Rich Socialists - do as I say, not as I do

[TTwiggy]

turbobloke said:

TTwiggy said:

turbobloke said:

Countdown said:

wsurfa said:

Exactly - 2 permanent places of work, hence travel to either from home is normal commuting, and not a business expense. Which everyone, apart from MPs, would be subject to.

If the two places are considered "permanent" by HMRC then the payments would be taxed. There is no exemption for MPs.

What makes you think MPs are exempt from HMRC rules?

Why does it have to be an exemption from the rules rather than a favourable variation? MPs do get special treatment after all.

If an employee is made redundant then from what I'd read previously the first £30k of redundancy pay i.e. severance pay is tax free, but an MP who remains in office for one term and then gets booted out by voters is entitled to a tax-free severance sum of 50% of their salary, which is significantly over £30k at current rates even for back bench fodder.

It would be no surprise to find other special treatments and maybe some exemptions.

All of which is now veering somewhat away from the subject of this thread, as those are the rules for every colour of tie.

You can only reply to a post as it is - take your example above, for example.

Even so, with your wise words as a catalyst I managed to recall this...which definitely involves a tie of one particuar colour and it happens to be red.

Former Mr Speaker Gorbals Mick said:

I didn't come into politics not to take what's owed to me

Which included a severance package on favourable tax terms. Hope that's OK

He clearly didn't 'need' it and without looking I would surmise that ol'Gorbals wasn't too keen on tax avoidance except in his own case.

Indeed, but this line of discussion grew out of Nellist's stance of only taking what he needed (less than half his salary), which still doesn't appear to be enough (or little enough) for some posters.

[crankedup]

turbobloke said:

Just one point.

crankedup said:

Thatcher was a very strong willed P.M. however she did create a huge Social divide within the Country, one that, partially, still exists...

Inequality was worse under Labour than under Thatcher

That's one guy suggesting that from the stat's he has read the PAY DIFFERENTIAL was greater under Labour than Thatcher's Tory Government. This has some bearing on Social inequality but is not the complete story by any stretch of the imagination. The pay differentials were likely conjured up and presented having been taken as National average comparisons.
The major Social divide was largely between North and South of Britain, having seen so much industry being closed under Thatcher's Government, with so little consideration as to what the workers were supposed to do for work.

[crankedup]

Digga said:

crankedup said:

As for 'champagne Socialists', many do contribute from their personal wealth not always in financial terms either.

They may well do, but that hardly equates to "from each according to ability, to each according to needs".

Somewhat out of date and almost irrelevant in today's Society. Much like the imagined Socialist, I wouldn't refer to the Labour Party as Socialists at all. IF WE WE DISCUSSING THIS THREAD BACK IN THE 1920'S - 1970'S the it would certainly be relevant. But times have changed.

[turbobloke]

crankedup said:

Digga said:

crankedup said:

As for 'champagne Socialists', many do contribute from their personal wealth not always in financial terms either.

They may well do, but that hardly equates to "from each according to ability, to each according to needs".

Somewhat out of date and almost irrelevant in today's Society. Much like the imagined Socialist, I wouldn't refer to the Labour Party as Socialists at all. IF WE WE DISCUSSING THIS THREAD BACK IN THE 1920'S - 1970'S the it would certainly be relevant. But times have changed.

What you may think of as socialism, even thinking in upper case letters, may apply to the 1920s or whenever, but the delusion involved persists today. The new forms may vary in terms of the means to achieve whichever goals are the flavour of the week but the same principles are still there. All that happened is that some people in the Labour Party realised that they would face very limited electoral progress while they were holding on to the most nonsensical elements and were open about the rest, so we got New Labour but deep down the same Old Tosh.

[LucreLout]

TTwiggy said:

Indeed, but this line of discussion grew out of Nellist's stance of only taking what he needed (less than half his salary), which still doesn't appear to be enough (or little enough) for some posters.

Half his base pay maybe. 3/4 of his package.
MPs ordinary place of work is Westminster. They should fund their own travel to and from it.
If the taxpayer is so good as to provide them staff and a home office in their constituency, then this too is an ordinary place of work (the location of which they freely choose) so again, no expenses should apply.
Its troughing pure and simple. Troughing less than another guy doesn't change what it is, only moderates the extent to which it is done.
Nellist may be your hero. But he took much more than he needed and gave less than his ability to do so. That, for a socialist, is hypocritical.

