Bollitics The new leader of the Labour Party

[tonyh29]

 

( you also carefully seem to neglect to mention who appointed ATOS in the first place  )

Not carefully at all, the other Tory party with the red ties. But this government are the one that turbocharged them

and if there is a huge spike as a result of ATOS as you suggest ...

I never suggested that it was as a result of just ATOS, its a result of many of this governments policies

 

 

I owe you an apology with my last post as I thought someone else had written it  , the quotes had gone all weird on the page

 

so I apolgise for the "condesending comment"  that wasn't aimed at you and I never think that of your posts  ... arguably I should also  apologise to the person i did aim it as , it probably wasn't warranted at the end of the day 

Edited December 6, 2014 by tonyh29

[blandy]

Life was really shit for the less fortunate since man began to walk the planet , that's not a product of this government

This gov't it making their lives worse, not better - and not even trying to make their lives better. That's not what Gov'ts should be doing. Surely that much is blatantly obvious and unarguable to everyone.

that wasn't what he said though

Eh? sorry T. To be clear, yes, clearly always the worst off/least fornutate will have the worst of things. My point is that these people are now having their lives worsened because, directly, of Gov't actions. Which is not the right way for a Gov't to behave.

[tonyh29]

 

 

 

Life was really shit for the less fortunate since man began to walk the planet , that's not a product of this government

This gov't it making their lives worse, not better - and not even trying to make their lives better. That's not what Gov'ts should be doing. Surely that much is blatantly obvious and unarguable to everyone.

 

that wasn't what he said though

 

Eh? sorry T. To be clear, yes, clearly always the worst off/least fornutate will have the worst of things. My point is that these people are now having their lives worsened because, directly, of Gov't actions. Which is not the right way for a Gov't to behave.

 

 

 

I suspect we are arguabing at cross porpoises 

 

I read the comment "Life is really shit for those less fortunate in this country and that is a product of this governments policies" 

 

and respdonded that life has alwasy been shit for those people , now maybe Bicks was only referring to the now (i suspect he was) but as he wasn't totally clear on this point I was arguing it was ever so  (though more so under that eveil Edward I it seems   )

 

I suspect it will always be so as well no matter who is in charge (Poverty gap widened whilst we live the socialist dream 1997 to 2010 for example )  ..even if the Greens got in whilst as  a result we will all undountbale be worse off , the current worse off will still be even worse off than the worse off

[blandy]

I don't think the Greens will get in, T, so you're safe there.

It'd be good if they got a few seats and had some influence, though. A left wing, environmentally aware party is exactly what we need to have influencing the way the country is run.

[OutByEaster?]

I suspect it will always be so as well no matter who is in charge (Poverty gap widened whilst we live the socialist dream 1997 to 2010 for example )  ..even if the Greens got in whilst as  a result we will all undountbale be worse off , the current worse off will still be even worse off than the worse off

It's interesting that in the budget, there seems to be confusion that we've got a wonderful economy, but we're no more productive. I'm guessing it's because all of those extra billions are going into the hands of about 100 people. Anyway, it looks like we've decided to try and make up the deficit by reducing the power of the state by restricting benefits and selling more stuff off to corporations.

There will always be some people worse off than others, but there's something very wrong when we live in a world where the 85 richest people control the same amount of wealth as the world's poorest 3 billion.

[Awol]

Is this "the Tories are shite" thread, or "the new Leader of the Labour Party"?

As we seem to be on the former subject (and their alleged ideological plan to drive all but the landed gentry to suicide) there is a really big elephant in the corner being quite deliberately ignored by almost everyone posting on this thread...

The UK is still borrowing money at a dizzying rate, in large part because the State has ballooned over recent decades into a behemoth that even the evil baby eating Tories cannot control.

The dreaded cuts have barely scratched the surface of this problem and Osborne's recent rosy predictions about wiping out the deficit in a few more years are nonsense, imo. They can't make the kind of cuts necessary just to bring down spending to a level that stops the national debt growing any further (forget paying it down), at least not without starting a revolution.

The Tories are at least aware of the problem though, Labour and the LD's seem happy enough pretending it isn't even there. Yes the Coalition gov has made some frankly bizarre decisions on where to cut during this Parliament, but even they are being fundamentally dishonest with voters about the scale of the challenge. The truly difficult questions are either ignored completely or kicked way into touch by both them and their detractors.

