The Chairman Mao resembling, Monarchy hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread

[Chindie]

I'd have imagined there's a lot of professions that will be salivating at the thought of a Labour government with ambitious plans. Think of the boom in people looking for loopholes and schemes to squirrel away every penny. There's gold in them there Hills (of 34 Park Avenue, Richmond).

[villa4europe]

I've largely ignored it all so im not sure why she's so pissed, assuming she's jewish so not happy with labour but why is she so focused on Corbyn? whats her angle? just pure hatred? fuelled by trolls shes getting on social media? I cant see the publicity / spotlight angle progressing her career, if anything she's probably lucky she's on C4 rather than another channel who would have slapped her wrist by now

[Chindie]

2 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

I've largely ignored it all so im not sure why she's so pissed, assuming she's jewish so not happy with labour but why is she so focused on Corbyn? whats her angle? just pure hatred? fuelled by trolls shes getting on social media? I cant see the publicity / spotlight angle progressing her career, if anything she's probably lucky she's on C4 rather than another channel who would have slapped her wrist by now

She saw posters that said 'Israel is a racist endeavour' and went down the rabbit hole of Labour anti-Semitism nonsense. She got abused when she first poked her head over the parapet and since then has decided she needs to keep poking the hornets nest to prove her point seemingly, even if her poking it is **** absurd.

She's decided that famously anti-racist politician Corbyn is actually Hitler.

She's very lucky to not have got the sack. Especially after the latest one.

[StefanAVFC]

What does this idiot think the average salary in the UK is?

 

[bickster]

1 hour ago, StefanAVFC said:

What does this idiot think the average salary in the UK is?

 

Owen Jones or the Bloke in the audience. Your post doesn't seem to distinguish

[desensitized43]

1 hour ago, StefanAVFC said:

What does this idiot think the average salary in the UK is?

 

Not even a hint of shame. 80k+ a year but we're all supposed to feel sorry for him while people sleep rough and visit foodbanks.

The problem is that these kinds of people think they're being punished.

[chrisp65]

Never forget, people with money are always the real victims.

Homelessness, the well salaried are made to feel guilty as they step over people.

Grenfell, the nuisance caused for Landlords and their financiers is going to be a real problem.

Taxing private schools, pure victimisation of people that just want an advantage over everyone else. 

The world can be quite a scary place if you’ve plenty of money. It’s only the tories trying to give them any sort of break.

 

 

[peterms]

1 hour ago, StefanAVFC said:

What does this idiot think the average salary in the UK is?

 

There seems to be a misunderstanding here, which the programme format and presenter don't seem well placed to clear up (at least from that clip, I've not seen the rest).  His perception that he's not in the top 5% seems not just about income, but also about wealth, and his perception that there's more than 1 in 20 who are better off than him, speaking more broadly than simply income - he refers for example to people who don't work at all because they are so rich.  He may well be right on him not being in the top 5% in that respect, I don't know.  But the discussion is more narrowly about income tax for the top 5% earners.

It's not helped by his clear unwillingness to listen to anything that doesn't fit what he's worked himself up to say, and to be fair he's not the brightest spark, but there's an important point lurking there about wealth vs income, and how best to tackle extreme inequalities in each.

[villa4europe]

19 minutes ago, desensitized43 said:

Not even a hint of shame. 80k+ a year but we're all supposed to feel sorry for him while people sleep rough and visit foodbanks.

The problem is that these kinds of people think they're being punished.

because unfortunately that's the sales pitch right there, we're taking more of your money to give to someone with no money, the guy who earns £80k a year automatically reflects back on how he got there, which is usually through a lot of stress and hard work, looks at how the people sleeping rough and visiting foodbanks got there, which you can imagine the negative stereotyping, and thinks **** that that's a shit unfair idea

if you were to float the concept of him paying more tax to fund schools, or hospitals, or even bin collections and pot holes, then that is more palatable (whilst at the same time freeing up money to spend on social housing, school meals etc)

as it is its easy to convince people that labour want to take money from people who work hard and earn decent money and give it to those who don't earn a penny but happily drain as much as possible from society, its why working class people still vote tory in some areas, labour cannot shake that stigma, Corbyn 100% cannot shake that stigma

[Risso]

3 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

For me, I’m perfectly relaxed about folks choosing a Ferrari, or a 16 bedroom house or holidays in space. Well done you.

