These percentages are only relevant if we know what % tax the rich are paying on their earnings. All well and good to say they contribute X % in tax collected but unlike joe soap, are they paying the right % tax on their earnings? The answer is no!
Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)
- Thread starter unchanged_lineup
- Start date
Like you say, I think the resentment comes from paying your % but knowing people earning more are paying less of a %. Or knowing someone doing an identical job as you through a different employment mechanism is paying less than you.
But unless you have a global income/interest tax %, wealthier people will always live in the lower % places. Bonus points if you don't have to actually be there to 'live' there.
What would you regard as "the rich" and how do you come to the conclusion that they aren't paying enough in tax?
Obviously, offshore loopholes and all that sneaky kind of shite should've been shut down years ago, I'm not talking about that. I'm talking purely about well to do people in the UK, living and working in the UK, paying their taxes in the UK.
This perhaps should go to a new thread as it's getting derailed.
With Jeremy Corbyn's recent announcement that he plans to take the water industry back under national control it made me wonder whether people who support renationalisation of various industries are aware that the reality is that for a significant/majority of time they will be at the mercy of Tory governments. Whilst there are things that shouldn't be run for the purpose of generating a profit (schools, prisons, hospitals), I'm not sure had the water industry been ran by this government for the last 8 years it'd be in a better shape than it is today. Renationalisation as a concept only really works if you pretend it's going to benefit from a Labour government funding it who recognises the need for investment. If you don't have that, and over the last 41 years only 1 person has ever been elected PM who wasn't from the Tory party, then arguably you're putting these industries and levels of services they can provide in greater peril than is currently the case.
It's also ridiculously easy to undo. Let's say Labour get in and within the term they re-nationalise the railways, water, gas and electricity industries at great expense. Do you think the next time the Tories get in they're not going to help their mates out in the city and have another mass sell-off once again, once more likely at terrible value to the taxpayer even worse than last time given that in this scenario the tax payer would have only recently been asked to invest eye-watering sums of money into taking control of all those industries only very recently.
Re-nationalisation seems to one of these tropes the left love without ever really thinking about what it'll mean. Unless you can guarantee the Tory party will never win power again or at least be assured that they'll change so fundamentally that they won't see a freshly nationalised industry as a carrot to dangle in front of big business then the concept in almost every example when it comes to renationalising industries is naive at best, reckless at worse.
It's also ridiculously easy to undo. Let's say Labour get in and within the term they re-nationalise the railways, water, gas and electricity industries at great expense. Do you think the next time the Tories get in they're not going to help their mates out in the city and have another mass sell-off once again, once more likely at terrible value to the taxpayer even worse than last time given that in this scenario the tax payer would have only recently been asked to invest eye-watering sums of money into taking control of all those industries only very recently.
Re-nationalisation seems to one of these tropes the left love without ever really thinking about what it'll mean. Unless you can guarantee the Tory party will never win power again or at least be assured that they'll change so fundamentally that they won't see a freshly nationalised industry as a carrot to dangle in front of big business then the concept in almost every example when it comes to renationalising industries is naive at best, reckless at worse.
Alternative Models Of Ownership
https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Alternative-Models-of-Ownership.pdf
and review of it here - https://newsocialist.org.uk/labours-alternative-models-of-ownership-report/
I'd imagine it's something that comes up on the doorsteps all the time. Parents concerned a bit about lack of childcare provision in the local area but above all the undemocratic way in which Cholderton and District Water has been run over the last few years. That's when they're not fretting over whether the establishment of Israel was a racist endeavour or not.
In any event my point was that the left didn't really understand the consequences of nationalisation, citing the fact it'd be very expensive, easily reversible and history tells us that for great lengths of time will be effectively under the control of Tory govts likely keen to bring each industry to its knees to justify it's inevitable sell-off down the line to the benefit of it's donors. Not that the Labour party don't have a preferred public-ownership structure in mind. You seem to have answered the question about the left not understanding realities of nationalisation of industry by showing you didn't understand the question itself.
In any event my point was that the left didn't really understand the consequences of nationalisation, citing the fact it'd be very expensive, easily reversible and history tells us that for great lengths of time will be effectively under the control of Tory govts likely keen to bring each industry to its knees to justify it's inevitable sell-off down the line to the benefit of it's donors. Not that the Labour party don't have a preferred public-ownership structure in mind. You seem to have answered the question about the left not understanding realities of nationalisation of industry by showing you didn't understand the question itself.
