.
One thing he does not look like is the leader of a Major British Political Party.
(https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQiWq0tjOYfIk74es-UuxkvGSGL9e9UWz99ym4XV5lmFeEdhH_4)
Left wing policies (much as compassion etc is to be admired) always lead to bankruptcy,as Thatcher once said,socialism is great as long as someone else pays for it.
With high taxes etc entrenpreneurs will leave in their droves creating mass unemployment etc
He's a fella I might have voted for when I was younger, single & idealistic, now being middle aged with mortgages, kids etc.. I look at the whole thing and think Labour have just lost the next 3 years and thon boy has as much chance as becoming PM as I have. I would fully expect a new Labour leader before the next General Election.
World is ill divided,always was always will be.Tax and spend always leads to bankruptcy.Of course Jeremy might alter his stance significantly,as pragmatism tends to set in the closer one gets to the levers of power,but I can't see him surviving more than a year.
Quote from: magpie seanie on September 13, 2015, 01:57:36 AM
Labour will never get elected unless they make some recovery in Scotland. That will never happen with right wing Blairites in charge.
And if I'm wrong and somehow it happens and you beat the Tories by becoming the Tories what's the point?????
This is a good day. Corbyn's candidature has engaged people and captured imaginations. None of his opponents had anything to offer. He might not be able to get Labour elected but none of the others had a prayer either.
Labour need to be left leaning and frankly anyone who disagrees with that needs to leave.
Exactly. Labour is not a football team were you have to support. Anyone who does not agree with its socialist principles shouldn't be in the Labour party any more than someone who is in Green party should be canvassing to cut down more trees. If Labour is not elected in the next election so be it, the alternative is a Labour party in name only.
Quote from: dferg on September 13, 2015, 09:47:50 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on September 13, 2015, 01:57:36 AM
Labour will never get elected unless they make some recovery in Scotland. That will never happen with right wing Blairites in charge.
And if I'm wrong and somehow it happens and you beat the Tories by becoming the Tories what's the point?????
This is a good day. Corbyn's candidature has engaged people and captured imaginations. None of his opponents had anything to offer. He might not be able to get Labour elected but none of the others had a prayer either.
Labour need to be left leaning and frankly anyone who disagrees with that needs to leave.
Exactly. Labour is not a football team were you have to support. Anyone who does not agree with its socialist principles shouldn't be in the Labour party any more than someone who is in Green party should be canvassing to cut down more trees. If Labour is not elected in the next election so be it, the alternative is a Labour party in name only.
Ideological zealotry rarely ends well, for a party or for an electorate.
Quote from: Syferus on September 13, 2015, 11:36:42 AM
Quote from: dferg on September 13, 2015, 09:47:50 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on September 13, 2015, 01:57:36 AM
Labour will never get elected unless they make some recovery in Scotland. That will never happen with right wing Blairites in charge.
And if I'm wrong and somehow it happens and you beat the Tories by becoming the Tories what's the point?????
This is a good day. Corbyn's candidature has engaged people and captured imaginations. None of his opponents had anything to offer. He might not be able to get Labour elected but none of the others had a prayer either.
Labour need to be left leaning and frankly anyone who disagrees with that needs to leave.
Exactly. Labour is not a football team were you have to support. Anyone who does not agree with its socialist principles shouldn't be in the Labour party any more than someone who is in Green party should be canvassing to cut down more trees. If Labour is not elected in the next election so be it, the alternative is a Labour party in name only.
Ideological zealotry rarely ends well, for a party or for an electorate.
Which policies specifically do you disagree with?
Quote from: T Fearon on September 13, 2015, 06:42:42 AM
Left wing policies (much as compassion etc is to be admired) always lead to bankruptcy,as Thatcher once said,socialism is great as long as someone else pays for it.
Any proof, figures, facts to support all that drivel, Tony? except for a quote from Thatcher, one of the most hated British establishment political leaders, ever. :D
The primary cause of business bankruptcy are the conditions that exist in the bust period after the boom, increase in competition, poor business practice etc etc
QuoteWith high taxes etc entrenpreneurs will leave in their droves creating mass unemployment etc
Some earners would be taxed at a higher rate
When income tax is high compared to company tax, the crafty entrepreneur will classify his/her earnings as company profit.
The entrepreneur has the flexibility to shift earnings but not the salaried employee.
Low tax rates do not have a plausible effect on a county's growth.
Countries that have high tax rates also have growth.
With corporations, the main economic drain is due to tax avoidance, do you have objections to a state at least trying to plug tax avoidance schemes? or do you support companies that earn billions in a state and somehow manage to avoid paying 90% of their rated tax?
Overall Corbyn's policies are quite mild and populist but seeks to make inroads to reduce inequality, both social and economic in regards to
housing, health, education and employment. It is not a question will those polices damage society, it is a question of a labour government's ability or will to actually implement them.
Respected research studies conclusively show that the social and economic conditions of citizens living in societies that effect a bit more social equality, are much improved over those in societies that harbor greater inequality.
Quote from: Main Street on September 13, 2015, 02:48:43 PM
Some earners would be taxed at a higher rate
When income tax is high compared to company tax, the crafty entrepreneur will classify his/her earnings as company profit.
The entrepreneur has the flexibility to shift earnings but not the salaried employee.
Low tax rates do not have a plausible effect on a county's growth.
Countries that have high tax rates also have growth.
With corporations, the main economic drain is due to tax avoidance, do you have objections to a state at least trying to plug tax avoidance schemes? or do you support companies that earn billions in a state and somehow manage to avoid paying 90% of their rated tax?
Overall Corbyn's policies are quite mild and populist but seeks to make inroads to reduce inequality, both social and economic in regards to
housing, health, education and employment. It is not a question will those polices damage society, it is a question of a labour government's ability or will to actually implement them.
Respected research studies conclusively show that the social and economic conditions of citizens living in societies that effect a bit more social equality, are much improved over those in societies that harbor greater inequality.
All economies grow, but for instance since 2000 the UK has grown by 32% and Denmark by 12%, the Blairite Labour might well have done better for its people than the Danes. I'll hazard a guess that Corbyn won't be talking much about growth, but rather about taking money off one set of people to give to another, by definition a zero sum game.
There is a real need for reform of taxes etc, but you need someone with strong focus on the detail to do this correctly and zealots do not have this.
It's sad how completely brainwashed people are. Ye do realise what happened in 2007/8? With no left wing governments to blame? Worldwide financial meltdown and then what happened? All the capitalist conservatives became socialist cow it suited them!!!! Take our debt and let the masses pay it!!!!
f**king ridiculous.
Quote from: magpie seanie on September 14, 2015, 01:17:33 AM
It's sad how completely brainwashed people are. Ye do realise what happened in 2007/8? With no left wing governments to blame? Worldwide financial meltdown and then what happened? All the capitalist conservatives became socialist cow it suited them!!!! Take our debt and let the masses pay it!!!!
f**king ridiculous.
This is a certainly a valid point.
Quote from: magpie seanie on September 14, 2015, 01:17:33 AM
It's sad how completely brainwashed people are. Ye do realise what happened in 2007/8? With no left wing governments to blame? Worldwide financial meltdown and then what happened? All the capitalist conservatives became socialist cow it suited them!!!! Take our debt and let the masses pay it!!!!
f**king ridiculous.
There are a few on this board who continually bash the "leftie loons" and give about their taxes going to welfare scroungers yet have absolutely no problem financing the gambling losses of the wealthy who continue to live lavish lifestyles.