Deliberately restricting the education of others, to maintain your advantage.... that’s about as low as it gets.

Self defeating too, imagine how much richer the Ferrari salesman would be if everyone had a genuine crack at fulfilling their potential.

How is it deliberately restricting the education of others?  Our kids don't go to Harrow or Eton, they go to local Leicestershire/Northamptonshire schools where the majority of parents aren't super wealthy, they've just done alright for themselves and want to send their kids to the nicest school they can.  I pay my taxes, and I'm not costing the state anything in terms of educating my children.  I entirely get why people look at the likes of Eton and see nothing but privilege, but half of the kids the school my eldest two go two are from the local Asian population, and they're not exactly Bullingdon types.  And again, why is it OK for the likes of Diane Abbott to send her kids to private school, but not anybody else?

[Risso]

8 minutes ago, peterms said:

There seems to be a misunderstanding here, which the programme format and presenter don't seem well placed to clear up (at least from that clip, I've not seen the rest).  His perception that he's not in the top 5% seems not just about income, but also about wealth, and his perception that there's more than 1 in 20 who are better off than him, speaking more broadly than simply income - he refers for example to people who don't work at all because they are so rich.  He may well be right on him not being in the top 5% in that respect, I don't know.  But the discussion is more narrowly about income tax for the top 5% earners.

It's not helped by his clear unwillingness to listen to anything that doesn't fit what he's worked himself up to say, and to be fair he's not the brightest spark, but there's an important point lurking there about wealth vs income, and how best to tackle extreme inequalities in each.

Those are good points Peter.  Without knowing anything about him, then it's impossible to say. £80K is a good salary, and for a single person with no kids they'd have a decent amount of disposable income.  If he's the sole earner in a family with two or three kids, then he's taking home less than two people on £40K each, and after all the usually bills, I bet he's not left with an amount that makes him feel like he needs to pop out and buy a new yacht.  He could have put it a lot better of course, but I think the main point is that earning £80K doesn't make him feel like he's in the HNW bracket.  Or he could just be a dick.

[chrisp65]

3 minutes ago, Risso said:

How is it deliberately restricting the education of others?  Our kids don't go to Harrow or Eton, they go to local Leicestershire/Northamptonshire schools where the majority of parents aren't super wealthy, they've just done alright for themselves and want to send their kids to the nicest school they can.  I pay my taxes, and I'm not costing the state anything in terms of educating my children.  I entirely get why people look at the likes of Eton and see nothing but privilege, but half of the kids the school my eldest two go two are from the local Asian population, and they're not exactly Bullingdon types.  And again, why is it OK for the likes of Diane Abbott to send her kids to private school, but not anybody else?

You’re misreading what I’ve put. I’ve said it’s fine if you want to pay for private education. 

If there was no advantage to paying for private education you wouldn’t pay for it.

That advantage is because state education is rationed. It’s rationed because its not properly funded. It’s not properly funded because people want their selfish little tax breaks. It’s about personal gain at the expense of the others. Which is actually detrimental to the whole of society.

[peterms]

7 minutes ago, Risso said:

earning £80K doesn't make him feel like he's in the HNW bracket

There's another point here, which is that say 30 or 40 years ago, someone in the top 5% income earners would probably perceive themselves as better off and more comfortable relative to others than he clearly does.  The days when, to use his examples, doctors and lawyers were seen as being above almost everyone else, living pleasant and comfortable lifestyles.  One income earner in the household often providing a good standard of living.

In part, it is the astronomical extremes of wealth that now exist that have changed that.  People like him, objectively among the top earners, feel they aren't up there, and are resentful about it.  It's hard to feel sorry for him, especially since he comes across as he does, and yet he has some kind of a point.  Perhaps he should instead be asking why he doesn't feel better off, since he's earning more than almost everyone else.  He might even support a wealth tax, especially if it meant switching some taxation from income to wealth.

[bickster]

8 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

If there was no advantage to paying for private education you wouldn’t pay for it.