Last edited:
You’re making a lot of assumptions with this point you’re trying to make. Really not convinced we’ll be seeing this play out like that. Not least because the future looks so unbelievably bleak for the Tories as they currently are.
Is your opinion really that you shouldn’t try to implement what you believe to be the right policies in terms of national ownership... because someone will eventually come in and privatise? Well if that’s the case, what time are we wasting? Labour might as well pledge to sell off the NHS now. Why waste any more money investing in it, if privatisation is eventually inevitable as it’s a Tory end goal?
Any other policies they should scrap because a Tory Government would undo them? Perhaps they should just take the Tory manifesto and go with that instead... since it’ll eventually happen anyway. Save wasting public money on any silly investments that will eventually get quashed.
Realistically, if an industry is nationalised and running well under national ownership... a policy to sell it off and privatise again will be a very difficult sell, even for the Tories. Hardly a pledge that will help them win back power when the majority of voters would be very against it.
You didn't read the links did you ?
That's one way of getting Oscie voting for Labour again.
Their is no competition within the water industry, it should never have been privatised
It's again sensationalism and frankly a non-story. Another stick to hit Labour. Hardly a collusion with Iran on Trump scale. National Iranian TV was nowhere at the meeting or recording. A UK resident formerly from Iran a member of the labour party recorded/ing some part of the process on the phone. It likely went around on WhatsApp and was then broadcast on Iranian TV.
Last edited:
It's not a stick it's an unnecessary own goal. They were live tweeting the event. And at such a time like this, it's the last thing Corbyn needs.
Absolutely. However, how does Corbyn monitor such events or rogues within the party?
According to his Linkedin profile, Roshan Salih worked for Press TV for five years:
"I was responsible for Press TV's news output from the UK. This covered the news packages that we produced as well as all the live reporting, features and, occassionally, documentaries that we did."
Coincidentally these were the years Jeremy Corbyn made a number of appearances as a guest/host on Press TV.
Salih claims this role ended in 2012, which is of course the year Press TV was banned in the U.K. Not unreasonable to assume he has maintained his links with the station since then.
He seems like a stand up guy:
The establishment is using all the tools at its disposal to discredit Corbyn and the sections of the Labour party. I'm not sure what to believe any more with the state of the Press.
According to his Linkedin profile, Roshan Salih worked for Press TV for five years:
"I was responsible for Press TV's news output from the UK. This covered the news packages that we produced as well as all the live reporting, features and, occassionally, documentaries that we did."
Coincidentally these were the years Jeremy Corbyn made a number of appearances as a guest/host on Press TV.
Salih claims this role ended in 2012, which is of course the year Press TV was banned in the U.K. Not unreasonable to assume he has maintained his links with the station since then.
He seems like a stand up guy:
Clearly Salih still works for Press TV:
Weren't they banned by filming a 'confession' by someone who had been tortured whose torturer was in the room during the video? Don't they also show executions of homosexuals?
But Tony Blair was stood near Margaret Thatcher once at a war memorial event, so I guess that's worse and to suggest otherwise is a smear. And if you don't buy that false equivalence, there's the picture of Prince Charles with Jimmy Savile for some reason probably too.
But Tony Blair was stood near Margaret Thatcher once at a war memorial event, so I guess that's worse and to suggest otherwise is a smear. And if you don't buy that false equivalence, there's the picture of Prince Charles with Jimmy Savile for some reason probably too.
Press TV is vile, here is an example of the type of 'political analysts' they invite on to discuss Israel:
Never watched Press TV if I can remember correctly. Didn't even know it was Irans' national broadcaster.
@2cents Is Ken O'keefe banned from releasing such material or producing such videos?
@2cents Is Ken O'keefe banned from releasing such material or producing such videos?
I would think not since he seems to split his time between Ireland (unfortunately) and the US, where he's free to be as crazy and racist as he likes. Press TV is about the only station that'll stoop so low as to have him on though.
You didn't read the links did you ?
Like you have any fecking clue what's contained within the links you provided. You Googled and posted whatever results looked relevant from the 1st page.
