Yes but at the end of it all voters have to have a clear idea what their voting for, will they? I'm not going to vote, but if I was and whether I agreed with other policies or not , Brexit is the most important event in the UK in recent times, people would surely want to know in which direction the Labour party is heading and immigration is a major, if not the most important, subject of Brexit. Does the average hesitant or swing voter know what Labour are proposing?
Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)
- Thread starter unchanged_lineup
- Start date
Yes but at the end of it all voters have to have a clear idea what their voting for, will they? I'm not going to vote, but if I was and whether I agreed with other policies or not , Brexit is the most important event in the UK in recent times, people would surely want to know in which direction the Labour party is heading and immigration is a major, if not the most important, subject of Brexit. Does the average hesitant or swing voter know what Labour are proposing?
They'll learn from the usual source, tory attack lines. This will be painted as ignoring brexit very quickly I'm sure of it.
I was hoping they'd be allowed to be obscure and make such decisions after the election as whilst that would be conning people at least it'd be too late. I'm not even sure there's any point in the neutral stance now, the remain cause fecked unless there's huge remain sentiment.
I agree with the proposal , but I'm very pro-FoM anyway however I am very dubious of your assessment that it will bring more people onside than alienate them.
Labour haven't formed this into a defined policy yet so it's too early to judge. It all comes down to what's in the manifesto.
Same with the private school ban, Corbyn has already pretty much said that they will limit this to removing the charitable status of private schools when it comes to actual policy.
Everyone does, except Jeremy maybe, who called for his resignation. Anyway, I've been out all day, I've still got to put the telly on.
Johnson can resign and it would have no impact on anti no deal legislation
Admitting my ignorance, I don't know what would happen. I'm guessing the deputy would take over, otherwise there would be no one to ask the EU for an extension for some time, as I don't see who could go to the Queen and say they could form a government. Tory leadership election, general election, I've honestly no idea. @Smores not trying to be clever, have you worked it out?
You forget that Corbyn is playing an intellectual game that you're too ignorant to understand.
He's pushing Labour leavers with his murky remain rhetoric and pro immigration stance into the hands of the Brexit Party, whilst pushing ardent remainers and economically literate lefties into the arms of the Lib Dems.
His idea is to garner support for as many smaller parties as possible so that in every marginal seat he can win with a historically low % of the vote.
He's using the same primary school maths as were applied to his 2017 manifesto.
Uh oh
There's a distinction here between resigning as leader and resigning his government, it's the latter people are expecting although he could do the former. It gets murky with the fixed term parliament act but that should be the same as a VONC and the 14 day period.
The latter point is a good one and it's what will drive the need for a national unity gov quickly. Although they are planning on tabling legislation to get a civil servant to do it if Boris can't/won't.
Thanks, especially the new legislation bit, I wasn't aware of that. Am I just wrong about a deputy taking over as effective PM then? I mean, if Boris had a stroke from a surfeit of swan stuffed with goldfinches or something wouldn't someone else step up for a while?
I should caveat its not confirmed but the political journalists tend to be right.
If Boris died from his pants literally catching fire then you'd have a party replacement but it's not like the US it wouldn't necessarily be the deputy. For one thing because we don't currently have one
I think Raab is the closest role and god forbid that psycho gets his hands on office.
Looking forward to watch the Parliamentary Debate when I get home.
Thought this was spot on from McDonnell and a wake up call to any Labour voters on the fence considering the Lib Dems.
https://talkradio.co.uk/news/john-m...=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1569243623
Swinson is already regurgitating the 'no magic money tree' and 'we need to make tough choices' rhetoric that the Tories have been parroting for the last 10 years. As he says, we all know who will feel the brunt of these "tough choices".
https://talkradio.co.uk/news/john-m...=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1569243623
Swinson is already regurgitating the 'no magic money tree' and 'we need to make tough choices' rhetoric that the Tories have been parroting for the last 10 years. As he says, we all know who will feel the brunt of these "tough choices".
Matthew Pennycook: Labour MP resigns as Shadow Brexit Minister to 'focus efforts' on campaigning for Remain
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/pol...forts-on-campaigning-for-remain-a4246781.html
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/pol...forts-on-campaigning-for-remain-a4246781.html
Someone has to talk about fiscal responsibility, we’re still in deficit by 40b a year and all the tories and labour want to do is spend money like we are the Greece or Italy of the 80s. Good for her.
Spoken like a true lefty. I wonder why can't Labour just win over progressives like yourself.
Yeah and fiscal responsibility should begin by closing tax loopholes for the rich do you not agree?
The top 1% pay nearly a third of all income tax in the UK. We're truly fecked if we start increasing taxes on them, they are the ones with the means to leave if they want to.