[TTwiggy]

LucreLout said:

Half his base pay maybe. 3/4 of his package.
MPs ordinary place of work is Westminster. They should fund their own travel to and from it.
If the taxpayer is so good as to provide them staff and a home office in their constituency, then this too is an ordinary place of work (the location of which they freely choose) so again, no expenses should apply.
Its troughing pure and simple. Troughing less than another guy doesn't change what it is, only moderates the extent to which it is done.
Nellist may be your hero. But he took much more than he needed and gave less than his ability to do so. That, for a socialist, is hypocritical.

He's not my hero and I've never voted for any shade of red. I think he's owed respect for his stance however and I think that this should be acknowledged rather than churlishly looking for cheap shots to take against the man.

[LucreLout]

crankedup said:

That's one guy suggesting that from the stat's he has read the PAY DIFFERENTIAL was greater under Labour than Thatcher's Tory Government. This has some bearing on Social inequality but is not the complete story by any stretch of the imagination. The pay differentials were likely conjured up and presented having been taken as National average comparisons.
The major Social divide was largely between North and South of Britain, having seen so much industry being closed under Thatcher's Government, with so little consideration as to what the workers were supposed to do for work.

More mines closed under labour than under Maggie.
Manufacturing shrank more under the last labour government than the previous tory one.
Labour shut the grammar schools, and wrecked education to the extent that gcses give an A* for turning up, A levels come in cereal packets, and batchelors degrees in Christmas crackers.
Their actions keep the poor poor. They have to, because nobody with a brain and a little money votes labour.
It is they that destroyed social mobility and our historic industries. They and their union Barron paymasters.

[LucreLout]

TTwiggy said:

He's not my hero and I've never voted for any shade of red. I think he's owed respect for his stance however and I think that this should be acknowledged rather than churlishly looking for cheap shots to take against the man.

It's not a cheap shot to state the truth. Its not a cheap shot to state that he doesn't count as a non-hypocritical socialist. He doesn't.
I have less derision for nellist than many of his cohort, but no respect.

[Thorodin]

LucreLout said:

It is they that destroyed social mobility and our historic industries. They and their union Barron paymasters.

Agreed with all! However, some, not all, of the barons used the ballots as a means of personal advancement on the backs of their members. The members were led up the garden path by 'shop' blackmail to vote according to the leaders' dictat. The only influence the members had was their vote and that was abused by omnipresent stewards. Just another example of the lowest on the ladder used as validation fodder for failed political dogma.

[Sir Humphrey]

Labour, the anti hereditary party. Unless the heritage is from Tony Benn (5 generations in parliament) or Neil Kinnock (2 generations in parliament) or Tony Blair (2 generations in parliament).

[Gandahar]

Soov535 said:

I always respected Benn, in a grudging way.

But what a HYPOCRITE!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance...

ETA

Please don't circumnavigate, the swear filter it may effect your posting rights.

Edited by Big Al. on Wednesday 29th October 17:57

RIGHT WING DAILY MAIL READING PISTONHEADS BLOKE WHO DECRIES THE DAILY WAIL IN I WOULD DO EXACTLY THAT IN HIS POSITION BUT MEANWHILE WANT TO BE OUTRAGED ON THE INTERNET SHOCKER


slight snigger from me

[Gandahar]

LucreLout said:

crankedup said:

That's one guy suggesting that from the stat's he has read the PAY DIFFERENTIAL was greater under Labour than Thatcher's Tory Government. This has some bearing on Social inequality but is not the complete story by any stretch of the imagination. The pay differentials were likely conjured up and presented having been taken as National average comparisons.
The major Social divide was largely between North and South of Britain, having seen so much industry being closed under Thatcher's Government, with so little consideration as to what the workers were supposed to do for work.

More mines closed under labour than under Maggie.
Manufacturing shrank more under the last labour government than the previous tory one.
Labour shut the grammar schools, and wrecked education to the extent that gcses give an A* for turning up, A levels come in cereal packets, and batchelors degrees in Christmas crackers.
Their actions keep the poor poor. They have to, because nobody with a brain and a little money votes labour.
It is they that destroyed social mobility and our historic industries. They and their union Barron paymasters.

Really?

If Maggie was so good how come nobody wants to do it again?

We seem to be getting on quite well without it considering we all seem to be liberal democrats nowadays? What's our GDP compared to other western nations at the moment?

Edited by Gandahar on Friday 31st October 20:36

[turbobloke]

Gandahar said:

LucreLout said:

crankedup said:

That's one guy suggesting that from the stat's he has read the PAY DIFFERENTIAL was greater under Labour than Thatcher's Tory Government. This has some bearing on Social inequality but is not the complete story by any stretch of the imagination. The pay differentials were likely conjured up and presented having been taken as National average comparisons.
The major Social divide was largely between North and South of Britain, having seen so much industry being closed under Thatcher's Government, with so little consideration as to what the workers were supposed to do for work.