So to our resident lefties an honest question: how on earth is any UK government going to reduce public spending to the point that the country avoids the eventual bankruptcy it is hurtling towards?

Aside from the usual 'disband the military' type answers (which wouldn't save as much as its proponents seem to think) or the 'bash the bankers' symbolism politics, how do people really think it can be done without dismantling the current social contract and expectations around entitlements from the state?

I'm not proposing the latter btw, just wondering what ideas, if any, lie beyond the political rhetoric.

[OutByEaster?]

It's not about making cuts, it's about making sure that we collect taxes from everyone. You can only cut so far, at some point you need to tax the companies that are enjoying the current 'boom'.

 

 

Increasingly, I think making cuts is about reducing the power of the state and the continued movement of power into corporate rather than public hands, not reducing the deficit.

[snowychap]

...

in large part because the State has ballooned over recent decades into a behemoth that even the evil baby eating Tories cannot control.

...

How do you measure this 'ballooning'?

In terms of government spending as a proportion of GDP then it was above 40% from 1966/67 until 1996/97 (allowing for a slight dip under in the last couple of years of the eigthies) and then went back above 40% in 2004/5 (hovering just above until 2008).

That's according to this spreadsheet linked from this page on The Grauniad's website. It looks like the figures used to be taken directly from HM Treasury (probably come from ONS/OBR now).

Edited December 6, 2014 by snowychap

[bickster]

Also if we increase wages in line with the living wage more people pay more tax and are also better off. The min wage is deliberately artificially low, it also gives people more money to spend increasing VAT income too. Win alround except for businesses. Oh well

[tonyh29]

Also if we increase wages in line with the living wage more people pay more tax and are also better off. The min wage is deliberately artificially low, it also gives people more money to spend increasing VAT income too. Win alround except for businesses. Oh well

 

wouldn't they just put the prices up to counter this and thus negate the 28p an hour payrise everyone on minimum wage would receive ?

 

it was interesting in the last (or current !) recession that the venues I book for my work  struggled big time  , people weren't hiring venues for whatever reason ... their solution ..Hike up my prices by 20%  pretty much overnight , they didn't care about the business they weren't getting but they knew companies like ours DID still need them so used us to subsidise their losses  ... these were increases i couldn't pass on to my clients in most case so in order to keep to the budgets agreed with clients we had to be less generous on pay rises / none at all  to employees or mileage rates  , we had to dig in and see it through  (yself and the other directors cut our salries first so that we could get through and keep staff employed rather than laying people off ,  but that isnt' what people want to hear in this thread is it , doesn't meet the ideoloical view  ) ...

 

but , end result was employees pay doesn't go up  ...but their food costs , their petrol costs , their energy bills and so on and so on  all do .... now that may be the governments fault , but I think businesses themselves should also be having a good hard look at themselves

 

 

(P.s .... those that fleeced me I made of point of finding alternative venues in the longer run and no longer give them business   ... told you I'm a stubborn sod)

[markavfc40]

Reducing the deficit shouldn't now be done by reducing public spending. That reduction has already been taken too far for me.

 

More now needs to bought in through taxes. If that means increasing the amount of tax of those of us that can afford to pay more then so be it. I'm not rich by any stretch of the imagination but I'd happily pay more in taxes if I knew it was going to help those less fortunate than me and was going to ensure we have better public services. As it is even essential services are being destroyed due to these savage cuts.

 

The Tories will obviously never go along with increased taxes as that as it not in their make up but Labour who should don't seem to have the b*llocks to say this is what needs to be done.

 

Bicks also makes a great point about increased wages resulting in increased taxes boosting the coffers.

Edited December 6, 2014 by markavfc40

[bickster]

Also if we increase wages in line with the living wage more people pay more tax and are also better off. The min wage is deliberately artificially low, it also gives people more money to spend increasing VAT income too. Win alround except for businesses. Oh well

 

wouldn't they just put the prices up to counter this and thus negate the 28p an hour payrise everyone on minimum wage would receive ?