What really needs to change is tax on existing wealth, and thats not a loophole.
The thing is... this whole 'if you tax the mega rich more than they will just up and leave' is not based on actual evidence. It also doesn't take a great imagination to wonder why the theory gets thrown around, almost as if it is fact.
They did a study on every million $ earner in the USA and these people could literally just move to another state to pay less tax if they wanted to... they don't even have to go to another country. Yet the levels of inter state migration was lower than for poorer or middle class people. The reality is, that when you have that much money... place is actually more important than the extra $. If you are a millionaire, settled with a family and business... are you really going to up sticks and move just to pay a bit less tax?
Spoken like a true lefty. I wonder why can't Labour just win over progressives like yourself.
Great series of posts, I agree with all of them. Including Sweet's, Momentum Labour won't win over those interested in fiscal responsibility, as your own post shows you find the very subject laughable.
There are loopholes need closing, but the point about existing wealth is a good one.
I think when thinking of taxing the top 1% (or 0.1%) we have to consider the reason that it isn't already happening.
For every single political party of any persuasion, taxing the top 1% is an absolute no brainer. They represent a tiny minority of the votes and the money they could provide would win a large majority of the votes. It would be the easiest ticket to perpetual election winning if it could be done.
The problem is you can't tax them anymore than we currently are. It isn't just about them leaving, it's about them finding ways around paying more than they feel is fair.
The part you're not accounting for in your migration statement is that the top 0.1% particularly aren't paying tax according to the doctrines and rules you or I do. They are paying tax according to their own rules. If they want to pay less tax they wouldn't need to move to do so.
Essentially the cost to make them pay more in tax outweighs the tax the country will receive. Again this is obvious as there is every single incentive to tax them to a greater level. Any party who was able to shake them down for another £100 billion would win a landslide.
That's why the truth is that any party who talk about increasing taxes, that are already at an all time peacetime high in comparison to GDP, can only be talking about taxing two groups of people: middle earners and lower earners.
The reason political parties don't tax middle earners further is because they're the bulk of the voting base. Turkies do not vote for Xmas so for any party this won't happen.
We then are left with poor people. They vote to a far smaller degree than every other class and whilst they don't have much to give individually, collectively an increase such as the 5% on VAT, another 5p on fuel duties or 5% on council tax which disporportiontely hurts them is an easy winner. Poor people also use public services less as they die younger, go to higher subsidised education to a much lower rate etc
Likewise punitive corporation tax rates (if they weren't easily avoidable) merely push the price of the goods those companies supply. If we have 3 competing bread manufacturers all of whom need to make a £1b profit to keep their shareholders happy... What do you think occurs if the government take £500m of their profit? The price of bread increase and the money in the pockets of the poorest decreases.
Any vote for an increase in taxes is a vote for taxing poorer people disproportionately. That's why we should be voting for an abolition of these taxes.
Last edited:
Spoken like a true lefty. I wonder why can't Labour just win over progressives like yourself.
You really aren't very good at this are you?
Yes, not disagreeing with that.
I agree with that, although not sure how you do it. Maybe when assets are sold.
But I'm genuinely concerned by the wish lists we're seeing from Labour and the Tories. We already have a 40 billion gap every year between what we earn and what we spend. That's money we have to borrow and pay interest on and it costs us £48billion/year (and rising), which is more than we spend on defence, police, housing and transport. I don't think that's funny.
What level would Sweet Square like that number to get to? 100bn/year, which is more than we spend on education maybe? For someone who hates capitalists so much, he's sure keen on their generosity.
Last edited:
You spend a ton of time in here moaning about the Labour Party and its ''far left'' turn etc. But your own political views are not even close to being on the left at all, I would get if it you had a few annoyances or concerns with the party platform but you fundamental disagree with it. And you are basically in favour of
It would be like me complaining that the tory party isn't trying to win the socialist vote. Its very odd.
So in your opinion... raising tax rates on the wealthy won't matter because they won't need to move away and will take avoidance measures to pay less anyway. I mean, not everyone avoids tax but I guess no harm in raising the taxes in that case if that's what you believe. Really, I would say this country needs large scale tax reform to make avoidance far more difficult but that's another thing.
I mean, when the people in power are very wealthy... you believe they'd have an incentive to tax themselves more? The reality is that those in power are in that position because they largely have the support of other very wealthy and powerful people. I don't think they would keep that support for too long if they decided to 'shake them down for another £100 billion'.
Do you think the majority of the mainstream media support the Conservative party because of altruism?
