All things Labour Party

[aintforever]

 

Surely it's only fair you show a capitalist version, where there are loads more beggars and the fat bloke tells them to f*ck off and die.

[Guided Missile]

Surely it's only fair you show a capitalist version, where there are loads more beggars and the fat bloke tells them to f*ck off and die.

Here it is, numbnuts:

 

[Hockey_saint]

Gotta love someone using the Greece example...Remind me, what part did the Greek banks have to do with that again. If Labour can't persuade "middle England" with slightly left values then it just shows what type of country we've turned into doesn't it. As for the comment earlier about it only being the middle classes who claim DLA and that it should be taxed. I can tell you for nothing, you are talking out of your backside.

 

I suppose it was a nice experiment for 60-odd years and it's back to screwing other people other (mostly the worse off)...shame we can't do it to the rest of the world any more? And as for Tony Blair? as Corbyn said, there's an inquiry waiting for him.

[aintforever]

Here it is, numbnuts:

 

 

People with more money than they need, giving it to those in need - very much in the spirit of socialism.

 

If more people were like him instead of being utter c@nts like you we wouldn't have to pay as much tax as we do.

[Whitey Grandad]

People with more money than they need, giving it to those in need - very much in the spirit of socialism.

 

If more people were like him instead of being utter c@nts like you we wouldn't have to pay as much tax as we do.

 

So you're in favour of giving money to people for doing nothing?

[aintforever]

So you're in favour of giving money to people for doing nothing?

 

I'm in favour of helping people in need of help yes.

[Hockey_saint]

So you're in favour of giving money to people for doing nothing?

 

See, it's that mentality that everyone's a shirker that's the issue here.

 

So you'll never believe that there are genuinely poor people that need help then? Or will you just write them off like those that actually are? because what you are saying is "sod those that actually do need help because some people don't need it and get what they don't require"

 

What a petty excuse.

[Whitey Grandad]

See, it's that mentality that everyone's a shirker that's the issue here.

 

So you'll never believe that there are genuinely poor people that need help then? Or will you just write them off like those that actually are? because what you are saying is "sod those that actually do need help because some people don't need it and get what they don't require"

 

What a petty excuse.

 

It depends on what you mean by 'help'. Do you help them by giving them money or by helping them to find work? Just giving money for nothing doesn't help anybody.

[Guided Missile]

If there were no poor people around, who would wash my Range Rover, that's what I want to know....

[badgerx16]

It depends on what you mean by 'help'. Do you help them by giving them money or by helping them to find work? Just giving money for nothing doesn't help anybody.

What if they can't work ?

[badgerx16]

If there were no poor people around, who would wash my Range Rover, that's what I want to know....

 

Are you sure you know what the liquid is that's in their buckets ?

[CB Fry]

It depends on what you mean by 'help'. Do you help them by giving them money or by helping them to find work? Just giving money for nothing doesn't help anybody.

Always nice to see you maintaining your considerably high standards of writing utter drivel on this forum.

[Hockey_saint]

It depends on what you mean by 'help'. Do you help them by giving them money or by helping them to find work? Just giving money for nothing doesn't help anybody.

 

"Giving them money" brilliant; NO what you are doing is giving them the means to work. You have to stop thinking that every sick person on benefits is out of work. No, what happens, most of the time with this money is that it pays for things like an assistant, extra funds for transportation to and from work which an able-bodied person wouldn't require.

 

But, go ahead, keep thinking they're all out of work cripples. Also, we pay that money in case we become sick and downtrodden ourselves. But then most people seem to forget that these days.

[JackFrost]

The death of the Labour Party started in earnest with Blair and "New" Labour. After the re-branding they have no where else to go. Going back to their roots will scare off Middle England and the Tories seem to have the middle ground sown up. Labour could well go the way of the LibDems. Not good for politics and not good for the country. The new Labour leader has a tough job.

 

This

[JackFrost]

I could hardly disagree more with the above. Surely the ''somewhere'' Jeremy Corbyn would take the Labour Party would be back to the opposition benches.

 

Love him or hate him, but Tony Blair won a unprecedented 3 General Elections because he (quite brilliantly) steered the Labour Party away from its Socialist roots and the outdated 'class warfare' ideology of the hard left, and instead took it towards the so called 'centre ground' of British politics where our elections are won and lost.

Before Blair Labour had NEVER won two successive elections. Between 1951 and Blair's remarkable landslide 'New Labour' victory in 1997, the record shows that the Conservative Party had been in power for 35 out of those 46 years. This fact led many 20th Century political theorists to conclude that the Tory Party had in effect become what was refereed to as the 'Natural Party of Government' here in the UK. That was true back then, it is even more true today I think.

 

The core problem for Labour - the problem that Tony Blair understood so well - is that it is historically a 'Working Class' party in what is an increasingly 'Middle Class' nation. Middle Class people are by nature more inclined toward conservative attitudes because they - unlike poorer segments of society - have something to lose of course.

So if Labour is still really interested in regaining power one day (rather than becoming the leftist debating society some seem to favour) then it has again to give that aspirational Middle Class a strong reason to vote for it, or they will surely lose the next election even more heavily than they lost the last one.

 

Blair won 3 elections because he capitalized on the entire country being sick to death of the Tories and maintained the success by winning elections off the back of the massive majority in '97. He sold the party out to get them into power and is one of the weakest leaders this country has ever had. Labour have largely been a directionless shambles ever since.

 

I always predicted Corbyn would do far better then expected in the leadership contest. I would never vote for him in a million years, but with a bit of work he would actually offer a genuine alternative to the current government.

[CB Fry]

The death of the Labour Party started in earnest with Blair and "New" Labour. After the re-branding they have no where else to go. Going back to their roots will scare off Middle England and the Tories seem to have the middle ground sown up. Labour could well go the way of the LibDems. Not good for politics and not good for the country. The new Labour leader has a tough job.

Three landslide election victories with majorities Cameron has got nowhere near. Some death.

 

Prior to that, not one, not two, not three but four consecutive election defeats. Some roots.

 

There's plenty of room for a centre right social democratic party capable of winning elections.

[Batman]

why does it have to be a good thing for labour to go back to something that will make them completely unelectable?

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Blair won 3 elections because he capitalized on the entire country being sick to death of the Tories and maintained the success by winning elections off the back of the massive majority in '97. He sold the party out to get them into power and is one of the weakest leaders this country has ever had. Labour have largely been a directionless shambles ever since.

 

I always predicted Corbyn would do far better then expected in the leadership contest. I would never vote for him in a million years, but with a bit of work he would actually offer a genuine alternative to the current government.

 

Another post I struggle to find much I can agree with.

 

To depict Blair's success as nothing more than a negative reaction to Conservative rule, rather than having anything to do with him personally, is to spectacularly misunderstand British politics of that era. I'm in my fifties now, and during that lifetime I've not seen another politician - not even Thatcher - with HALF the instinctive feel for what makes modern Britain 'tick' as Blair had in his (pre Iraq war) prime. Sorry, but no British Labour leader is going to persuade a middle class country to vote for a working class party three times in a row without having something special about them our people would - and did - vote for.

 

When Blair warns the party that they are heading for disaster, then instead of 'blaming the electorate' for what happened and lurching to the left - IE away from the mass of our people - they would do well I think to listen to him because he knows what he's talking about.

 

As for the ''alternative'' Corbyn would offer - well I suppose a rampant growth of our (already huge) national debt, a larger state and renationalising the railway/gas/electricity industries would certainly be an alternative from anything the Conservatives are likely to put in their next manifesto. Ironically for a party founded to be progressive, that sounds just about as regressive a set of polices for 21st century Britain as I can possibly imagine.

[CB Fry]

Another post I struggle to find much I can agree with.

 

To depict Blair's success as nothing more than a negative reaction to Conservative rule, rather than having anything to do with him personally, is to spectacularly misunderstand British politics of that era. I'm in my fifties now, and during that lifetime I've not seen another politician - not even Thatcher - with HALF the instinctive feel for what makes modern Britain 'tick' as Blair had in his (pre Iraq war) prime. Sorry, but no British Labour leader is going to persuade a middle class country to vote for a working class party three times in a row without having something special about them our people would - and did - vote for.

 

When Blair warns the party that they are heading for disaster, then instead of 'blaming the electorate' for what happened and lurching to the left - IE away from the mass of our people - they would do well I think to listen to him because he knows what he's talking about.

 

As for the ''alternative'' Corbyn would offer - well I suppose a rampant growth of our (already huge) national debt, a larger state and renationalising the railway/gas/electricity industries would certainly be an alternative from anything the Conservatives are likely to put in their next manifesto. Ironically for a party founded to be progressive, that sounds just about as regressive a set of polices for 21st century Britain as I can possibly imagine.

 

Sensible stuff.

[Whitey Grandad]

"Giving them money" brilliant; NO what you are doing is giving them the means to work. You have to stop thinking that every sick person on benefits is out of work. No, what happens, most of the time with this money is that it pays for things like an assistant, extra funds for transportation to and from work which an able-bodied person wouldn't require.

 

But, go ahead, keep thinking they're all out of work cripples. Also, we pay that money in case we become sick and downtrodden ourselves. But then most people seem to forget that these days.

 

You're accusing me of things I haven't said. If I ask questions it is only to help us reach the answers.

 

Where have I said anything about disability benefits?

[View From The Top]

Another post I struggle to find much I can agree with.

 

To depict Blair's success as nothing more than a negative reaction to Conservative rule, rather than having anything to do with him personally, is to spectacularly misunderstand British politics of that era. I'm in my fifties now, and during that lifetime I've not seen another politician - not even Thatcher - with HALF the instinctive feel for what makes modern Britain 'tick' as Blair had in his (pre Iraq war) prime. Sorry, but no British Labour leader is going to persuade a middle class country to vote for a working class party three times in a row without having something special about them our people would - and did - vote for.

 

When Blair warns the party that they are heading for disaster, then instead of 'blaming the electorate' for what happened and lurching to the left - IE away from the mass of our people - they would do well I think to listen to him because he knows what he's talking about.

 

As for the ''alternative'' Corbyn would offer - well I suppose a rampant growth of our (already huge) national debt, a larger state and renationalising the railway/gas/electricity industries would certainly be an alternative from anything the Conservatives are likely to put in their next manifesto. Ironically for a party founded to be progressive, that sounds just about as regressive a set of polices for 21st century Britain as I can possibly imagine.

 

Labour activists won't listen to Blair as most despise him and would have him up in the Hague as a war criminal.

 

Labour needs to move itself towards a Social Democrat model along the European lines and not either too far left, although I understand the appeal that it has for activists, nor as tory lite. How they do it I've not a clue.

 

Personally I believe Labour doomed themselves when Ed and not David was elected and that it's to Londoncentic and detached from its heartlands and core vote.

[Hockey_saint]

You're accusing me of things I haven't said. If I ask questions it is only to help us reach the answers.

 

Where have I said anything about disability benefits?

 

I visit a hydrocephalus support group on facebook the other day and was shocked to read some replies when someone mentioned they claim DLA. One said "why? can't you work?" this is supposed to be full of people experiencing such problems so you'll understand I assume most people come to the conclusion that to claim such benefits you have to be out of work.

 

Either way, Jeremy Corbyn. Now a lot of people are saying negative things about Tony Blair but the thing people forget is that they were doing pretty darn well in the polls with John Smith before he died and he was left-wing. I seriously don't understand this hatred for the left. In my eyes they're trying to help those that need help, how is that bad? It's like the NHS, do you think we'd stop paying National Insurance if we were forced to take up private insurance? No chance. So as far as tax goes, I'd prefer it to help people who needed it and not just fat cat mates of whatever right wing government is in office.

 

Also, have you seen this? seems like he's not so loony but rather more in tune to the public than right-wingers (inside the labour party and out) seem to think:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/the-jeremy-corbyn-policies-that-most-people-actually-agree-with-10407148.html

 

I also think you right-wingers should read this blog, he sums up perfectly why Corbyn would be perfect:

 

https://acsdawson.wordpress.com/2015/07/23/an-open-letter-to-labour-party-members-supporters-affiliates/

Edited 23 July, 2015 by Hockey_saint

[shurlock]

Labour activists won't listen to Blair as most despise him and would have him up in the Hague as a war criminal.

 

Labour needs to move itself towards a Social Democrat model along the European lines and not either too far left, although I understand the appeal that it has for activists, nor as tory lite. How they do it I've not a clue.

 

Personally I believe Labour doomed themselves when Ed and not David was elected and that it's to Londoncentic and detached from its heartlands and core vote.

 

David M. might have been more electable to the electorate at largel but he would have increased the alienation activists felt in the fag end years of the Blair and Brown administrations.

 

Miliband's politics wouldn't have pushed Labour towards the European social democratic model; but would have been cut the distance with the lib dems, especially the Orange Book wing of the party. A big believer in pluralism and choice -the public sphere as a vehicle for change rather than the state- his ideas woukd have been too abstract and esoteric for Labour supporters to believe that this was anything but marketisation by the back door. Never mind he's as Londoncentric as they come.

[Wade Garrett]

Whatever your views about Corbyn, mine aren't favourable, he will make the Labour Party totally unelectable.

 

I said Liz Kendall right from the start. Not tainted by association with previous administrations, and not wanting to suck Gerry Adams off when he was busy bombing us.

[Hockey_saint]

Whatever your views about Corbyn, mine aren't favourable, he will make the Labour Party totally unelectable.

 

I said Liz Kendall right from the start. Not tainted by association with previous administrations, and not wanting to suck Gerry Adams off when he was busy bombing us.

 

So let me get this straight....Being a uber right-wing, Burlington club, Thatcherite bully-boy millionaire will make you electable in this day and age but being a popularist left-winger wont....I see no sense in this unless you've been bought like the right wing media.

[Batman]

Uber right wing ???

 

Jesus Christ lol

 

Either way. Somewhere between the Tories and blairs labour seem to be the flavour this country wants.

[hypochondriac]

Uber right wing ???

 

Jesus Christ lol

 

Either way. Somewhere between the Tories and blairs labour seem to be the flavour this country wants.

 

That's pretty much true.

[Guided Missile]

I also think you right-wingers should read this blog, he sums up perfectly why Corbyn would be perfect:

 

https://acsdawson.wordpress.com/2015/07/23/an-open-letter-to-labour-party-members-supporters-affiliates/

I didn't really need to read that article to agree with you that Corbyn would be perfect. Such an outcome will mean that Socialism in this country will go the same way as the Soviet Union. Broken and discredited, it will become less and less relevant to young people and be replaced by the conservative ideals for working families that aspire for a better life. If we can ever revive the Big Society that was born in the 2010 Conservative Manifesto, I'd be over the moon. This inspired me to do community work and when you've got money, you can do so much more. Creating wealth, that's the secret to a better society.

[CB Fry]

So let me get this straight....Being a uber right-wing, Burlington club, Thatcherite bully-boy millionaire will make you electable in this day and age but being a popularist left-winger wont....I see no sense in this unless you've been bought like the right wing media.

He's not a popularist left winger, he's a total non entity and won't be popular with the public. At best he's a shi t ter version of Ed Milliband.

 

And yeah, your Bullingdon millionaire etc etc Boris would annihilate him in the 2020 election. Annihilate him on the votes of normal people.

[solentstars]

Whatever your views about Corbyn, mine aren't favourable, he will make the Labour Party totally unelectable.

 

I said Liz Kendall right from the start. Not tainted by association with previous administrations, and not wanting to suck Gerry Adams off when he was busy bombing us.

liz kendall is a joke,why would i choose to vote for labour with her in charge ,to me she is a tory with out a personality and most people would vote for the real Tories like i have,,,so why would i want to vote for her when she offers anything new.

[Hockey_saint]

I didn't really need to read that article to agree with you that Corbyn would be perfect. Such an outcome will mean that Socialism in this country will go the same way as the Soviet Union. Broken and discredited, it will become less and less relevant to young people and be replaced by the conservative ideals for working families that aspire for a better life. If we can ever revive the Big Society that was born in the 2010 Conservative Manifesto, I'd be over the moon. This inspired me to do community work and when you've got money, you can do so much more. Creating wealth, that's the secret to a better society.

 

Ah the trickle down effect....it's a nice fantasy.

 

Non-entity eh CB? Ok then, and really Boris? "big society inspired me to do charity work" hahahaha all the while voting for big society to take away your NHS, safety net in case you become sick as well as any other country-owned asset they can sell on the cheap to their mates.

 

I would also say calling for the execution of Nelson Mandela was a pretty extreme right wing thing to do. Yes, they are very far to the right, make up all the nonsense you want but there have been Tory leaders more left than the current Labour party and god knows what that says about the current leader who attained 20% of 40% and still thinks it's a vast majority.