Not true, it had nothing at all to do with my decision. My decision was based on religious affiliations with local authority run schools

I'd do the same again faced with the same options. If religion wasn't so insidiously ingrained in the schools here I would never have made that decision

Any government needs to sort Education out and the first step would be to remove ANY aspect of religion from schhols. C of E, Catholic, nutty American evangelists, all of them, every school. that would require proper funding. Successive governments of both colours have allowed churches of various denominations to provide funding to meet shortfalls as long as they can get their poison into the kids at an impressionable age. That is government sponsored child abuse

Fund education properly first before you start attacking private schools, Make it so that you don't need to send your kids there in the first place

[chrisp65]

15 minutes ago, bickster said:

Not true, it had nothing at all to do with my decision. My decision was based on religious affiliations with local authority run schools

I'd do the same again faced with the same options. If religion wasn't so insidiously ingrained in the schools here I would never have made that decision

Any government needs to sort Education out and the first step would be to remove ANY aspect of religion from schhols. C of E, Catholic, nutty American evangelists, all of them, every school. that would require proper funding. Successive governments of both colours have allowed churches of various denominations to provide funding to meet shortfalls as long as they can get their poison into the kids at an impressionable age. That is government sponsored child abuse

Fund education properly first before you start attacking private schools, Make it so that you don't need to send your kids there in the first place

It was an abbreviated answer aimed at the person asking a question based on money and tax.

The fuller version, including home education etc., will be available in hard back once I have the time.

I moved house to gain geographical advantage. It’s a bigger issue than a paragraph on a message board.

We need to make education fair, accessible, secular and properly funded.

That’s the leaflet sorted, now for the full manifesto....

 

[Risso]

23 minutes ago, bickster said:

 

Fund education properly first before you start attacking private schools, Make it so that you don't need to send your kids there in the first place

Exactly right.  I'm not paying for my kids to go private so that they can go to Oxford or Cambridge then become an MP.  If there was a school that was decent in the area, I might still want to pay to send them somewhere else, as is my right as a parent.  The main thing we like is that the schools are in the countryside, and not a town centre.  Also my son who is extremely dyslexic gets excellent support.  I do realise that this is something that *should* be  better in the state sector.  At the end of the day though, I'm yet to be convinced that I'm doing anything to restrict anybody else's chances, and the chances of the next PM coming from a school where our kids go is as close to zero as you can get.  Next England rugby captain, maybe.

[snowychap]

13 hours ago, Risso said:

everybody else is now going to be charged 20% more

Everybody else?

You mean all those who pay for private schooling for their children not actually everybody else.

[chrisp65]

4 minutes ago, Risso said:

Exactly right.  I'm not paying for my kids to go private so that they can go to Oxford or Cambridge then become an MP.  If there was a school that was decent in the area, I might still want to pay to send them somewhere else, as is my right as a parent.  The main thing we like is that the schools are in the countryside, and not a town centre.  Also my son who is extremely dyslexic gets excellent support.  I do realise that this is something that *should* be  better in the state sector.  At the end of the day though, I'm yet to be convinced that I'm doing anything to restrict anybody else's chances, and the chances of the next PM coming from a school where our kids go is as close to zero as you can get.  Next England rugby captain, maybe.

At no point have I mentioned Eton, Cambridge or Oxford, or the Bullingdon club or rugger captains.

I’ve only mentioned buying advantage over a deliberately poorly funded state system that the many have to use. 

On the excellent support in school for dyslexia, that’s just the whole discussion looped around again. Excellent educational support for disadvantaged kids denied to those that don’t already have an edge in society. 

It’s as simple as just not being fair.

[Sam-AVFC]

15 minutes ago, Risso said:

Exactly right.  I'm not paying for my kids to go private so that they can go to Oxford or Cambridge then become an MP.  If there was a school that was decent in the area, I might still want to pay to send them somewhere else, as is my right as a parent.  The main thing we like is that the schools are in the countryside, and not a town centre.  Also my son who is extremely dyslexic gets excellent support.  I do realise that this is something that *should* be  better in the state sector.  At the end of the day though, I'm yet to be convinced that I'm doing anything to restrict anybody else's chances, and the chances of the next PM coming from a school where our kids go is as close to zero as you can get.  Next England rugby captain, maybe.

That's actually a massive thing. The only reason I ended up at a private school was my sister is very dyslexic too and the local schools had no ability at all to deal with it and would just write the kids off and stick them in a bottom set with no extra support.

I still want state education to be properly funded and in an ideal world would like to see all private schools gone. I'm well prepared to be called a hypocrite for the rest of my life for taking this position, but idgaf as the choice was never mine.

[Mic09]

Would you consider a school voucher system as a fair way for parents to be able to decide on their children's education and challenge schools to provide a better standard?