 

it was interesting in the last (or current !) recession that the venues I book for my work  struggled big time  , people weren't hiring venues for whatever reason ... their solution ..Hike up my prices by 20%  pretty much overnight , they didn't care about the business they weren't getting but they knew companies like ours DID still need them so used us to subsidise their losses  ... these were increases i couldn't pass on to my clients in most case so in order to keep to the budgets agreed with clients we had to be less generous on pay rises / none at all  to employees or mileage rates  , we had to dig in and see it through  (yself and the other directors cut our salries first so that we could get through and keep staff employed rather than laying people off ,  but that isnt' what people want to hear in this thread is it , doesn't meet the ideoloical view  ) ...

 

but , end result was employees pay doesn't go up  ...but their food costs , their petrol costs , their energy bills and so on and so on  all do .... now that may be the governments fault , but I think businesses themselves should also be having a good hard look at themselves

 

 

(P.s .... those that fleeced me I made of point of finding alternative venues in the longer run and no longer give them business   ... told you I'm a stubborn sod)

I know what I did in that situation in the past… told 'em to do one there and then. Got on the phone, new venue in minutes

I once moved an established club night that held and regularly sold out to 1,000 people and was going to sell out that night (end of summer term) to another club in 6 hours flat. The new venue held 2,500 we got 3,000 in over the course of the night.

Owners knew it was going to be a big one and got greedy with the rental. New venue arranged, flyers being printed within the hour. The flyers were hitting the street with the ink still wet.

Owners of the original venue were literally on the phone next day begging us to go back after the summer. Still told 'em to do one. The night is still in the new venue to this day, still doing 2,000 plus punters a week - 25 years later. Though I'm no longer involved.

moral of the story, always have a disaster plan

[chrisp65]

So to our resident lefties an honest question: how on earth is any UK government going to reduce public spending to the point that the country avoids the eventual bankruptcy it is hurtling towards?

 

 

I think that's a slightly loaded question that is difficult to answer. Here's another one:

 

If we slash the public sector, cut 250,000 jobs, stop investing, close Surestart, get rid of the Fire Brigade, reduce the police force by 40% and abandon road building projects and abandon capital projects, how will we reduce the welfare bill and how will we generate tax income, demand for houses or stimulate the High Street?

 

It's a bugger's muddle.

[meregreen]

Is this "the Tories are shite" thread, or "the new Leader of the Labour Party"?

As we seem to be on the former subject (and their alleged ideological plan to drive all but the landed gentry to suicide) there is a really big elephant in the corner being quite deliberately ignored by almost everyone posting on this thread...

The UK is still borrowing money at a dizzying rate, in large part because the State has ballooned over recent decades into a behemoth that even the evil baby eating Tories cannot control.

   

 

 

Actually the deficit was caused not by State overspending. The State borrowed billions  in order to cover the debts of the private banking system. Whether or not they should have let the bastards go to the wall is another matter entirely. It is important though to point out that it wasn't Govt profligacy that got us to where we are now.

[MakemineVanilla]

What do people think about Blair's Tax Credit Act 2002?

 

It seems that it could be legitimately criticised by both the Left and the Right.

 

The left might dismiss it as merely a subsidy which allows businesses which aren't productive enough to pay a proper wage, to be subsidised by the tax payer, while at the same time increasing the supply of labour and therefore creating downward pressure on wages.

 

The right might legitimately criticise it as the means by which Labour created a client state which is substantially financially dependent on the government, and who are not going to vote into power any party who are likely to cut their benefits.

 

Nearly one in two adults in the UK receive at least half their income from the state. 

[tonyh29]

Labour councellor suspended today for retweeting a Tory campaign poster modified to show show Birkenau .... She must be the dumbest person on the planet if we are to believe her excuse that she didn't recognise it ... Still at least she didn't say I was just following orders ....:

But that aside when will politicians learn and just delete all their Twitter accounts

Edited January 7, 2015 by tonyh29

[Jon]

"Oh, Mandy".

 

Basically telling Red Ed to stick his Mansion tax up his bollix. Right Wing establishment idiot.

[chrisp65]

Mansion owner says 'Mansion Tax is Bad' - shocker!  

[Jon]

Mansion owner says 'Mansion Tax is Bad' - shocker!  

Aye. Sticking up for himself and his City mates and cronies. For shame that this man was once the 'Mastermind' behind the Party. Perhaps this shows that Red Ed is actually trying to take the party (slowly) back in the right (left) direction, after the massive lurch to the right under Blair?

[Seat68]

Mandelson is a tool, always has been, always will be.