More mines closed under labour than under Maggie.
Manufacturing shrank more under the last labour government than the previous tory one.
Labour shut the grammar schools, and wrecked education to the extent that gcses give an A* for turning up, A levels come in cereal packets, and batchelors degrees in Christmas crackers.
Their actions keep the poor poor. They have to, because nobody with a brain and a little money votes labour.
It is they that destroyed social mobility and our historic industries. They and their union Barron paymasters.

Really?

Really. Here's the data.

Manufacturing as % of GDP:

Thatcher - fell from 25.8% to 22.5% (-3.3%)
Major - fell from 22.5% to 20.0% (-2.5%)
Blair - fell from 20.0% to 12.8% (-7.2%)

Figures reported in The Financial Times using data from the Office of National Statistics.

The decline in mining output, in percentages:

11 years of Thatcher: 33%
11 years before Thatcher: 45%
11 years after Thatcher (Major and Blair): 72%
11 years of New Labour (Blair and Brown): 64%

Source here is ONS.

These are some secondary sources with similar primary sources to the above on social mobility and inequality failure under Labour.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politic...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/jun/11/soci...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/gul...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2182547/Inequality...

Gandahar said:

If Maggie was so good how come nobody wants to do it again?

That appears to refer to opening mines in order to close them.

Gandahar said:

What's our GDP compared to other western nations at the moment?

Recovering, since Labour were booted out, but not as quickly as it might due to the LibDems.

[unrepentant]

Sir Humphrey said:

Labour, the anti hereditary party. Unless the heritage is from Tony Benn (5 generations in parliament) or Neil Kinnock (2 generations in parliament) or Tony Blair (2 generations in parliament).

Neil Kinnock is the son of a coalminer. Neither of his children are in parliament although his son is a PPC. Blair's father was the adopted son of shipyard workers and none of Blair's children are in Parliament. So how do you get 2 generations?

Tony Benn's son is an MP and his father was a liberal MP but where do you get 5 generations from?

In any event there is a huge difference between inheriting a seat in the Lord's and standing for election in your own right and winning a seat.

[Sir Humphrey]

unrepentant said:

Neil Kinnock is the son of a coalminer. Neither of his children are in parliament although his son is a PPC. Blair's father was the adopted son of shipyard workers and none of Blair's children are in Parliament. So how do you get 2 generations?

Tony Benn's son is an MP and his father was a liberal MP but where do you get 5 generations from?

In any event there is a huge difference between inheriting a seat in the Lord's and standing for election in your own right and winning a seat.

Kinnock, Benn and Blair - dropped into safe Labour seats next year. Although the way things are going they might be the only three MPs left.

[unrepentant]

Sir Humphrey said:

unrepentant said:

Neil Kinnock is the son of a coalminer. Neither of his children are in parliament although his son is a PPC. Blair's father was the adopted son of shipyard workers and none of Blair's children are in Parliament. So how do you get 2 generations?

Tony Benn's son is an MP and his father was a liberal MP but where do you get 5 generations from?

In any event there is a huge difference between inheriting a seat in the Lord's and standing for election in your own right and winning a seat.

Kinnock, Benn and Blair - dropped into safe Labour seats next year. Although the way things are going they might be the only three MPs left.

None of them are in Parliament so you're talking out of your arse. They have to be elected first. Which seat is Blair standing in?

[edh]

"new" labour failed because they weren't socialists - they got conned by the wonderful world of finance who led them all the way to the big crash.. They thought the UK could live in a financialised bubble where no other sector really mattered.

They raised incomes for the lowest, mainly through big transfers of cash in tax credits, but let the highest earners race away, therefore increasing the relative gap between richest and poorest. We now know that much of the banks' profits that drove those high earnings were illusory as they have unwound in big losses subsequently.

Much heavy manufacturing was gradually extinguished in this country over the last 50 years, as it was cheaper to do it elsewhere. But we have a long history of failing to capitalise in new manufacturing sectors. Does anyone expect us to lead the world in applications of graphene?

I find the hysteria about today's education system a bit odd - I'm sure my kids work harder than I ever did and wouldn't seek to belittle their (and others') achievements.

btw - have you read the Jesse Norman piece on "crony capitalism" - recommended by the mad Daniel Hannan but surprisingly a piece I find myself agreeing with in large parts. http://www.jesse4hereford.com/pdf/Case_for_Real_Ca.... Read it and then tell me you think our current system is working well..

[turbobloke]

edh said:

"new" labour failed because they weren't socialists - they got conned by the wonderful world of finance who led them all the way to the big crash...

Hang on a mo G Brown Esq had an amazing tripartite regulatory system, what could possibly have gone wrong?

