Who will be the new Labour leader?
Poll: Who will be the new Labour leader?
Total Members Polled: 378
Discussion
TomTheTyke said:
To do this necessitates taxing those who are successful (wealthier) more and thereby reducing the gap between rich and poor.This will then enable the children of these people a greater chance to achieve more and also reduce the system of entrenched privilege.
So taxing the successful at a higher rate helps people further down be more successful? Why would they bother?It's fundamentally wrong for a person to work and for the state to steal 40, 50 or 60% of their efforts. IMHO obviously.
technodup said:
TomTheTyke said:
To do this necessitates taxing those who are successful (wealthier) more and thereby reducing the gap between rich and poor.This will then enable the children of these people a greater chance to achieve more and also reduce the system of entrenched privilege.
So taxing the successful at a higher rate helps people further down be more successful? Why would they bother?It's fundamentally wrong for a person to work and for the state to steal 40, 50 or 60% of their efforts. IMHO obviously.
Also it may well not enable anythinreg, as the enabling assumes that those taking the tax actually get more tax from rate hikes, this is not always the case. When it comes to successful people with accountants and successful businesses, the planned-for tax will in general be avoided or passed on to customers in price hikes.
There's another assumption. That if it did result in a higher tax-take then it would find its way to the children of poorer i.e. relatively poor families. Not much of a chance there, the reason why such people remain in their condition is a lack of ability...in making good decisions. It won't go on the kids' education via stimulating reading materials, or healthier food, it'll go up in smoke or down the pub loo more likely, and if it does benefit a child then they'll get that iPhone 7 before the well-off manage it.
Throwing other people's money at problems doesn't work, surely the last 40 to 50 years of Labour failure has demonstrated this.
What it takes is better decisions made by parents and children, like the decisions that led to this (below) which is a real view of a real escape from real poverty.
Edited by turbobloke on Thursday 23 July 17:39
Mrr T said:
I agree with your post but as in many crisis there are more than one factor. The previous poster mentioned errors of regulation in the US and that clearly contributed.
Oh yes, absolutely. But you must recall as to why Glass Steagal was repealed by Clinton, it was to enable his version of the CRA. I beleive it was esconced in this bill : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm%E2%80%93Leach%...Clinton allowed the banks deregulation, but foisted the CRA insanity upon them. one begat the other.
Brown did similar here, but by sleight of hand, he created the FSA, which caused regulatory confusion. The FSA new what they were doing, the Bof E knew what they were doing , the treasury knew what they were doing, but none knew what the other was doing. Deregulation by confusion.
We sold our houise on the basis it was all going to end up in tears, when lenders are loaning to couples on 10x earnings( more than twice the historic multiple) then MR Micawber economics shows it cannot keep on. Have to say though, did even begin to think it would turn out as bad as it was. Nightmare.
P5BNij said:
turbobloke said:
Nobody is claiming that capitalism is perfect. However, the track record of Labour in the UK over the past 40 to 50 years really isn't good (describe their various shades of socialist red from Wilson to Foot to Blair any way you like). In basic terms, Labour screws the country as popular people buying 'free' rounds at the bar, Conservatives fix it as unpopular suppliers of medicine that tastes bad, then around we go. Personally I'd rather have the least-bad option of Conservatives in power without the need for major fixes, and with 10+ years ahead, there may be some respite available after 13 years of Labour followed by the dead weight of LibDems in the Coalition.
I should point out, as I've done repeatedly in the past, that I'm in favour of a Party that takes an axe to any Big Government, supports enterprise and doesn't vilify or penalise individuals for being financially successful - not for so-called trickle down reasons, but for the basic reality that successful businesses employ people and together with successful individuals pay for pretty much everything that gets spent on less successful people. It's good to encourage more of this because higher tax-take (not to be confused with higher tax rates) will help those in need via cash, rather than the empty promises and fine words of empathy from Labour which pay for nothing and lead to economic ruin eventually.
