Do you want to discuss boring politics? (94 Viewers)
- Thread starter mrtrench
- Start date
duffer
Well-Known Member
It's not just about wealth, it's about how that gap is growing whilst things are the bottom are getting measurably worse.
Why doesn't anyone in the current Labour party want to tackle that?
If you're not talking about a fairer society and and a more equitable distribution of wealth and income that benefits everyone, then whatever you might want to claim, you're not of the left.
As for voting Labour, I'm sorry but not for me. And bear in mind I was a fully paid up party member, out there pushing leaflets through doors etc. etc.
If you want my vote then I need to believe you stand for something more than a slightly less worse version of the current lot. In fact, just standing for something would be a start.
If all you've got now is a choice between right-wing Tories with blue ties and centrist Tories with red ones, then whoever you vote for it could be said you're a Tory enabler.
I'm sure they'll get elected regardless, but I can't in good conscience vote for a party which believes the only way to solve our problems is further austerity.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
What I’ve never understood is why all parties not just Labour put arbitrary figures in pounds on policies. Why not just commit a percentage of GDP to said policy leaving a percentage of GDP as contingency/top up. It’s not unreasonable that spending policies are contingent on certain factors from GDP to Debt to the cost of borrowing. Seems to me that Labour set themselves up for a fall on that part. My understanding is that the £28B policy was launched in 2021 based on a paper from 2019. Since then Truss trashed the economy and Russia started a full scale invasion of Ukraine causing a massive jolt to the world economy let alone our own.
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
Is any percentage improvement in those metrics going to be deemed a success given how bad things have got over the last 14 years in your opinion?
Because small improvements aren't good enough as far as I'm concerned. Of course people are entirely entitled to think they are but that seems crazy to me.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Didn’t you once say that the voting age should be lifted to 21 as teenagers were too stupid?
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
I think the fundamental difference here is I see the Tory party as establishment power itself and not a set of policies. Most public Tory policy is there just to win elections rather than because of any deep ideological belief. The actual policy they want is never in a manifesto and snuck through by the back door in dull sounding bills we don’t hear about until someone does a deep dive ten years later.
So when Labour pick policies to get elected, they will look in many cases like Tory policy because the fact is for example most people in this country do worry about overspending. Irrationally maybe, but the job of a party trying to get elected isn’t to change minds. That has to happen earlier and frankly the left activist base has been horrible at this world wide for some time.
But once elected the difference between Johnson and Starmer or Sunak and Starmer really is one is just a normal bloke who did well for himself and the others are the literal global elite. People who have generational wealth, who went to private school and whose interests are a million miles from 99.9% of people living in this country.
We aren’t talking “bought his mum a field” we’re talking “bought his mum half of Kent”. It’s just a fundamental difference in policy drivers.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Guess it's better than further managed decline
I would say any improvement would be a success, yes.
14 years of neglect and decline is not going to be fixed overnight, as much as we would like it to be.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Considering we have two options and the other is “it gets even worse”. Yes it’s enough. Is it perfect? No. But voting is broad brush directions and I want left more than right
Next leadership election I’ll do what I’ve done every leadership election and vote based on policy and in the mean time I’ll argue with people about it. But the GE is the end of a multi decade process really.
Ah man, I can't believe I didn't think of that.
Actually I blame my parents for not being born 40 years earlier, damn them!
I don’t think any rational person would disagree but people have also got to be realistic. We live in a global world where it’s pretty much at peoples whim where they live/pay their taxes. That’s why the attached list should be commended to some extent as although they net income will be ridiculous, they’re choosing to pay that (look at the list of Brits that don’t !)
JK Rowling and Ed Sheeran estimated to be among UK's highest tax payers - BBC News
The 100 contributors, ranked by the Sunday Times, were judged to have paid £5.35bn in tax last year.
www.bbc.co.uk
In this country the top 1% pay around 30% of total income tax. Top 10% pay around 60%. It’s a fine line though, have a look at what happened when Hollande tried to implement 75% wealth tax France and also what’s happening in Norway currently
Super-rich abandoning Norway at record rate as wealth tax rises slightly | Norway | The Guardian
Flood moving abroad has come as a shock and is costing tens of millions in lost tax receipts
France forced to drop 75% supertax after meagre returns | France | The Guardian
Hollande’s measure was meant to force wealthiest to help dig country out of economic crisis, but was accused of being anti-business
I personally think it’s disgusting that the super rich feel the need to avoid paying more tax but that’s the reality. If we want better public services it will be mainly middle and higher (not rich) income earners who will have to pay for it. Unless we suddenly get some global tax regimes implemented let’s have an honest debate about what we want as a country and what it will cost us
ps before you say it FP, I know we could just carry on printing more money to cover it
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
D
Deleted member 9744
Guest
Mismanaged decline.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
I don’t think any rational person would disagree but people have also got to be realistic. We live in a global world where it’s pretty much at peoples whim where they live/pay their taxes. That’s why the attached list should be commended to some extent as although they net income will be ridiculous, they’re choosing to pay that (look at the list of Brits that don’t !)