In terms of conning, you managed a neat inversion there - Labour were the perpetrators not the victims.

The Third Way was a con trick. Poison kills and while diluted poison may not kill a country, it nearly will, so in 1997-2010 people were conned in sufficient numbers to elect socialism lite. For undiluted socialist nonsense these days you go to the Green Party.

From 'Red Pepper: Green Is The New Red":

"The Green Party's Manifesto For A Sustainable Society incorporates key socialist principles. Rejecting privatisation, free market economics and globalisation, it includes commitments to public ownership, worker's rights, economic democracy, progressive taxation and the redistribution of wealth and power."

Madness but exactly as described earlier by the co-founder and former leader of Greenpeace, Dr P Moore.

"There were always extreme, irrational and mystical elements within our movement, but they tended to be kept in their place during the early years. Then in the mid-Eighties the ultraleftists and extremists took over.

New Labour may be viewed as socialism lite, but that's still socialism. For the full nine yards on socialism it's the Greens who offer hardcore feckwittery in 21c. Their tactics are however the same in terms of hiding what's going on behind a veneer to make them electorally palatable, conning voters just as New Labour did in 1997 and subsequently. The only way people will vote for any form of socialism in sufficient numbers is via a con trick of one form or another. The claim that socialism doesn't exist in 21c UK is a con trick.

[Hackney]

LucreLout said:

Half his base pay maybe. 3/4 of his package.
MPs ordinary place of work is Westminster. They should fund their own travel to and from it.
If the taxpayer is so good as to provide them staff and a home office in their constituency, then this too is an ordinary place of work (the location of which they freely choose) so again, no expenses should apply.
Its troughing pure and simple. Troughing less than another guy doesn't change what it is, only moderates the extent to which it is done.
Nellist may be your hero. But he took much more than he needed and gave less than his ability to do so. That, for a socialist, is hypocritical.

So if an MPs normal place of work is Westminster then how do they meet, discuss, get the views of their constituents?

I think your understanding of expenses in the world as a whole lacking.

It's the norm for many people to go day to day to one place of work, but if they have to go somewhere else then they claim expenses. For example I work in Battersea but have customers around the country. When I go to Battersea I pay. When I go to Milton Keynes, Birmingham, Preston the company pays.

Some companies now actually deduct the daily mileage from the unusual mileage for an expenses claim.
Eg norm is Hackney - Battersea (11 miles)
Hackney to Nottingham claim is 130 miles minus 11

[crankedup]

LucreLout said:

crankedup said:

That's one guy suggesting that from the stat's he has read the PAY DIFFERENTIAL was greater under Labour than Thatcher's Tory Government. This has some bearing on Social inequality but is not the complete story by any stretch of the imagination. The pay differentials were likely conjured up and presented having been taken as National average comparisons.
The major Social divide was largely between North and South of Britain, having seen so much industry being closed under Thatcher's Government, with so little consideration as to what the workers were supposed to do for work.

More mines closed under labour than under Maggie.
Manufacturing shrank more under the last labour government than the previous tory one.
Labour shut the grammar schools, and wrecked education to the extent that gcses give an A* for turning up, A levels come in cereal packets, and batchelors degrees in Christmas crackers.
Their actions keep the poor poor. They have to, because nobody with a brain and a little money votes labour.
It is they that destroyed social mobility and our historic industries. They and their union Barron paymasters.

We have to look and understand why these mines were closed by Labour politics. Likely find that these mines were not closed for political reasons but for commercial common sense.

I dislike the very early intervention of dividing kids into two education divisions, the closure of Grammar schools ended this inequality. Far better to have an education system that drags up the less educated to a higher level within one curriculum. That's not saying drag down the 'brighter pupils'.

How did Labour destroy Social mobility?
Our workers, without Union power behind them, would have been ground into the ground by employers within industry. Having said that I agree the Unions were allowed to grow far to much in terms of power over Management. An example of employers abuse of pay restriction can again be seen today with many workers stating no pay rise for 5 years in some cases. That whilst Companies boast of higher profits and the Boardrooms see unrelenting huge remuneration increases year on year.

Seems to me the pendulum has swung to far in favour of Employers at the moment.

The U.K. has seen a downward trend of manufacturing and exporting for decades, Thatcher's Government ended Apprenticeships and decided manufacturing was not the way forward, more interest was focused on financial services, pharmaceuticals and sciences to the detriment of manufacturing. If the 'new' income industries had been developed (still developing) alongside manufacturing we wouldn't be in half the problems we now face. Thankfully a re-focus on our manufacturing is now in place and we concentrate on quality product rather than quantity, which we cannot compete on.