Major problem with socialism around the world is by and large those it benefits are very quick to pull the ladder up with them when their lot improves.
Plenty here well able to go on about the leftie loons etc while being first in the queue to claim overtime, travel expenses and enjoy the weekend etc. All benefits extracted the hard way over the years.
Imo anyway, the best countries in the world to live in always had a strong socialist party (as in fairness they also had a strong conservative presence).
Quote from: Canalman on September 14, 2015, 10:48:43 AM
Major problem with socialism around the world is by and large those it benefits are very quick to pull the ladder up with them when their lot improves.
Plenty here well able to go on about the leftie loons etc while being first in the queue to claim overtime, travel expenses and enjoy the weekend etc. All benefits extracted the hard way over the years.
Imo anyway, the best countries in the world to live in always had a strong socialist party (as in fairness they also had a strong conservative presence).
I would agree with the last part of this. This boy is unlikely to get into power but something needs to be done to shake it up a bit at least. Milliband has set the labour party back years and the lib dems going into coalition has effectively killed them off.
The next party in line at present is the UKIP.
Labour at least will move some way back towards their real principles. Blair wasn't a real labour guy and the mroe time goes on the more you realise that he really wasn't a good guy at all.
If Corbyn isn't successful so be it but currently Labour are very much in the doldrums and are going backwards. They need a shake up and hopefully he'll shake up the tories.
Interestingly he also believes in a united ireland so I'm sure the unionists will love him.
From Twitter, what Corbyn and Cameron were up to in the 1980's:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/COtxbAWWgAAeXH2.jpg)
I didn't know Cameron was in Adam and the Ants!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9p__WmyAE3g
If Cameron is Prince Charming I guess that makes Osborne Baron Charming, or the future 18th Baronet Charming of Ballintaylor, County Tipperary, and Ballylemon, County Waterford.
Knew he reminded me of somebody...
Anybody that has watched Game of Thrones knows what's coming.. he'll have the Queen marched down Oxford Street in the nip shortly *Shame
When will he have his first Prime Ministers Questions?
Full house for that.
This week
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-is-crowdsourcing-questions-to-ask-david-cameron-at-pmqs-10498633.html
Quote from: Soup an Samajiz on September 14, 2015, 12:20:04 PM
Anybody that has watched Game of Thrones knows what's coming.. he'll have the Queen marched down Oxford Street in the nip shortly *Shame
The Daily Express has already anticipated that:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/COzNXwfWwAAS0BC.jpg)
Quote from: imtommygunn on September 14, 2015, 10:55:52 AM
Quote from: Canalman on September 14, 2015, 10:48:43 AM
Major problem with socialism around the world is by and large those it benefits are very quick to pull the ladder up with them when their lot improves.
Plenty here well able to go on about the leftie loons etc while being first in the queue to claim overtime, travel expenses and enjoy the weekend etc. All benefits extracted the hard way over the years.
Imo anyway, the best countries in the world to live in always had a strong socialist party (as in fairness they also had a strong conservative presence).
I would agree with the last part of this. This boy is unlikely to get into power but something needs to be done to shake it up a bit at least. Milliband has set the labour party back years and the lib dems going into coalition has effectively killed them off.
The next party in line at present is the UKIP.
Labour at least will move some way back towards their real principles. Blair wasn't a real labour guy and the mroe time goes on the more you realise that he really wasn't a good guy at all.
If Corbyn isn't successful so be it but currently Labour are very much in the doldrums and are going backwards. They need a shake up and hopefully he'll shake up the tories.
Interestingly he also believes in a united ireland so I'm sure the unionists will love him.
Blair destroyed the Labour party. Milliband was just trying to live up to that legacy, the muppet.
Quote from: magpie seanie on September 14, 2015, 03:12:01 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on September 14, 2015, 10:55:52 AM
Quote from: Canalman on September 14, 2015, 10:48:43 AM
Major problem with socialism around the world is by and large those it benefits are very quick to pull the ladder up with them when their lot improves.
Plenty here well able to go on about the leftie loons etc while being first in the queue to claim overtime, travel expenses and enjoy the weekend etc. All benefits extracted the hard way over the years.
Imo anyway, the best countries in the world to live in always had a strong socialist party (as in fairness they also had a strong conservative presence).
I would agree with the last part of this. This boy is unlikely to get into power but something needs to be done to shake it up a bit at least. Milliband has set the labour party back years and the lib dems going into coalition has effectively killed them off.
The next party in line at present is the UKIP.
Labour at least will move some way back towards their real principles. Blair wasn't a real labour guy and the mroe time goes on the more you realise that he really wasn't a good guy at all.
If Corbyn isn't successful so be it but currently Labour are very much in the doldrums and are going backwards. They need a shake up and hopefully he'll shake up the tories.
Interestingly he also believes in a united ireland so I'm sure the unionists will love him.
Blair destroyed the Labour party. Milliband was just trying to live up to that legacy, the muppet.
Think you will find that Blair made the Labour party electable by taking this step to the left, while it might please those who want to see something other than the middle ground hogs it will make them totally unelectable at the next GE.
All well and good having these great ideals in opposition when you don't have to do anything about them, its an all together different thing to make yourself relevant to the electorate and get yourself into government. Like or loathe Blair but that is exactly what he did for the labour party.
Quote from: NAG1 on September 14, 2015, 03:45:46 PM
Think you will find that Blair made the Labour party electable by taking this step to the left, while it might please those who want to see something other than the middle ground hogs it will make them totally unelectable at the next GE.
All well and good having these great ideals in opposition when you don't have to do anything about them, its an all together different thing to make yourself relevant to the electorate and get yourself into government. Like or loathe Blair but that is exactly what he did for the labour party.
Is this not similar to giving Jimmy Saville credit for his charity work back in the day when he was a cultural icon NAG? With hindsight people now have a very different perspective on the war criminal Tony B'liar'. No doubt the loathing for his years of schmaltzy spin doctering has played a huge part in getting JC elected. Every word TB spoke wood have drove JC's popularity up such is the distain in which he's held. I look forward to hearing a different 'voice' in politics thats not aligned to the establishment or the wealthy.
Quote from: theskull1 on September 14, 2015, 04:11:03 PM
Quote from: NAG1 on September 14, 2015, 03:45:46 PM
Think you will find that Blair made the Labour party electable by taking this step to the left, while it might please those who want to see something other than the middle ground hogs it will make them totally unelectable at the next GE.
All well and good having these great ideals in opposition when you don't have to do anything about them, its an all together different thing to make yourself relevant to the electorate and get yourself into government. Like or loathe Blair but that is exactly what he did for the labour party.
Is this not similar to giving Jimmy Saville credit for his charity work back in the day when he was a cultural icon NAG? With hindsight people now have a very different perspective on the war criminal Tony B'liar'. No doubt the loathing for his years of schmaltzy spin doctering has played a huge part in getting JC elected. Every word TB spoke wood have drove JC's popularity up such is the distain in which he's held. I look forward to hearing a different 'voice' in politics thats not aligned to the establishment or the wealthy.
Skull, I wasnt backing Tony Blair in any shape or form I was merely pointing to the fact that he got the labour party elected a feat that JC will never match.
It is also very easy to stand on the sidelines and shout the odds but what is the point if he doesnt get into power to do something about the ideals and values that he holds.
I am all for a fairer society with wealth and accountability stretching to all sectors, but in the current format this is not going to happen with JC leading the labour party.