Best thing I've read in ages on PH, well put Turbobloke. I wonder how many Labour voters would agree deep down with the common sense displayed in the above, but wouldn't dare admit as much...I should point out, as I've done repeatedly in the past, that I'm in favour of a Party that takes an axe to any Big Government, supports enterprise and doesn't vilify or penalise individuals for being financially successful - not for so-called trickle down reasons, but for the basic reality that successful businesses employ people and together with successful individuals pay for pretty much everything that gets spent on less successful people. It's good to encourage more of this because higher tax-take (not to be confused with higher tax rates) will help those in need via cash, rather than the empty promises and fine words of empathy from Labour which pay for nothing and lead to economic ruin eventually.
Turbobloke said:
..
rather than the empty promises and fine words of empathy from Labour which pay for nothing and lead to economic ruin eventually.
Agreed and it would appear many thought that way and voted accordingly on May 8th. Reading between the lines of what some previously surprised and bitterly disappointed Labour spokesmen and women ( see what PC has done ) folks have said since then, would appear for some the penny has at last dropped even for them.rather than the empty promises and fine words of empathy from Labour which pay for nothing and lead to economic ruin eventually.
If things run to form, I fully expect the Tories to get some things very wrong but, nowhere nearly as badly had Ed M. and his team been successful back in early May. Several family members who have often been pleased to vote Labour in the past, including myself, did not do so.
In my case, unless some kind of miracle happens within Labour's ranks and mindsets sometime in the future, this former Labour voter will almost certainly never vote for them again if I live long enough to get a letter from the occupant of Buck Palace.
truck71 said:
jmorgan said:
Red Ken on BBC news, stamp of approval. JC will be the saviour.
Turkeys voting for Christmas springs to mind. It's like there's a parallel world out there.fluffnik said:
Corbyn is the only one that worries me, insofar as he's the only one with any hope of reviving Labour in Scotland.
This is a good thing IMO. A Labour resurgence in Scotland would be matched by a slump in support everywhere else so the overall effect would be neutral bar the destruction of the SNP, who would have to shelve their winning campaign mantra of billing Labour as 'Red Tories' and have their pseudo-left wing stance exposed as the opportunistic lie that it is.I reckon Corbyn becoming Labour leader would lead to defections from SNP to Labour (Mhairi Black probably being the highest profile one if she is tested about her true political colours!)
This strategy might even make sense to Labour supporters - a short term risk of losing support in the UK as a whole but reclaiming their heartland in Scotland!
turbobloke said:
gruffalo said:
turbobloke said:
robinessex said:
Er, things also went wrong when the Labour government went conservative. Is there a clue there ?
Economically? That's what was being discussed...from 1997 to 2001 things didn't go too badly wrong with Gordo keeping reasonably close to the inherited Tory trajectory, apart from just under 70 stealth taxes by the end of 2002 with the resulting readies ready to be spunked up the wall.Believing his own rhetoric was a massive failure.
Cobnapint said:
turbobloke said:
gruffalo said:
turbobloke said:
robinessex said:
Er, things also went wrong when the Labour government went conservative. Is there a clue there ?
Economically? That's what was being discussed...from 1997 to 2001 things didn't go too badly wrong with Gordo keeping reasonably close to the inherited Tory trajectory, apart from just under 70 stealth taxes by the end of 2002 with the resulting readies ready to be spunked up the wall.Believing his own rhetoric was a massive failure.
Pan Pan Pan said:
truck71 said:
jmorgan said:
Red Ken on BBC news, stamp of approval. JC will be the saviour.
Turkeys voting for Christmas springs to mind. It's like there's a parallel world out there.AstonZagato said:
As Labour have demonstrated so many times in the past, they have no understanding of where the money comes from or why knowing that might be in the least bit important.
Labour think money comes from "Rich People". Will the new leader be in place before the next Election this is taking an age. Not sure Tony Blair did anything but direct people towards Corbyn.carinaman said:
And Prescott was correct on war criminal Blair sticking his oar in.
I'm sure Blair can discuss the illegal war and the cover up of child sexual abuse when he faces his God.
Ih gets a better offer from another church group maybe giving him absolution from his sins...oh hang on he already is a member of that group.I'm sure Blair can discuss the illegal war and the cover up of child sexual abuse when he faces his God.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff