Not yet but the swing to remain in the polls - a significant lead now - does highlight real dangers to the Brexiters. The electorate is volatile and if things get worse, I can see fertile ground for a second referendum in that.
Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)
- Thread starter unchanged_lineup
- Start date
Not yet but the swing to remain in the polls - a significant lead now - does highlight real dangers to the Brexiters. The electorate is volatile and if things get worse, I can see fertile ground for a second referendum in that.
No guarantee Labour would benefit from a Remain vote given their timidity and lack of leadership on this.
if this is true he is doomed
It's why Labour can and has only ever won from the centre. We're leaving the countries to the Tories to destroy public services and feck us beyond perhaps any salvation within a generation with Brexit all on the folly of those on the left who won't accept that fact.
Leaving the Tories to do all the trivial stuff like government, whilst Labour decides to scrap, argue, refuse to reinstate, argue some more and finally reinstate anyway, the IHRA definition of antisemtism. There are people on this very thread who genuinely think that's good leadership and refuse to see why anyone would even dare to suggest that the man responsible for that might just be responsible for keeping this shower in power.
Leaving the Tories to do all the trivial stuff like government, whilst Labour decides to scrap, argue, refuse to reinstate, argue some more and finally reinstate anyway, the IHRA definition of antisemtism. There are people on this very thread who genuinely think that's good leadership and refuse to see why anyone would even dare to suggest that the man responsible for that might just be responsible for keeping this shower in power.
So what's the allegation exactly, is it that the Boundary Commission are bent, or is it that the Boundary Commission are stupid? I call bollocks.
Neither. Labour votes tend to be more concentrated in a single area (cities), so they get less seats/vote.
Ah, rightio, thanks.
That's a difficult one. I don't like list systems for parliamentary candidates. Maybe larger areas so people are voting for several MPs at once?
Emigrating... They think comrade Corbyn is going to let them out of the gulag to emigrate... Wishful thinking
Tounge (slightly) in cheek
Corbyn is pro Brexit, although, apparently, a soft Brexit.
May is proposing a soft Brexit, therefore Corbyn should support this suggestion.
Europe aren't particularly interested in May's proposals.
May is proposing a soft Brexit, therefore Corbyn should support this suggestion.
Europe aren't particularly interested in May's proposals.
Someone just needs to convince Corbyn that he has infiltrated himself as part of a Zionist conspiracy to bring about Brexit and that the only way to save Palestine is for him to resign the Labour Leadership and setup an affirmative action for transgender vegetables initiative in Hamas controlled areas.
Maybe that might get through to him and we can get an effective leadership team in place.
Maybe that might get through to him and we can get an effective leadership team in place.
Poor stuff. Didn't mention cults at all.
Why can't these guys forget the anti-semitism controversy for a while. Corbyn over a period of time has stood with oppressed people. There's no point in analyzing what he has done on 15th January 1979, thursday afternoon in a rally anymore. He has become the Labour leader, get his stance on what is relevant today, forget the issues and be a strong party going forward. Surely, with the issues at stake, that's more important. It's like fecking Wheel of time fantasy book, the apocalypse is coming surely and all Elayne fecking Trakand can think of is to secure Andor without anyone's help.
What exactly is fair taxation? How should the tax system be changed from it's current structure?
Don't you think most people in this country are having their pockets raided enough already with money heading to the Government not only through traditional taxation routes and VAT, but through practically everything we do, fuel duty, stamp duty, alcohol, insurance. The list of items that come with their own niche tax to eventually end up with the government is practically endless.
Most would agree the average person pays enough - it's the richest who need to contribute more, as is evidenced by growing income inequality and the number of people struggling to get by.
Not personally, no. I've always earned a pretty average salary, sometimes below average, but I've still had quite a bit to spend on stuff I don't really need and hasn't made much difference to my life. If it takes a bit more tax to keep public services going and maybe even improve them to make the country a better place to live then I'm happy with that.
Last edited:
and the MP responds
Last edited:
What kind of genius are you to put ‘Trots’ and ‘Stalinist’ in the same descriptive term?
I'm just not sure it's as simple as that anymore. The problems in the UK go deeper than just tax. I thought this was a good summary: https://www.ft.com/content/c85b9792-aad1-11e8-94bd-cba20d67390c
and the MP responds
She needs binning. Making up a racism claim is not on.
Labour must be moving up in the polls, Blair has taken a day off from working for dictatorships to go on another media tour to talk down Corbyn.
All depends what your definition of rich is I suppose. Someone can be rich by having millions of pounds in an tax-free off-shore account & doesn't have to work, which therefore means they pay very little, if anything, in income tax. Whilst someone could be rich because he/she has worked - & is still working - very hard in building up a successful business that has grown & employs people that themselves contribute by paying tax. I think we'd both agree which one should be made to pay more. But why should the hardworking, 'wealthy', businessman/woman have to be punished by having to pay more tax in proportion to those of us on average earnings ?
Maybe increasing the VAT rate to 25% could be a solution. After all, the richer people are generally the ones who splash their cash on luxury, non-essential items.
Come on there's about a ice pick breadth of difference between the two(This was the best I could come up with). The Labour right really is a
complete mess.
Saw on twitter that her local party has been thinking of getting rid of her from some time. Seems this was the final straw.
That's clearly a blairite smear... Or some other corbynista clap trap
That would hit the poor massively
well yes if you ask say the 10% who earn the lowest they will say they pay too much in tax and the other 90% should pay more
If you ask the bottom 30% you will find they say the same and the yop 70% should pay more
again ask people who are in the top 40% of earners and they will say they pay too much and it should be tose that earn more than them footing the bill
take it up to the top 10% of earners and they will say you should focus on the top 1% and they themselves pay too much
anyway some actual stats
the top 1% of earners in the uk make up 28% of the total income tax contributions
the top 10% of households pay a whapping 27% of the total tax take in the UK
no wonder (legal) tax avoidance schemes are so popular
So whilst you are correct the average person would say the rich should pay more lets keep in mind that at current rates we are still running a budget deficit and not even talking about tackling the nation debt and this same average person who says the rich should pay more probably thinks they should pay less and at the same time we shouldnt have a national debt / deficit yet they dont want spending cuts...
I think there is a valid argument for us all to pay more... but if the burden is ever shifted to the top few% also remember these are the few % with access to tip top legal and financial advice / vehicles and at a certain point it becomes more effective to just pay yourself in dividends or set up a company abroad and cintract through that - and in a world wide connected economy you cant stop things like that so there will be a natural limit as to how high taxes can be on the top 10%
interestingly if you go back to pre thatcher times you will see the rates were very different
what % of total tax take is reasonable for the top 10% to carry?
what level of income is it reasonable to start paying tax and what level should basic tax be?
what should be the maximum tax level we ever look to impose (e.g. is it reasonable to take 100% above a certain threshold - (personally i feel thats unethical... but how much is fair 40%, 50% 60% 90% etc)
and whilst there will be many different opinions as to what is right - its also about what is practical (enforcement, avoidence, people leaving the country or at least taking tax revenue away through offshoring etc) - and of course a government also has to win elections, retain business confidence and well frankly i think its a nit more complicated than most people think thise richer than them should pay more (that statement is true- but it in no way helps to resolve the issue - especially in an environment of deficits, debt and cuts)
It's a definition thing again though isn't it ? You've got so-called poor people who live on benefits, who are overweight & spend a lot of money on takeaway food & cigarettes. Then you've got poor people, who are not overweight, don't eat takeaways, & don't smoke, who struggle to put food on the table for themselves & their children. Maybe more stringent means-testing needs to put in place to ensure the right people get the right money. VAT was 10% when it was introduced back in 1973. It's double that now. I sincerely doubt the poor are twice as worse off as a result. Mind you we didn't have as many takeaways back then, or supermarkets stacking their shelves with snacks & copious amounts of unhealthy shite that is now consumed daily by the tonnage.
You can't really put 'the poor' into one category because it's a sweeping generalization that doesn't take into account many factors. Lot's of people are poor through no fault of their own. But there are also lot's who are poor through their own lifestyle choices. & those in the 2nd bracket are the ones who'd probably still be poor if VAT was abolished altogether.
Cheers they were the tweets I was thinking of.
Last edited:
Last edited:
Yeah. It's also difficult for an ordinary pleb to know the truth. Right wingers will say increasing tax too far results in wealth producers going elsewhere, and so in reality less tax is raised. Leftists will say that's a selfish lie. Presumably there are people in the treasury who can at least deliver educated opinions on the matter, but can we trust politicians with extreme views to consider them without prejudice ? I suspect not personally, it's a reason why I'd vote for a more centrist party rather than an extreme one.
Also the 'other people should pay more tax but not me' thing doesn't wash, anyone with that view doesn't really care about social issues, they're just pretending.
I'm not sure how anyone on the planet can take this idiot seriously. He's an appeaser like May.
These kind of people used to make sense until they got elected, now they make no sense at all.
Our voting options are shit. Political revolution coming within 10 years.
These kind of people used to make sense until they got elected, now they make no sense at all.
Our voting options are shit. Political revolution coming within 10 years.
Surely you have to look at how much of an income the top 10% take from an economy rather than the number of people. From what I can see the top 10% take in around 50% of the wealth in the country, so surely the tax contributions in total should be approaching that figure?
Well worth a read of that thread. Absolute rancid state of that party.
Income tax wise it's already over that figure... (It's actually over 70%)
If you wanted to change tax so that you got rid of the regressive taxes like fuel duty and vat and focus on taking 50% of total tax from the top 10% then I guess at around 40k the tax rate would go up to around 90% of earnings (Income tax accounting for I think less than a third of total tax revenue)
Not sure we would manage to keep many doctors or headmasters or software engineers or frankly any engineers in the country.
One of the nuanced realities some on the left struggle with is that often income to the Exchequer is higher when taxes are low or held and that often decreases when you put taxes up and effectively incentives those with the means to avoid the increase, to do so. Of course that doesn't mean you keep taxes low purely for fear the wealthy might not pay as much if you don't, but it does mean that it's more complicated than "raising taxes = increased revenue".
Who the feck allowed Iranian state TV near that vote? They are even weeting #WeAreCorbyn. Someone needs to get a grip.
US starting science researchers get paid <$15/hour, while Disneyland employees are getting more.
Yet there are scientists in the US.