You likely don't even know that you posted a link to a 12,000 word article and a 25,000 word document. The contents of either being something you've never mentioned, discussed or alluded to in the past on this thread at any time. Yet somehow everyone is supposed to believe you presented each as a retort to the suggestion that the realities of nationalisation of industry in a country where the majority of time there exists a Tory government is problematic.
You're not across a single thing posted in either of those two links, you didn't even know the links contained 37,000 words of text to the point you've actually just tried to make a point out of the fact I hadn't read the contents of each link in a post I made 6 minutes after you posted them.
"Haha, you haven't even read the 37,000 words I posted 6 minutes ago did you?"
You absolute unconvincing charlatan.
Last edited:
You misunderstand me. I'm not having a go at Corbyn. I'm saying someone that thinks he or she supports Corbyn allowed Iranian State TV to use that vote for their crap.
I was once in a crappy hotel in Nigeria and the only news channel was Press TV. Back then I didn't even know it was Iranian state TV. I know most news stations are biased in some way but this was incredible.
The kept referring to the West as "imperialists". I had been watching for a while but I was getting worked up. Kept thinking that this was unprofessional. Was a while later I got to know where they were based, then it all made sense.
The kept referring to the West as "imperialists". I had been watching for a while but I was getting worked up. Kept thinking that this was unprofessional. Was a while later I got to know where they were based, then it all made sense.
They've barely even begun to that yet, as Brexit is consuming the establishment's attention as much as everyone else's. When Brexit is over, in whatever shape or form, then the establishment guns will turn to Corbyn.
https://www.redcafe.net/search/102758954/?q=alternative+models+of+ownership&o=date&c[node]=13
Oscie the search function is there for a reason
Last edited:
Chuka Umunna urged Mr Corbyn to "call off the dogs".
Real classy from an MP.
Real classy from an MP.
From that link you provided the two previous times you've mentioned it:
Wow you're really across the context of a 25,000 word article you've now mentioned three times providing no other contents each time other than:
"Interesting", "Really interesting" and most recently "
and a review of it here"I don't know how I ever questioned your familiarity with a document that you've repeatedly displayed so much knowledge of. I mean that's three times now you've posted the link and I'm sure had you had time you'd have given more of an insight as to your thoughts, views, criticisms and praises of what was contained within but you've twice gone so far as to say the document was "interesting" so that's pretty much exactly the same as if you had read and understood all 25,000 words.
Honestly I feel silly now doubting you. If only you'd have said earlier you've twice called the document interesting on previous occasions I never would have made the accusation in the first place.
Wow you're really across the context of a 25,000 word article you've now mentioned three times providing no other contents each time other than:
"Interesting", "Really interesting" and most recently "
Well yeah I posted on the forum with the hope that other might read it(Hint hint) and then talk about in the thread but well no one did(Shame really as it's rather interesting)
You moan that the left doesn't understand nationalisation and I posted links showing the left views on nationalisation which you didn't bother to read and I'm the charlatan ? Just read the report and learn something.
It's a figure of speech. Or are we going down the "Obama said Palin looked like a pig by using a phrase nobody ever understood to mean the subject of looked like a pig", thing?
Well yeah I posted on the forum with the hope that othesr might read it(Hint hint) and then talk about in the thread but well no one did(Shame really as it's rather interesting)
So you hoped to stir debate by twice offering "it's interesting" as a catalyst for it? Seems plausible. At least you didn't do anything unrealistic such as post your opinion of it, contextualise the main points, disseminate what you felt were the more pertinent areas for discussion in hope to generate debate, because that'd be just stupid wouldn't it?
Nobody should think there's anything to the fact you've now had multiple opportunities to display that you've read more than a single paragraph of the document before today but have chosen instead to insist you posted a 25,000 word document on an internet forum and claim to be genuinely disappointed people didn't take a couple of hours out of their day to read it and then give their opinions.
Last edited:
At what point whilst reading the 25,000 words did you realise your interest in the document was sufficiently high enough to finish it and post it three times online, yet not high enough to want to discuss it with the people you thought would be interested in reading it?
17,324 words in?
It's painfully obvious your knowledge of the document extends no further than an understanding of the subject matter. Which is fine if you didn't choose to mock me for not reading it either.
Changing the subject has anyone read the Washington post today?