[BlakeySFC]

I didn't really need to read that article to agree with you that Corbyn would be perfect. Such an outcome will mean that Socialism in this country will go the same way as the Soviet Union. Broken and discredited, it will become less and less relevant to young people and be replaced by the conservative ideals for working families that aspire for a better life. If we can ever revive the Big Society that was born in the 2010 Conservative Manifesto, I'd be over the moon. This inspired me to do community work and when you've got money, you can do so much more. Creating wealth, that's the secret to a better society.

 

This is almost too cringeworthy to read, keep chugging the Tory kool-aid and burying your head in the sand. That's problem in this country, no one gives a flying f_uck about people poorer than themselves, they watch programs like Benefit Britain and the ilk, read the Daily Mail and the Tory propaganda spouting Murdoch papers/news channels and decide that all poor people just need to buck up their ideas and find a better job then they'd be alright, it is laughable it really is, and just incredibly naive.

 

The fantastic 'trickle-down effect' which keeps the rich, rich and the poor, poor. Hilarious, nothing but a Tory/capitalist fantasy I'm afraid.

 

I don't think a Corbyn-led Labour party will get them anywhere either, and I'm not a Labour supporter, but it would be nice to see them going back to their left-wing principals and showing the UK people there is a different way of doing things than this right-wing capitalist fantasy people bang on about, it won't get them anywhere but at least it might broaden the minds of a few million people that think capitalism is the only way forward.

Edited 24 July, 2015 by BlakeySFC

[CB Fry]

Ah the trickle down effect....it's a nice fantasy.

 

Non-entity eh CB? Ok then, and really Boris? "big society inspired me to do charity work" hahahaha all the while voting for big society to take away your NHS, safety net in case you become sick as well as any other country-owned asset they can sell on the cheap to their mates.

 

I would also say calling for the execution of Nelson Mandela was a pretty extreme right wing thing to do. Yes, they are very far to the right, make up all the nonsense you want but there have been Tory leaders more left than the current Labour party and god knows what that says about the current leader who attained 20% of 40% and still thinks it's a vast majority.

You seem to be rambling around covering various vaguely connected themes but not really making any coherent point.

 

Corbyn would be a disaster for Labour, and by extension the country as he'd be handing an unbroken decade of rule for the Tories on a silver platter.

 

But yeah, kid yourself he's a "populist".

[Hockey_saint]

You seem to be rambling around covering various vaguely connected themes but not really making any coherent point.

 

Corbyn would be a disaster for Labour, and by extension the country as he'd be handing an unbroken decade of rule for the Tories on a silver platter.

 

But yeah, kid yourself he's a "populist".

 

Ah trying to belittle to win a point "your rambling son so you can't possibly have a point" I would say "what Blakey up there said". Corbyn views are very popular with large sways of the public so I think it's fair to call them popularist.

 

Either way, the tories should know about being in the wilderness after: William Hauge, Michael Howard and IDS for almost a decade and a half, they should know what being in the political wilderness is like! And the ironic thing is, is that a fair reason why a lot of them didn't get in was because of their right wing views, which, are probably less right wing than today's party.

 

Either way, I can't take most of the comments on here seriously either because if you think everything is great and we're having such a wonderful time with this government you are in cloud flippin cuckoo land. But as Blakey says, they may even lose but like what a lot of my conservative-voting friends say also, Labour NEED this, the need it to understand where they come from, to get back their and not try to be something they are not (namely a tory-wannabe party)

Edited 24 July, 2015 by Hockey_saint

[hutch]

Ah trying to belittle to win a point "your rambling son so you can't possibly have a point" I would say "what Blakey up there said". Corbyn views are very popular with large sways of the public so I think it's fair to call them popularist.

That bit is the real problem for people that can't, or won't, open their minds.

 

20,000 is a large number. So is 50,000 or even 100,000. The silent majority in middle-Britain is overwhelming. And silent. Just because you can't read what they think on here, or on twitter or facebook doesn't mean they don't think it.

 

Corbyn will make an excellent leader of the opposition, it's what he's cut out for.

[CB Fry]

Ah trying to belittle to win a point "your rambling son so you can't possibly have a point" I would say "what Blakey up there said". Corbyn views are very popular with large sways of the public so I think it's fair to call them popularist.