JK Rowling and Ed Sheeran estimated to be among UK's highest tax payers - BBC News
The 100 contributors, ranked by the Sunday Times, were judged to have paid £5.35bn in tax last year.
In this country the top 1% pay around 30% of total income tax. Top 10% pay around 60%. It’s a fine line though, have a look at what happened when Hollande tried to implement 75% wealth tax France and also what’s happening in Norway currently
Super-rich abandoning Norway at record rate as wealth tax rises slightly | Norway | The Guardian
Flood moving abroad has come as a shock and is costing tens of millions in lost tax receiptsamp.theguardian.com
France forced to drop 75% supertax after meagre returns | France | The Guardian
Hollande’s measure was meant to force wealthiest to help dig country out of economic crisis, but was accused of being anti-business
I personally think it’s disgusting that the super rich feel the need to avoid paying more tax but that’s the reality. If we want better public services it will be mainly middle and higher (not rich) income earners who will have to pay for it. Unless we suddenly get some global tax regimes implemented let’s have an honest debate about what we want as a country and what it will cost us
ps before you say it FP, I know we could just carry on printing more money to cover it
Globalisation without a proper global tax regime proper fucked things TBH. But the idea we can’t tax any wealth I don’t think is true. Most of it is property wealth and that’s pretty hard to hide in the Caymans. There’s lots of reform around land that could be done to start redressing that a bit. Even just proper housing policy would go a long way. Similarly some of the pension rules. Or just one off taxes on everything above a certain amount. Lots of ideas out there. All very hard politically though as the old “what about my gran in a £1m house on a state pension” gets wheeled out.
We all know what happened to bonds and borrowing following truss’ budget though. It was subsequently unwound and her and old Kwasi were sacked within weeks. I said at the time people should be a bit concerned about how markets basically dictate/control policy to an extent (I say that as someone who thinks truss is a nutbag)
Sick Boy
Super Moderator
I voted for Clegg in 2010, or whenever it was, and still feel ashamed. Never have and never could vote Tory though.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
I think a large problem isn’t just the gap but the demographics of that gap and the potential for people to move themselves up. Everyone’s plan is get on the housing ladder cos it’s hard to build in other ways, wages are low, startups are hard. If you can’t change that at least building enough houses so everyone has a shot is fair.
If I put a sledgehammer to my laptop right now it would take a long time to be fixed.
I wish it wasn't the case, but very broken things are hard to put back together. Much easier to break them in the first place.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
I voted Street for WM Mayor. Cos the Labour guy was shite and Street is fairly apolitical for a politician. That’s the only time I think.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
I did a couple of Kennedy Lib Dem votes, but they were left of Labour in their tax and spend at the time!
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Et tu, shmmeee!
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
I’d like to see any party proposing a meaningful wealth tax based on property win an election. No chance
Agree we need some imaginative thinking though, I just don’t see it coming from any politicians here (or probably abroad) these days
I agree, I hope Labour will do exactly that.
All I'm saying is that literally everything is utterly broken and I think it will take a long time to fix.
Things might improve by 1% and the anti-Starmer crowd will say that's not enough, the Starmer backers will say it's a good start and we'll be back here arguing about it!
200k last year!
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
He's suggesting PFI for the cancelled part of HS2 so he's right up your street
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Answer the question
Northants Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
I agree but the minute a Labour leader proposes something radical before an election out come the doctored pics of him in a Russian hat in the Mail/Express
And presto, the Tory/Tufton madness extends to 19 years
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
They're going to go for him anyway, he's a bigger pillock than I though if he thinks the knives aren't coming out for him as it draws nearer.
And I bet he keeps to the fiscal rules him and Reeves have laid out anyway, I hope he proves me wrong.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
No. It’s a silly question. Let’s just cut to the chase: you think those metrics won’t improve under Starmer. I do.