Unless they do something like this though then they have went away from the very principles they were built on. Granted it may be a bit extreme but probably shows the apathy for where they have gone to.
As it stands labour are going nowhere. People are leaving the party to join SNP and the likes as labour people, yes labour people, are more aligned with SNP's principles than what their own party has evolved to.
Like I say extreme but ,I firmly believe, required. If nothing else it will shake them up.
Quote from: NAG1 on September 14, 2015, 03:45:46 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on September 14, 2015, 03:12:01 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on September 14, 2015, 10:55:52 AM
Quote from: Canalman on September 14, 2015, 10:48:43 AM
Major problem with socialism around the world is by and large those it benefits are very quick to pull the ladder up with them when their lot improves.
Plenty here well able to go on about the leftie loons etc while being first in the queue to claim overtime, travel expenses and enjoy the weekend etc. All benefits extracted the hard way over the years.
Imo anyway, the best countries in the world to live in always had a strong socialist party (as in fairness they also had a strong conservative presence).
I would agree with the last part of this. This boy is unlikely to get into power but something needs to be done to shake it up a bit at least. Milliband has set the labour party back years and the lib dems going into coalition has effectively killed them off.
The next party in line at present is the UKIP.
Labour at least will move some way back towards their real principles. Blair wasn't a real labour guy and the mroe time goes on the more you realise that he really wasn't a good guy at all.
If Corbyn isn't successful so be it but currently Labour are very much in the doldrums and are going backwards. They need a shake up and hopefully he'll shake up the tories.
Interestingly he also believes in a united ireland so I'm sure the unionists will love him.
Blair destroyed the Labour party. Milliband was just trying to live up to that legacy, the muppet.
Think you will find that Blair made the Labour party electable by taking this step to the left, while it might please those who want to see something other than the middle ground hogs it will make them totally unelectable at the next GE.
All well and good having these great ideals in opposition when you don't have to do anything about them, its an all together different thing to make yourself relevant to the electorate and get yourself into government. Like or loathe Blair but that is exactly what he did for the labour party.
Have you any idea how senseless that post is? You're suggesting Labour can take power with no seats in Scotland. Utterly ridiculous. Blair got away with it because Scots had no-one else to vote for but with the rise in the SNP, Labour don't have the handy seats in Scotland to prop them up. This would mean a massive swing from the Tories & Lib Dems would be needed in England and Scotland by beating them at their own game. I'm sorry - that's just ridiculous.
How does the old saying go "Campaign in fiction and govern in prose".
That's life! When people get into power they realise the things they wanted to do are pipe dreams. He'll not turn Labour around and as some seanie has mentioned the fact Scotland now have a strong SNP means Labour are basically gone for the foreseeable future unless there is some kind of major Conservative catastrophe!!
Quote from: screenexile on September 14, 2015, 05:15:07 PM
That's life! When people get into power they realise the things they wanted to do are pipe dreams. He'll not turn Labour around and as some seanie has mentioned the fact Scotland now have a strong SNP means Labour are basically gone for the foreseeable future unless there is some kind of major Conservative catastrophe!!
*cough* Brexit *cough'
Quote from: screenexile on September 14, 2015, 05:15:07 PM
How does the old saying go "Campaign in fiction and govern in prose".
That's life! When people get into power they realise the things they wanted to do are pipe dreams. He'll not turn Labour around and as some seanie has mentioned the fact Scotland now have a strong SNP means Labour are basically gone for the foreseeable future unless there is some kind of major Conservative catastrophe!!
The only chance they have is something on these lines though or obscurity beckons!
I'd be surprised if Corbyn is still leader in a couple of years. Given his track record and contempt for all things establishment he probably doesn't really aspire to be PM anyway. It's much easier to stand on the fringes with a placard and be a renegade than actually take on the responsibility and pressure that goes with leadership, to try to make changes. People who voted for him mustn't have been around in the early 1980s. He doesn't offer anything new or fresh, just tired rehashed old ideas that didn't wash with the general public back then. Labour's current failing is that the candidates standing against Corbyn were bland and uninspiring. The way forward for Labour is to weave their socialist values more subtly into plausible policies that resonate with Joe average. It's possible to do that.
Quote from: Armamike on September 14, 2015, 05:53:07 PM
I'd be surprised if Corbyn is still leader in a couple of years. Given his track record and contempt for all things establishment he probably doesn't really aspire to be PM anyway. It's much easier to stand on the fringes with a placard and be a renegade than actually take on the responsibility and pressure that goes with leadership, to try to make changes. People who voted for him mustn't have been around in the early 1980s. He doesn't offer anything new or fresh, just tired rehashed old ideas that didn't wash with the general public back then. Labour's current failing is that the candidates standing against Corbyn were bland and uninspiring. The way forward for Labour is to weave their socialist values more subtly into plausible policies that resonate with Joe average. It's possible to do that.
Name 1 of these socialist values?
He was elected as the other 3 candidates did not have any socialist values. They were Labour in name only.
Quote from: deiseach on September 14, 2015, 05:20:48 PM
Quote from: screenexile on September 14, 2015, 05:15:07 PM
That's life! When people get into power they realise the things they wanted to do are pipe dreams. He'll not turn Labour around and as some seanie has mentioned the fact Scotland now have a strong SNP means Labour are basically gone for the foreseeable future unless there is some kind of major Conservative catastrophe!!
*cough* Brexit *cough'
Or the invevitable result of the current money printing or whatever newfangled term they have for it now. Historically never ends prettily.
Throw in a property crash in the midlands and the south and I think JC and the Laobour Party are right back in the game.
24 things he believes in
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34209478
How many do you agree with?
I scored 23 with a may be on the other.
I got as far as this:
1. The deficit should be tackled - but not through spending cuts and not to an "arbitrary" deadline. Instead Corbyn would fund its reduction via higher taxes for the rich and a crackdown on tax avoidance and evasion while tackling "corporate welfare" and tax breaks for companies.
Then I thought another spoofer.
The deficit is caused by spending more than they take in. The solution, of course, is not to look at spending. ::) Just get someone else to pay for everything. Any halfwit, in any house, in any country, that is spending more than they earn, will look at cutting spending as well as seeking to increase revenue. But not a left-wing politician it seems.
The old running a household analogy for running a government, favoured by the tabloids.
The analogy breaks down because governments can increase income at will whereas my income is more or less fixed for the time being.
Quote from: Clov on September 14, 2015, 07:07:35 PM
The old running a household analogy for running a government, favoured by the tabloids.
The analogy breaks down because governments can increase income at will whereas my income is more or less fixed for the time being.
Really?
But if the Government 'increases income at will' by taxation, doesn't that reduce your income? Thus you move towards deficit. And you will cut spending, even if the Government is too stupid to, and thus the Government income will reduce. And so on, until this nonsense is voted out again.
Quote from: muppet on September 14, 2015, 06:50:26 PM
I got as far as this:
1. The deficit should be tackled - but not through spending cuts and not to an "arbitrary" deadline. Instead Corbyn would fund its reduction via higher taxes for the rich and a crackdown on tax avoidance and evasion while tackling "corporate welfare" and tax breaks for companies.
Then I thought another spoofer.
The deficit is caused by spending more than they take in. The solution, of course, is not to look at spending. ::) Just get someone else to pay for everything. Any halfwit, in any house, in any country, that is spending more than they earn, will look at cutting spending as well as seeking to increase revenue. But not a left-wing politician it seems.