 

Either way, the tories should know about being in the wilderness after: William Hauge, Michael Howard and IDS for almost a decade and a half, they should know what being in the political wilderness is like! And the ironic thing is, is that a fair reason why a lot of them didn't get in was because of their right wing views, which, are probably less right wing than today's party.

 

Either way, I can't take most of the comments on here seriously either because if you think everything is great and we're having such a wonderful time with this government you are in cloud flippin cuckoo land. But as Blakey says, they may even lose but like what a lot of my conservative-voting friends say also, Labour NEED this, the need it to understand where they come from, to get back their and not try to be something they are not (namely a tory-wannabe party)

 

Well you've managed to ramble around making no coherent point too. Seriously, well done.

 

1. Corbyn is not and will not ever be popular with large swathes of the country. Walk down any high street in the land with his photo and see how many people even know who he is. I'd wager less than one in twenty.

 

2. Point me in the direction of any post by me, on any thread on this forum that suggests that I think "think everything is great and we're having such a wonderful time with this government".

 

I've been a Labour voter for twenty odd years of voting. I don't want a total non entity like Corbyn leading that party because I want to see progressive social democracy in government, not a Labour party as glorified pressure group.

 

That's closer to what "large swathes of the country" want.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Hockey , you're having a nightmare on here . If you seriously think the way to win back the voters of England is to move to the left you are puddled .

[Guided Missile]

Hockey , you're having a nightmare on here . If you seriously think the way to win back the voters of England is to move to the left you are puddled .

Hockey has taken a look at Greece, Russia and North Korea and decided that is the path to a fairer and more equal society...

[buctootim]

[solentstars]

Even I know that trickle dowm economics was a big lie and still the gullible swallow all that nonsense despite it being discredited .those who work hardest in our society are normally the poorest paid also.I prefer the German model of economics which has been successfully run since 1945;

[View From The Top]

David M. might have been more electable to the electorate at largel but he would have increased the alienation activists felt in the fag end years of the Blair and Brown administrations.

 

Miliband's politics wouldn't have pushed Labour towards the European social democratic model; but would have been cut the distance with the lib dems, especially the Orange Book wing of the party. A big believer in pluralism and choice -the public sphere as a vehicle for change rather than the state- his ideas woukd have been too abstract and esoteric for Labour supporters to believe that this was anything but marketisation by the back door. Never mind he's as Londoncentric as they come.

 

I'm not disagreeing but the mess they are now in was totally predictable when Ed won and David didn't. Big election defeat, the battle between traditional and Blairite etc, lurches to the left, members wanting to reclaim what they view as a radical position to separate their identity from that of the tories.

Edited 24 July, 2015 by View From The Top

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Even I know that trickle dowm economics was a big lie and still the gullible swallow all that nonsense despite it being discredited .those who work hardest in our society are normally the poorest paid also.I prefer the German model of economics which has been successfully run since 1945;

 

Well being poor is nothing to be ashamed (or proud) of, but for what it's worth my working class credentials are I can assure you quite impeccable. But for all the talk on here of the *evil* rich who do nothing for their fellow man, the fact is that official statistics show that the top 1% of earners will pay almost 30% of income tax in 2013-14. Furthermore, a great many low earners are now for the first time exempt from the income tax system entirely - thanks by the way in large part to the influence of the (hated) Lib Dem party in the coalition government.

 

Now if you don't feel that 1% paying 30% is enough for your tastes then we could I suppose go back to the punitive tax regimes we last saw back in the 1970's. But there again I understand the evidence is that this policy would be counter-productive as many of these wealthy tax payers would just move themselves - or their money - abroad. The aim here is to increase the amount of wealth in society rather than decrease it is it not?

 

So I'm struggling to see this issue in as straight forward, black and white, terms as you seem to.

[JackFrost]

Another post I struggle to find much I can agree with.

 

To depict Blair's success as nothing more than a negative reaction to Conservative rule, rather than having anything to do with him personally, is to spectacularly misunderstand British politics of that era. I'm in my fifties now, and during that lifetime I've not seen another politician - not even Thatcher - with HALF the instinctive feel for what makes modern Britain 'tick' as Blair had in his (pre Iraq war) prime. Sorry, but no British Labour leader is going to persuade a middle class country to vote for a working class party three times in a row without having something special about them our people would - and did - vote for.