Only if your starting point is wrong. Caring about the public finances used to be a centrist position. There's an argument for spending a bit more, or re-prioritising spending, or raising taxes in some areas - these are all moderate arguments that left and right could and used to argue over, but there was a basic starting point. But the barking mad, uncosted laundry list we're seeing from both the main parties, is a sign they have lost their senses. I can't vote for that.
The problem is that the austerity measures employed from 2010 onwards which came under the guise of fiscal responsibility essentially meant punishing ordinary people for the mistakes and greed of rich bankers and the like. Why should ordinary people accept that sort of politics instead of voting for people who instead offer them much more?
I think the mainstream media tend to support the party they think is the most popular. This is obviously in their interest, the same reason they make columns about United relentlessly and not Mansfield Town.
They successfully supported Blair for the few elections he won and then moves to supporting Cameron on the elections resulting in his Prime Ministership. I think the whole media argument is correlation not causation. It pays to back a winning horse.
Overall there are no statistics that currently show the richest people in society wouldn't move away if they were taxed to a greater level, because they've never been forced to pay tax at a level that is over a level they believe to be fair.
If rich people were forced to give up the entirety of their wealth, or move, they'd obviously move. Likewise if it cost the exchequer £100b in civil servants, private investigators and lawyers to enforce this new tax, which generated only £50b, it would be a dumb idea.
As I said we're currently taxed as a country more than we've ever been taxed before, whilst at the same time the richest are paying more than ever. That's common sense because as I said squeezing the maximum amount from this group is electorally a home run. To assume that politicians aren't putting their own interests (keeping their jobs and keeping their power) above anything else would be naive in my view.
Absolutely agreed. Both parties are unelectable in a system where one of those parties has to be elected. We're in Turd Sandwich Vs Giant Douche territory.
You speak of naive but you think the media just support a party because they think they are popular? You don't think Tony Blair had a deal with Murdoch in return for his support? Now that... is naive.
If Tony Blair were to have offered Murdoch some form of "deal", why didn't Major offer Murdoch the same or more? By your logic the papers are inherently Tory and therefore this deal would have been taken by Major.
The problem with this logic is again it assumes the press decide who gets elected. If that were true we'd have the same party having been elected for the last 40 years.
Blair was always going to win in 1997 and was always going to win in 2001 and 2005. At the start he was against poor opposition who were a mess and throughout the period there was a global economic boom.
In this scenario Blair would have no incentive to accept such a "deal" as you're proposing unless the cost of said deal was close to zero. At the same time the chance of the Tories getting in was small so the incentive for them to offer Murdoch a deal was very high. In that scenario it's obvious that the Tories would offer infinitely more than Blair ever would.
Why didn't Major offer the same deal? It isn't as simple as that... it's like two suppliers cosying up to the same sales prospect. At the end of the day, the customer will pick one. If both offers are similar, then I am sure public opinion will also play a part. Alastair Campbell's deputy talks about it in his book... it was basically a case of Labour would leave Murdoch to pursue his business interests without interference and the party would receive favourable coverage in return.
I didn't say they are inherently Tory. I think they can very easily switch allegiance. You believe their only allegiance is to who is most popular with the public and I disagree. I think their allegiance depends very much on their own personal interests and they are well aware of their own power to influence public opinion.
The point is the options would never have been similar. A party in a weak electoral position would always have a greater incentive to offer Murdoch the most. A party guaranteed to win would not offer him anything.
Therefore if Murdoch controlled election results you could guarantee the party going into the election with a much smaller vote share would offer him the most and therefore win.
So then the question is do the underdogs generally win elections? The answer to that is patently no.
I am losing the will to live here... I will just call it a day. I am not changing your mind and you certainly won't change mine.
I listened to Corbyn's speech at the Conference and agreed with his policy positions.
Raising Taxes on the Top 5% is the minimum.
He did not mention a Wealth Tax. Those Off Shore Accounts must be taxed.
Raising Taxes on the Top 5% is the minimum.
He did not mention a Wealth Tax. Those Off Shore Accounts must be taxed.
Tell that to the French. Their 75% tax on high earners backfired spectacularly. And Sweden.
The US is different because there isn't a massive difference across states and there's only so many places you can go for top jobs. Even still, estimates suggest anything much more than 50% and Americans will start to move.
What people forget is that for years before 2010, those same ordinary people were being supported by the success of those rich bankers. It went both ways. Under Gordon Brown we made a deal that we would use financial services for our spending plans and accepted we would become reliant on it.
I really can't be bothered with this... but nobody is talking about 75%.
"Estimates suggest"... of course they do.
that's exactly what you said when trying to argue the other way that it wouldn't make a difference.Anyway, we don't need estimates. We have France and Sweden. We know people will leave.