I'd be inclinced to agree, in general. IN most western European countries government has reached the limit if its capacity, if it wishes to spend more on thing it must spend less on something else. However, Seanie's point above is valid in that corporate welfare is expenditure and not the best use of public money.
Quote from: armaghniac on September 14, 2015, 07:14:02 PM
Quote from: muppet on September 14, 2015, 06:50:26 PM
I got as far as this:
1. The deficit should be tackled - but not through spending cuts and not to an "arbitrary" deadline. Instead Corbyn would fund its reduction via higher taxes for the rich and a crackdown on tax avoidance and evasion while tackling "corporate welfare" and tax breaks for companies.
Then I thought another spoofer.
The deficit is caused by spending more than they take in. The solution, of course, is not to look at spending. ::) Just get someone else to pay for everything. Any halfwit, in any house, in any country, that is spending more than they earn, will look at cutting spending as well as seeking to increase revenue. But not a left-wing politician it seems.
I'd be inclinced to agree, in general. IN most western European countries government has reached the limit if its capacity, if it wishes to spend more on thing it must spend less on something else. However, Seanie's point above is valid in that corporate welfare is expenditure and not the best use of public money.
If by Corporate Welfare you mean bailing out the banks or any other sector I agree completely. The should live and particularly die by their own capitalist ideals.
Likewise, Private Finance Initiative deals in the NHS might be a "mess" that are costing the health service billions and any reasonable person would support ending these. But what if some are not a mess?
Quote from: armaghniac on September 14, 2015, 07:34:32 PM
Likewise, Private Finance Initiative deals in the NHS might be a "mess" that are costing the health service billions and any reasonable person would support ending these. But what if some are not a mess?
I am not familiar with these deals, but I do believe health and education should be free for all. However that doesn't mean you should simply throw the money down the drain, as we do in health in Ireland.
Everything is fine, privatisation of the health service is inevitable and an American model is desirable, just vote Tory then.
My point is that doctrinaire contensions that all health or transport should be public are not the answer. The measure should be which gives the citizens best service, I.e. Output measures.
Quote from: muppet on September 14, 2015, 07:11:20 PM
Quote from: Clov on September 14, 2015, 07:07:35 PM
The old running a household analogy for running a government, favoured by the tabloids.
The analogy breaks down because governments can increase income at will whereas my income is more or less fixed for the time being.
Really?
But if the Government 'increases income at will' by taxation, doesn't that reduce your income? Thus you move towards deficit. And you will cut spending, even if the Government is too stupid to, and thus the Government income will reduce. And so on, until this nonsense is voted out again.
I don't think this reductio ad absurdum holds because government spending in the right way (a major caveat, i know) can produce growth.
Quote from: armaghniac on September 14, 2015, 08:11:47 PM
My point is that doctrinaire contensions that all health or transport should be public are not the answer. The measure should be which gives the citizens best service, I.e. Output measures.
The government is not concerned about which gives the best value for money.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/selling-nhs-profit-full-list-4646154 (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/selling-nhs-profit-full-list-4646154)
Quote from: dferg on September 14, 2015, 08:23:12 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on September 14, 2015, 08:11:47 PM
My point is that doctrinaire contensions that all health or transport should be public are not the answer. The measure should be which gives the citizens best service, I.e. Output measures.
The government is not concerned about which gives the best value for money.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/selling-nhs-profit-full-list-4646154 (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/selling-nhs-profit-full-list-4646154)
THis suggests corruption. But aside from out and out corruption governments have a poor record of measuring the effectiveness of their spending. It is all about "budgets", not about results.
Quote from: Clov on September 14, 2015, 06:24:29 PM
24 things he believes in
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34209478
How many do you agree with?
I scored 23 with a may be on the other.
24 for me.
That's not really the point though. The point is he stand for SOMETHING. He's not just chasing power for powers sake. He wants to bring changes. He offers an alternative. There's nothing so depressing as knowing no matter what way you vote you're getting the same thing.
It's just possible enough people will wake up to this "head I win, tails you lose" capitalism we're under the yoke of. The numbers that signed up and joined or re-joined Labour are encouraging. Even if you don't agree with him - I think people being engaged in politics is a good thing.
24 great policies if it was 1972.
Quote from: magpie seanie on September 14, 2015, 09:12:53 PM
Quote from: Clov on September 14, 2015, 06:24:29 PM
24 things he believes in
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34209478
How many do you agree with?
I scored 23 with a may be on the other.
24 for me.
That's not really the point though. The point is he stand for SOMETHING. He's not just chasing power for powers sake. He wants to bring changes. He offers an alternative. There's nothing so depressing as knowing no matter what way you vote you're getting the same thing.
It's just possible enough people will wake up to this "head I win, tails you lose" capitalism we're under the yoke of. The numbers that signed up and joined or re-joined Labour are encouraging. Even if you don't agree with him - I think people being engaged in politics is a good thing.
The bit in bold... I do wonder. He entered this race not expecting to win. Did he really want to lead Labour? Does he really want to be PM? Does he believe that, in the unlikely event that he'd be elected PM, he could implement his wishlist? He has plenty of ideas that seem 'nice'. So did Tsipras.
Quote from: Clov on September 14, 2015, 07:07:35 PM
The old running a household analogy for running a government, favoured by the tabloids.
The analogy breaks down because governments can increase income at will whereas my income is more or less fixed for the time being.
I really hope he manages to introduce the idea that an economy is not a household into the conversation. If that's all he manages, his election will be a worthwhile exercise.
Quote from: deiseach on September 15, 2015, 08:59:47 AM
Quote from: Clov on September 14, 2015, 07:07:35 PM
The old running a household analogy for running a government, favoured by the tabloids.
The analogy breaks down because governments can increase income at will whereas my income is more or less fixed for the time being.
I really hope he manages to introduce the idea that an economy is not a household into the conversation. If that's all he manages, his election will be a worthwhile exercise.
Indeed. As a man who divorced his wife because of a dogmatic approach to children's schooling, it may be better that his government is not like his household.
Quote from: armaghniac on September 15, 2015, 10:27:27 AM
Indeed. As a man who divorced his wife because of a dogmatic approach to children's schooling, it may be better that his government is not like his household.
We're agreed then. Happy days.
Quote from: deiseach on September 15, 2015, 10:31:09 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on September 15, 2015, 10:27:27 AM
Indeed. As a man who divorced his wife because of a dogmatic approach to children's schooling, it may be better that his government is not like his household.
We're agreed then. Happy days.
It is a totally ridiculous debate to have anyway because he will never be elected.
Quote from: NAG1 on September 15, 2015, 10:38:13 AM
It is a totally ridiculous debate to have anyway because he will never be elected.
Killjoy.
Quote from: NAG1 on September 15, 2015, 10:38:13 AM
Quote from: deiseach on September 15, 2015, 10:31:09 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on September 15, 2015, 10:27:27 AM
Indeed. As a man who divorced his wife because of a dogmatic approach to children's schooling, it may be better that his government is not like his household.
We're agreed then. Happy days.
It is a totally ridiculous debate to have anyway because he will never be elected.
Stranger things have happened .
Look at Barack Obama, Enda Kenny, Margaret Thatcher, Jimmy Carter, William T Cosgrave, Harry Truman.
None of those would be anywhere near as amazing as Jeremy Corbyn getting to the top. Now Donald Trump...