 

It was a combination of the Tories' failings in the '90s and Blair being a master of manipulation.

 

He played a blinder in the lead up to the '97 general election but the reason he won 3 elections was because he ultimately sold the party out to convince enough of the middle class to vote for them. "New Labour" was just another Tory party. By the time Gordon "no more boom and bust" Brown and Allistair "The money will be borrowed" Darling were in charge they were even coming up with Thatcherite policies like scrapping the 10p tax band.

 

Even the timing of Blair's departure was carefully calculated. It was conveniently about 2 months before the 2007-08 financial crisis reared its ugly head, he even did Gordon up like a kipper.

 

Blair sold the party out, and it hasn't had an identity ever since.

[hutch]

.those who work hardest in our society are normally the poorest paid also.

Surely that's not going to go unchallenged. If nobody else will say it, then I will.

 

Complete rubbish.

 

I would accept that there is no direct link between how hard you work and how much you get paid. But that the harder you work the less you earn

[solentstars]

I,m was talking about the 1980s model.we don't have those policy's now has that model just made the super rich even better off.the gap between rich and poor is bigger in the UK and USA business models.

[Guided Missile]

I,m was talking about the 1980s model.we don't have those policy's now has that model just made the super rich even better off.the gap between rich and poor is bigger in the UK and USA business models.

Mate, your problem, which is apparent from your posts, is that you didn't work hard enough at school. Jeez....

[solentstars]

Mate, your problem, which is apparent from your posts, is that you didn't work hard enough at school. Jeez....

Yes your right ..Lol that's why I retired at 53 6 years ago with a great pension and pay off .[emoji2]

[buctootim]

But for all the talk on here of the *evil* rich who do nothing for their fellow man, the fact is that official statistics show that the top 1% of earners will pay almost 30% of income tax in 2013-14.

 

Now if you don't feel that 1% paying 30% is enough for your tastes then we could I suppose go back to the punitive tax regimes we last saw back in the 1970's.

 

You are mixing up and conflating two separate things. The issue is not what the headline tax rates are but the number of tax breaks and loopholes which make paying tax optional. Some rich people pay tax, many dont. Creative accountants and tax advisors can shelter their money easily and the amount wealthy people choose to pay is down to them - most choose to pay a nominal amount to keep HMRC off their back.

 

Even middle class people can do it. Example I'm 52 and lucky enough to earn enough to pay tax at 40%. If I want to I can increase my mortgage and borrow £300,000 and pay that into my pension. The Government will then give me a tax credit for the past three years and the next three years meaning I pay no income tax - effectively they give me a free handout of almost £150,000 so £450,000 goes into my pension. When I get to 55 in three years time I can withdraw the £300,000 pay off the mortgage and keep the free £150,000.

 

There are so many deliberately legal scams like that. It isnt accidental - its a way of persuading the plebs we are all in it together while the rich pay next to nothing if they choose.

[Guided Missile]

Yes your right ..Lol that's why I retired at 53 6 years ago with a great pension and pay off .[emoji2]

Thank Christ you're not in the work force any more...although the worry is that you get a vote.

[solentstars]

You are mixing up and conflating two separate things. The issue is not what the headline tax rates are but the number of tax breaks and loopholes which make paying tax optional. Some rich people pay tax, many dont. Creative accountants and tax advisors can shelter their money easily and the amount wealthy people choose to pay is down to them - most choose to pay a nominal amount to keep HMRC off their back.

 

Even middle class people can do it. Example I'm 52 and lucky enough to earn enough to pay tax at 40%. If I want to I can increase my mortgage and borrow £300,000 and pay that into my pension. The Government will then give me a tax credit for the past three years and the next three years meaning I pay no income tax - effectively they give me a free handout of almost £150,000 so £450,000 goes into my pension. When I get to 55 in three years time I can withdraw the £300,000 pay off the mortgage and keep the free £150,000.

 

There are so many deliberately legal scams like that. It isnt accidental - its a way of persuading the plebs we are all in it together while the rich pay next to nothing if they choose.

Good post I think you explained it very well how the tax system works,one of my friends who is a director of a big car company told me how his firm owned properties for there own personal use for holidays in Spain was paid for britsh taxpayers as a tax write off .