It's really interesting. I've read it twice. https://www.washingtonpost.com/
It's really interesting. I've read it twice. https://www.washingtonpost.com/
To be fair @Oscie you do have a habit of making claims that are demonstrably untrue and then just entirely ignoring posts which contain evidence that contradicts you. In this case you claimed that the left hadn't really considered what re-nationalisation would mean, a link was then posted which shows that the Labour Left has a pretty well-fleshed out policy proposal on what re-nationalisation would mean and you ignore it. You get called out and go on an ad-hominem against the poster who called you out. A couple of pages ago you tried to argue that Blair's Labour was really nice to immigrants and that all the 'controls on migration' stuff started the second Blair left, I replied with a concise post filled with actual facts showing you were talking complete nonsense and you just ignored it entirely.
If you come into a thread with your debating hat on and want to be taken seriously you have to engage with posts that use evidence to refute your claims instead of ignoring them.
If you come into a thread with your debating hat on and want to be taken seriously you have to engage with posts that use evidence to refute your claims instead of ignoring them.
Well said.
I haven't ignored it, I've questioned whether the person who presented it had even read it. It's fairly obvious they haven't.
Secondly my point wasn't that a plan to implement nationalisation didn't exist, it was that the reality of what will happen to re-nationalised industries in a country that predominately elects Tory governments hasn't been thought through. Personally I'd trust private enterprise with an established, long-standing regulator to run the water in this country as opposed to nationalise it and being at most 4 years away from the Tories selling everything off again in a wild west-style auction designed to benefit nobody but private business. And I can't think who would win in a cycle where massive public investment was made into taking control of industries that would just be sold off again every time a government of a different colour wins an election.
Even if the Tories didn't immediately seek to sell everything off again, which I think everyone would agree is pretty likely that they would, how much confidence does anyone have in a Tory government running state-owned industries when you look at the chronic under investment in the state owned sectors that currently exist.
At no point is a link to how Labour plan to nationalise industry a counter to anything I've said. You're free to disagree and put forward why you trust the Tories not to flog everything off again in a heartbeat or why you think you'd trust them impeccably not to deliberately under-fund these newly state-controlled industries. Just don't post a link to something you haven't read that isn't terribly relevant to the points I've made.
If you literally read(For the million time I've read the bloody thing) labours alternative models of ownership you would know this is a counter to your argument. Labour are not talking about the same type of nationalisation that happen in the post war years, in fact Bennism(And thus Corbyn)is very critical of that type of nationalisation.
How would you know ? You admitted that you didn't bother to read it.
Last edited:
The conservative government deregulated the water market. I guess there's no point in having a long-standing regulator either because the tories only ever defund these programs and make them toothless.
Long-standing regulators that gradually acquires greater powers is the consequence of industry stability for a significant period of time. The water industry was privatised nearly 30 years ago. Over that time regulatory oversight has strengthened. Is it perfect? No. Is it even sufficient? Perhaps not. But it's stronger than what it was.
Conversely if it was nationalised by the winner of the next election and re-privatised by the winner of the one after that everything starts from scratch, which will mean significantly weaker regulatory oversight of what will be the newly-privatised industry, than what we currently have. Without even mentioning the chronic under-investment a Tory government will impose just like they have every other time in order to make purchasing shares in their great sell-off bonanza more appealing to those upon whom they rely for their party's donations.
Supporting the nationalisation of now private industries requires a level of faith in future Tory governments that I'm simply not willing hold. The practical, yet imperfect, solution is to continue to strengthen the hand of regulators rather than end up spending billions on buying everything back every other election after the mob before raise half of that by flogging it off to their friends. If irrevocable nationalisation was possible then perhaps, but it isn't. And it's disheartening once more to see Labour fight the battles of decades gone by again when there are more practical and cost-effective ways of getting value for money for the public but they're so wedded to this ideal of nationalisation they can't get beyond the word.
Last edited:
my dude this is tory policy, just join them already
It isn't as bad as pretending you understand something by posting a link to something you haven't read but "join the Tories" is still a bit crap nonetheless.
*Blank stares* "Join the Tories"
*Blank stares* "You sound like a Tory to me"
*Blank stares* "Oh! Jeremy Corbyn!"
So much about the level of political discourse in this country right now is explained by looking through this thread.
In the last few days you have argued for lower taxes and privatisation. Labour is the wrong party for you. There's no point in discussing it further really because you'll just ignore any constructive points people make for another repetitive post about how Corbyn is literally Hitler and Stalins lovechild.