Quote from: deiseach on September 15, 2015, 11:30:07 AM
None of those would be anywhere near as amazing as Jeremy Corbyn getting to the top. Now Donald Trump...
If the Torys cut deep enough in their austerity drive, they might drive the mondeo man into the arms of Corbyn, but Jeremy may need to soften his stances a bit to meet them halfway!
At least he's not a polished turd like Cameron, Milliband(x2) and Clegg!
The only circumstances I can see where Corbyn getting a shot at becoming PM is the aforementioned Brexit. The Tories are on a slow train to Splitsville, the only question is how they can contain the damage. I think Cameron's claim that he won't look for a third term is his way of dealing with the fallout from any potential split, i.e. I'll go now as the price for party unity. Of course, to quote another Donald, there's always the unknowns unknowns, but by definition it's hard to work out how they might help Corbyn.
Quote from: armaghniac on September 15, 2015, 10:27:27 AM
Quote from: deiseach on September 15, 2015, 08:59:47 AM
Quote from: Clov on September 14, 2015, 07:07:35 PM
The old running a household analogy for running a government, favoured by the tabloids.
The analogy breaks down because governments can increase income at will whereas my income is more or less fixed for the time being.
I really hope he manages to introduce the idea that an economy is not a household into the conversation. If that's all he manages, his election will be a worthwhile exercise.
Indeed. As a man who divorced his wife because of a dogmatic approach to children's schooling, it may be better that his government is not like his household.
Indeed for all the sneering at a simple comparison, there hasn't been any further analysis of dealing with a deficit, other than the suggestion that a Government can increase taxes at will and somehow this guarantees increased revenue without any consequences.
Someone asked about Labour's values.
It was supposed to be about workers. Fair wages for workers, housing for workers, shorter working hours for workers and safer working environments for workers. All noble and sensible stuff.
Now it is about high taxes for those who don't vote for Labour. That article on Corbyn has it as his Number One policy. We see it with the Left in Ireland too. They insist they will tax the rich and give the money to 'the most vulnerable in society', who invariably are their own voters. Most people have an image of 'the rich' as those ones in the magazines, with their yachts in Monaco, who don't work and who wouldn't miss the money.
The reality is that 'the rich' is anyone who earns more than the average industrial wage. (This was confirmed by an Irish Minister to a colleague of mine in the last 2 years - and Irish Labour aren't as left-wing as others). Thus they are intent on punishing up to 50% of earners.
Labour and the left used to be about workers, but now they are about screwing half of them. Whether in the UK or here, unless they return to their founding values of representing workers, instead of dividing them and setting out to screw half of them, I don't see them holding electoral sway in the modern world.
Quote from: muppet on September 15, 2015, 12:08:35 PM
Indeed for all the sneering at a simple comparison, there hasn't been any further analysis of dealing with a deficit, other than the suggestion that a Government can increase taxes at will and somehow this guarantees increased revenue without any consequences.
The problem with the household analogy is not that it is simple, it is that it is wrong.
Quote from: deiseach on September 15, 2015, 12:11:56 PM
Quote from: muppet on September 15, 2015, 12:08:35 PM
Indeed for all the sneering at a simple comparison, there hasn't been any further analysis of dealing with a deficit, other than the suggestion that a Government can increase taxes at will and somehow this guarantees increased revenue without any consequences.
The problem with the household analogy is not that it is simple, it is that it is wrong.
The analogy is not about a household, it is simply about balancing the books. The only time the average dope has to do this is in his household. Hence why it is used (and maybe overused).
Quote from: muppet on September 15, 2015, 12:16:25 PM
The analogy is not about a household, it is simply about balancing the books. The only time the average dope has to do this is in his household. Hence why it is used (and maybe overused).
Britain has had a national debt since 1694. How come it has not once gone bankrupt?
Quote from: deiseach on September 15, 2015, 12:20:48 PM
Quote from: muppet on September 15, 2015, 12:16:25 PM
The analogy is not about a household, it is simply about balancing the books. The only time the average dope has to do this is in his household. Hence why it is used (and maybe overused).
Britain has had a national debt since 1694. How come it has not once gone bankrupt?
Is this always the case: debt = bankruptcy
Anyway, you are trying to trap me into the analogy again. So best of luck with that.
Quote from: muppet on September 15, 2015, 12:08:35 PM
It was supposed to be about workers. Fair wages for workers, housing for workers, shorter working hours for workers and safer working environments for workers. All noble and sensible stuff.
Sensible BS. How many people have issues with safety at work? Housing for workers? are companies going to give all there workers houses. Shorter working hours, it's just a soundbite. The Conservatives are already talking about introducing a living wage.
Quote from: Canalman on September 15, 2015, 11:27:24 AM
Quote from: NAG1 on September 15, 2015, 10:38:13 AM
Quote from: deiseach on September 15, 2015, 10:31:09 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on September 15, 2015, 10:27:27 AM
Indeed. As a man who divorced his wife because of a dogmatic approach to children's schooling, it may be better that his government is not like his household.
We're agreed then. Happy days.
It is a totally ridiculous debate to have anyway because he will never be elected.
Stranger things have happened .
Look at Barack Obama, Enda Kenny, Margaret Thatcher, Jimmy Carter, William T Cosgrave, Harry Truman.
Assuming Cameron keeps to his pledge to not lead the Tories into the next election then the certainty about them is on shaky ground. I think Cameron was a huge reason they won last time and there aren't any potential leaders from where I'm sitting that you'd say - yep, they'll perform well in an election.
It's not very likely Corbyn will get elected but it wasn't very likely he'd win the leadership at the outset. Labour offered no alternative until now.....maybe people want an alternative.
Quote from: dferg on September 15, 2015, 12:30:53 PM
Quote from: muppet on September 15, 2015, 12:08:35 PM
It was supposed to be about workers. Fair wages for workers, housing for workers, shorter working hours for workers and safer working environments for workers. All noble and sensible stuff.
Sensible BS. How many people have issues with safety at work? Housing for workers? are companies going to give all there workers houses. Shorter working hours, it's just a soundbite. The Conservatives are already talking about introducing a living wage.
The question was about Labour's 'values'.
That is what it was about when Labour was formed in 1900. Michael Davitt was also influential at the time and he wanted land nationalisation. Sensible stuff, at the time. But times, naturally enough, have changed. Thus the values need to be updated.
Housing is still a problem, but not in the way it was when Labour was formed. Young workers can't afford houses in Dublin, unless they bought pre-2008 in which case they are up to their necks in debt. So housing for workers is still a problem, albeit in a very different way. Safety at work was a much bigger issue then than now. Think of the mines and old factories that people worked in. It not nearly as big an issue today, but the point remains that Labour was supposed to be about the workers.
And as for shorter working hours. That has significantly reduced over the decades. So they have had some success there although it could be argued that Britain just followed the trend of the rest of the 1st world.
Quote from: muppet on September 15, 2015, 12:30:01 PM
Is this always the case: debt = bankruptcy
Anyway, you are trying to trap me into the analogy again. So best of luck with that.
Debt clearly does not always equal bankruptcy, and given the ridiculously low borrowing costs that the UK has enjoyed over the last decade or so, the folly was not taking on more debt to compensate for the lack of demand in the economy as so many private citizens started deleveraging at the same time. Instead we had a focus on 'balancing the books' which flowed from the analogy with household debt. I think such a policy is well worth sneering at.
Quote from: deiseach on September 15, 2015, 12:11:56 PM
Quote from: muppet on September 15, 2015, 12:08:35 PM
Indeed for all the sneering at a simple comparison, there hasn't been any further analysis of dealing with a deficit, other than the suggestion that a Government can increase taxes at will and somehow this guarantees increased revenue without any consequences.
The problem with the household analogy is not that it is simple, it is that it is wrong.
Correct. The old household analogy is subject to the usual idealogies. What if a prudent household has an illness in the family, an expensive one to cure? Socialism dicatates that the state should/ could step in and help. Extreme capitalism says the opposite.
Household analogy also based on full employment. Rarely the case now.
Quote from: deiseach on September 15, 2015, 12:40:36 PM
Quote from: muppet on September 15, 2015, 12:30:01 PM
Is this always the case: debt = bankruptcy
Anyway, you are trying to trap me into the analogy again. So best of luck with that.
Debt clearly does not always equal bankruptcy, and given the ridiculously low borrowing costs that the UK has enjoyed over the last decade or so, the folly was not taking on more debt to compensate for the lack of demand in the economy as so many private citizens started deleveraging at the same time. Instead we had a focus on 'balancing the books' which flowed from the analogy with household debt. I think such a policy is well worth sneering at.
I don't follow. Are you sneering at the private citizens for starting de-leveraging? Or at a policy which led them to start de-leveraging??
Quote from: muppet on September 15, 2015, 12:43:03 PM
I don't follow. Are you sneering at the private citizens for starting de-leveraging? Or at a policy which led them to start de-leveraging??
I am sneering at the policy that says the government should balance the books at the same time that so many private citizens are doing the same. It's a recipe for stunting economic recovery, which is exactly what happened.
Quote from: Canalman on September 15, 2015, 12:41:16 PM
Quote from: deiseach on September 15, 2015, 12:11:56 PM
Quote from: muppet on September 15, 2015, 12:08:35 PM
Indeed for all the sneering at a simple comparison, there hasn't been any further analysis of dealing with a deficit, other than the suggestion that a Government can increase taxes at will and somehow this guarantees increased revenue without any consequences.
The problem with the household analogy is not that it is simple, it is that it is wrong.
Correct. The old household analogy is subject to the usual idealogies. What if a prudent household has an illness in the family, an expensive one to cure? Socialism dicatates that the state should/ could step in and help. Extreme capitalism says the opposite.
Household analogy also based on full employment. Rarely the case now.
That's different kettle of fish.
F*ck, I'll get slaughtered now for mixing my idioms with my analogies!
Quote from: Canalman on September 15, 2015, 12:41:16 PM
Correct. The old household analogy is subject to the usual idealogies. What if a prudent household has an illness in the family, an expensive one to cure? Socialism dicatates that the state should/ could step in and help. Extreme capitalism says the opposite.
Household analogy also based on full employment. Rarely the case now.
The analogy would work if the usual response to a member of the household losing their job would be to make another member of the household lose their job. Madness.
Quote from: deiseach on September 15, 2015, 12:20:48 PM
Quote from: muppet on September 15, 2015, 12:16:25 PM
The analogy is not about a household, it is simply about balancing the books. The only time the average dope has to do this is in his household. Hence why it is used (and maybe overused).
Britain has had a national debt since 1694. How come it has not once gone bankrupt?
Because they kept stealing stuff from countries that they invaded and merged into their empire?
Quote from: muppet on September 15, 2015, 12:08:35 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on September 15, 2015, 10:27:27 AM
Quote from: deiseach on September 15, 2015, 08:59:47 AM
Quote from: Clov on September 14, 2015, 07:07:35 PM
The old running a household analogy for running a government, favoured by the tabloids.
The analogy breaks down because governments can increase income at will whereas my income is more or less fixed for the time being.
I really hope he manages to introduce the idea that an economy is not a household into the conversation. If that's all he manages, his election will be a worthwhile exercise.
Indeed. As a man who divorced his wife because of a dogmatic approach to children's schooling, it may be better that his government is not like his household.
Indeed for all the sneering at a simple comparison, there hasn't been any further analysis of dealing with a deficit, other than the suggestion that a Government can increase taxes at will and somehow this guarantees increased revenue without any consequences.
Someone asked about Labour's values.
It was supposed to be about workers. Fair wages for workers, housing for workers, shorter working hours for workers and safer working environments for workers. All noble and sensible stuff.
Now it is about high taxes for those who don't vote for Labour. That article on Corbyn has it as his Number One policy. We see it with the Left in Ireland too. They insist they will tax the rich and give the money to 'the most vulnerable in society', who invariably are their own voters. Most people have an image of 'the rich' as those ones in the magazines, with their yachts in Monaco, who don't work and who wouldn't miss the money.
The reality is that 'the rich' is anyone who earns more than the average industrial wage. (This was confirmed by an Irish Minister to a colleague of mine in the last 2 years - and Irish Labour aren't as left-wing as others). Thus they are intent on punishing up to 50% of earners.
Labour and the left used to be about workers, but now they are about screwing half of them. Whether in the UK or here, unless they return to their founding values of representing workers, instead of dividing them and setting out to screw half of them, I don't see them holding electoral sway in the modern world.
That's not a fair assessment at all. It's about having a society where those who can afford to make a greater contribution to the costs of running services for everyone do so. I think in a post financial collapse era - where certainly the lower earners in society had absolutely nothing to do with the mess or the additional debt created - a greater share of the additional burden should be carried by the more well off. I don't think this can be argued. The cruelty of imposing measures like USC on guiltless people who were struggling anyway is beyond belief.
"Giving money to poor people"....."punishing 50% of workers".....it's sweeping inaccurate mantras like this that falsely label any policies not part of the capitalist groupthink cartel. I believe in a society that is fair for all - not one that barely exists and even then it's only for when things go wrong for the top dogs.
Quote from: deiseach on September 15, 2015, 12:45:53 PM
Quote from: muppet on September 15, 2015, 12:43:03 PM
I don't follow. Are you sneering at the private citizens for starting de-leveraging? Or at a policy which led them to start de-leveraging??
I am sneering at the policy that says the government should balance the books at the same time that so many private citizens are doing the same. It's a recipe for stunting economic recovery, which is exactly what happened.
So you think the UK, which has printed money for the last 7 years, should borrow and spend more?
The UK QE policy in 2009 created £200bn and increased economic output by 1.5%-2%. Now I am no economist and surely an increase is a good thing, right?
Here is an interesting graph:
(https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fdollardaze.org%2Fblog%2Fposts%2F00583%2Fgbp.png&f=1)
That is the total value of sterling in circulation. Compare that with the £200bn they printed in the 2009 QE. Like I said I am no economist, but I don't think that was a government 'balancing the books' and even worse, it only bought a tiny amount of growth.
Quote from: magpie seanie on September 15, 2015, 12:54:57 PM
Quote from: muppet on September 15, 2015, 12:08:35 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on September 15, 2015, 10:27:27 AM
Quote from: deiseach on September 15, 2015, 08:59:47 AM
Quote from: Clov on September 14, 2015, 07:07:35 PM
The old running a household analogy for running a government, favoured by the tabloids.
The analogy breaks down because governments can increase income at will whereas my income is more or less fixed for the time being.
I really hope he manages to introduce the idea that an economy is not a household into the conversation. If that's all he manages, his election will be a worthwhile exercise.
Indeed. As a man who divorced his wife because of a dogmatic approach to children's schooling, it may be better that his government is not like his household.
Indeed for all the sneering at a simple comparison, there hasn't been any further analysis of dealing with a deficit, other than the suggestion that a Government can increase taxes at will and somehow this guarantees increased revenue without any consequences.
Someone asked about Labour's values.
It was supposed to be about workers. Fair wages for workers, housing for workers, shorter working hours for workers and safer working environments for workers. All noble and sensible stuff.
Now it is about high taxes for those who don't vote for Labour. That article on Corbyn has it as his Number One policy. We see it with the Left in Ireland too. They insist they will tax the rich and give the money to 'the most vulnerable in society', who invariably are their own voters. Most people have an image of 'the rich' as those ones in the magazines, with their yachts in Monaco, who don't work and who wouldn't miss the money.
The reality is that 'the rich' is anyone who earns more than the average industrial wage. (This was confirmed by an Irish Minister to a colleague of mine in the last 2 years - and Irish Labour aren't as left-wing as others). Thus they are intent on punishing up to 50% of earners.
Labour and the left used to be about workers, but now they are about screwing half of them. Whether in the UK or here, unless they return to their founding values of representing workers, instead of dividing them and setting out to screw half of them, I don't see them holding electoral sway in the modern world.
That's not a fair assessment at all. It's about having a society where those who can afford to make a greater contribution to the costs of running services for everyone do so. I think in a post financial collapse era - where certainly the lower earners in society had absolutely nothing to do with the mess or the additional debt created - a greater share of the additional burden should be carried by the more well off. I don't think this can be argued. The cruelty of imposing measures like USC on guiltless people who were struggling anyway is beyond belief.
"Giving money to poor people"....."punishing 50% of workers".....it's sweeping inaccurate mantras like this that falsely label any policies not part of the capitalist groupthink cartel. I believe in a society that is fair for all - not one that barely exists and even then it's only for when things go wrong for the top dogs.
Seanie you are guilty of similar sweeping inaccurate mantras. 'those who can afford to make a greater contribution' - [this is measured ONLY on income - what about his debts, size of family, money inherited etc] ... 'the lower earners in society had absolutely nothing to do with the mess or the additional debt created' [neither did most of us - why should I have to pay and the fella next door doesn't?]...
The spin is that there is hidden bunch of rich people out there that can be tapped to pay our way without any consequences. The reality is that they will have to tax everyone.
Quote from: deiseach on September 15, 2015, 12:48:53 PM
Quote from: Canalman on September 15, 2015, 12:41:16 PM
Correct. The old household analogy is subject to the usual idealogies. What if a prudent household has an illness in the family, an expensive one to cure? Socialism dicatates that the state should/ could step in and help. Extreme capitalism says the opposite.
Household analogy also based on full employment. Rarely the case now.
The analogy would work if the usual response to a member of the household losing their job would be to make another member of the household lose their job. Madness.
Ironically that household would probably be far better off if everyone was unemployed.
The UK should have borrowed more and spent more. Growth of 1.5%-2% was puny considering the amount by which output fell during the recession. And here's the thing. The oh-so-ruthless markets never once wavered in their demand for British government debt. No matter how low the interest charged and how much they supposedly debased sterling with quantitative easing, the red braces snapped up British bonds. Future economists will look back on this period when the British government, given the low rates and the likely prospects for inflation, at times turned their nose up at free money and wonder what the hell went on.
I think the Keynesian counterc cyclical point of view that expanding government spending during a recession is a fairly good way of getting out of that recession - as the inverse (keeping tight spending controls during times of growth) to stave off a crash, has also been proved (fairly well in our case).
But beyond my simple reading of it - surely it is a case that it is what the government is spending it on, rahter than how much it prints that counts. If it is printing money to buy bonds or prop up banks than that type of spending does not have a great effect on growth or the real economy. However, if you insist that private bondholders bear the brunt of their gamble, whilst directing government spending towards large capital and infrastructure projects, you both reduce the amount the government directly owes, whilst increasing growth in the real economy. Hence the New Deal and Corbyn's own People's QE? Isn't this the nub of the argument? that whilst printing money in the US and Europe has been going at the same rate as it would have in the 30s, the printed money has been diverted to prop up the banking system, whilst government spending is slashed at a time of historically low borrowing rates?
Quote from: easytiger95 on September 15, 2015, 01:14:20 PM
I think the Keynesian counterc cyclical point of view that expanding government spending during a recession is a fairly good way of getting out of that recession - as the inverse (keeping tight spending controls during times of growth) to stave off a crash, has also been proved (fairly well in our case).
But beyond my simple reading of it - surely it is a case that it is what the government is spending it on, rahter than how much it prints that counts. If it is printing money to buy bonds or prop up banks than that type of spending does not have a great effect on growth or the real economy. However, if you insist that private bondholders bear the brunt of their gamble, whilst directing government spending towards large capital and infrastructure projects, you both reduce the amount the government directly owes, whilst increasing growth in the real economy. Hence the New Deal and Corbyn's own People's QE? Isn't this the nub of the argument? that whilst printing money in the US and Europe has been going at the same rate as it would have in the 30s, the printed money has been diverted to prop up the banking system, whilst government spending is slashed at a time of historically low borrowing rates?
Surely, no matter how you look at it, the problem is too much debt? Whether it is in the banking system or Government borrowing, or QE??
More debt is hardly the solution.
Quote from: muppet on September 15, 2015, 01:03:22 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on September 15, 2015, 12:54:57 PM
Quote from: muppet on September 15, 2015, 12:08:35 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on September 15, 2015, 10:27:27 AM
Quote from: deiseach on September 15, 2015, 08:59:47 AM
Quote from: Clov on September 14, 2015, 07:07:35 PM
The old running a household analogy for running a government, favoured by the tabloids.
The analogy breaks down because governments can increase income at will whereas my income is more or less fixed for the time being.
I really hope he manages to introduce the idea that an economy is not a household into the conversation. If that's all he manages, his election will be a worthwhile exercise.
Indeed. As a man who divorced his wife because of a dogmatic approach to children's schooling, it may be better that his government is not like his household.
Indeed for all the sneering at a simple comparison, there hasn't been any further analysis of dealing with a deficit, other than the suggestion that a Government can increase taxes at will and somehow this guarantees increased revenue without any consequences.
Someone asked about Labour's values.
It was supposed to be about workers. Fair wages for workers, housing for workers, shorter working hours for workers and safer working environments for workers. All noble and sensible stuff.
Now it is about high taxes for those who don't vote for Labour. That article on Corbyn has it as his Number One policy. We see it with the Left in Ireland too. They insist they will tax the rich and give the money to 'the most vulnerable in society', who invariably are their own voters. Most people have an image of 'the rich' as those ones in the magazines, with their yachts in Monaco, who don't work and who wouldn't miss the money.
The reality is that 'the rich' is anyone who earns more than the average industrial wage. (This was confirmed by an Irish Minister to a colleague of mine in the last 2 years - and Irish Labour aren't as left-wing as others). Thus they are intent on punishing up to 50% of earners.
Labour and the left used to be about workers, but now they are about screwing half of them. Whether in the UK or here, unless they return to their founding values of representing workers, instead of dividing them and setting out to screw half of them, I don't see them holding electoral sway in the modern world.
That's not a fair assessment at all. It's about having a society where those who can afford to make a greater contribution to the costs of running services for everyone do so. I think in a post financial collapse era - where certainly the lower earners in society had absolutely nothing to do with the mess or the additional debt created - a greater share of the additional burden should be carried by the more well off. I don't think this can be argued. The cruelty of imposing measures like USC on guiltless people who were struggling anyway is beyond belief.
"Giving money to poor people"....."punishing 50% of workers".....it's sweeping inaccurate mantras like this that falsely label any policies not part of the capitalist groupthink cartel. I believe in a society that is fair for all - not one that barely exists and even then it's only for when things go wrong for the top dogs.
Seanie you are guilty of similar sweeping inaccurate mantras. 'those who can afford to make a greater contribution' - [this is measured ONLY on income - what about his debts, size of family, money inherited etc] ... 'the lower earners in society had absolutely nothing to do with the mess or the additional debt created' [neither did most of us - why should I have to pay and the fella next door doesn't?]...
The spin is that there is hidden bunch of rich people out there that can be tapped to pay our way without any consequences. The reality is that they will have to tax everyone.
They're not hidden but they are protected. Can you cut a cheque every year to top up your (large) pension fund while at the same time maximising your tax relief? There are loads of inequities like this. Saving for a pension is good but how much of a pension do you need? How much is just plain abuse of the system? This is based on % of income so people earning more can benefit more. There are also loads of things like childrens allowance that are paid out to people who don't need it - there's plenty of scope to make changes. Unless you believe the fairy story that they'll all run away and leave us with no jobs cos we're too stupid to organise anything ourselves!
Quote from: magpie seanie on September 15, 2015, 02:03:42 PM
They're not hidden but they are protected. Can you cut a cheque every year to top up your (large) pension fund while at the same time maximising your tax relief? There are loads of inequities like this. Saving for a pension is good but how much of a pension do you need? How much is just plain abuse of the system? This is based on % of income so people earning more can benefit more. There are also loads of things like childrens allowance that are paid out to people who don't need it - there's plenty of scope to make changes. Unless you believe the fairy story that they'll all run away and leave us with no jobs cos we're too stupid to organise anything ourselves!
I agree on children's allowance. It can also be argued that it serves to increase birth rates in demographics that need high birth rates like a hole in the head. Those high birth rates increase pressure on resources and in particular jobs, in areas that really don't need that.
As for the pensions.
Tax relief is slightly misleading. If I put €10,000 into my pension last year the government missed out on the tax. Fair enough. But when I retire and draw down the pension I will pay full income tax. Thus for most of the money, the tax is deferred, not completely conceded. Also the 0.6% pensions levy on private funds means that about 1/3 of that €10,000 went to the Government anyway.
But for senior civil servants and politicians the story is completely different. They get their big pensions despite never having funded them (the recently introduced pension levy on PS workers would only pay a fraction of the costs for politicians in particular and senior civil servants). And of course because there is no fund, they don't have to worry about the pension levy that takes 1/3 of my contributions.
So I agree there is massive scope for fairness in pensions too.
Quote from: muppet on September 15, 2015, 01:03:22 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on September 15, 2015, 12:54:57 PM
Quote from: muppet on September 15, 2015, 12:08:35 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on September 15, 2015, 10:27:27 AM
Quote from: deiseach on September 15, 2015, 08:59:47 AM
Quote from: Clov on September 14, 2015, 07:07:35 PM
The old running a household analogy for running a government, favoured by the tabloids.
The analogy breaks down because governments can increase income at will whereas my income is more or less fixed for the time being.
I really hope he manages to introduce the idea that an economy is not a household into the conversation. If that's all he manages, his election will be a worthwhile exercise.
Indeed. As a man who divorced his wife because of a dogmatic approach to children's schooling, it may be better that his government is not like his household.
Indeed for all the sneering at a simple comparison, there hasn't been any further analysis of dealing with a deficit, other than the suggestion that a Government can increase taxes at will and somehow this guarantees increased revenue without any consequences.
Someone asked about Labour's values.
It was supposed to be about workers. Fair wages for workers, housing for workers, shorter working hours for workers and safer working environments for workers. All noble and sensible stuff.
Now it is about high taxes for those who don't vote for Labour. That article on Corbyn has it as his Number One policy. We see it with the Left in Ireland too. They insist they will tax the rich and give the money to 'the most vulnerable in society', who invariably are their own voters. Most people have an image of 'the rich' as those ones in the magazines, with their yachts in Monaco, who don't work and who wouldn't miss the money.
The reality is that 'the rich' is anyone who earns more than the average industrial wage. (This was confirmed by an Irish Minister to a colleague of mine in the last 2 years - and Irish Labour aren't as left-wing as others). Thus they are intent on punishing up to 50% of earners.
Labour and the left used to be about workers, but now they are about screwing half of them. Whether in the UK or here, unless they return to their founding values of representing workers, instead of dividing them and setting out to screw half of them, I don't see them holding electoral sway in the modern world.
That's not a fair assessment at all. It's about having a society where those who can afford to make a greater contribution to the costs of running services for everyone do so. I think in a post financial collapse era - where certainly the lower earners in society had absolutely nothing to do with the mess or the additional debt created - a greater share of the additional burden should be carried by the more well off. I don't think this can be argued. The cruelty of imposing measures like USC on guiltless people who were struggling anyway is beyond belief.
"Giving money to poor people"....."punishing 50% of workers".....it's sweeping inaccurate mantras like this that falsely label any policies not part of the capitalist groupthink cartel. I believe in a society that is fair for all - not one that barely exists and even then it's only for when things go wrong for the top dogs.
Seanie you are guilty of similar sweeping inaccurate mantras. 'those who can afford to make a greater contribution' - [this is measured ONLY on income - what about his debts, size of family, money inherited etc] ... 'the lower earners in society had absolutely nothing to do with the mess or the additional debt created' [neither did most of us - why should I have to pay and the fella next door doesn't?]...
The spin is that there is hidden bunch of rich people out there that can be tapped to pay our way without any consequences. The reality is that they will have to tax everyone.
but there IS a hidden bunch of rich people out there that can be tapped. Think about it, Ireland has just gone through the worst economic crisis in her history (possibly the worst of any country in the EU) . A crisis precipitated by banks and developers yet now all the headlines are about housing shortages. ffs ..how f**king dumb can we be.They still have their money and they are trying to start the whole cycle off again. Johnny Ronan marches out of bankruptcy thumbing his nose at everyone (although one cannot but admire his chutzpah with that "controversial" statement ;D)
Quote from: Kursk on October 31, 2015, 03:47:59 AM
but there IS a hidden bunch of rich people out there that can be tapped. Think about it, Ireland has just gone through the worst economic crisis in her history (possibly the worst of any country in the EU) . A crisis precipitated by banks and developers yet now all the headlines are about housing shortages. ffs ..how f**king dumb can we be.They still have their money and they are trying to start the whole cycle off again. Johnny Ronan marches out of bankruptcy thumbing his nose at everyone (although one cannot but admire his chutzpah with that "controversial" statement ;D)
Ok.
How many Johnny Ronan's are there and how are you going to take €64 Billion off them?
Quote from: deiseach on September 15, 2015, 01:12:43 PM
The UK should have borrowed more and spent more. Growth of 1.5%-2% was puny considering the amount by which output fell during the recession. And here's the thing. The oh-so-ruthless markets never once wavered in their demand for British government debt. No matter how low the interest charged and how much they supposedly debased sterling with quantitative easing, the red braces snapped up British bonds. Future economists will look back on this period when the British government, given the low rates and the likely prospects for inflation, at times turned their nose up at free money and wonder what the hell went on.
QE was the real borrowing tbh .