Are the left wing less tolerant of the views of others?
Discussion
turbobloke said:
crankedup said:
Smollet said:
DoubleByte said:
crankedup said:
Tell me why Thatchers 'Poll Tax' was a good policy and that Government had swathes of the public out on the streets demonstrating. The tax had to be abandoned such was its complete unfairness.
Tell me why it is unfair for people to actually pay their bit?
In Defence of Marxism said:
People took to the streets to demonstrate in London and Glasgow organised by the All Britain Anti Poll Tax Federation (in which the Militant Tendency was playing a leading role).
It was the largest protest seen this century. Its effect has shaken the Tory government to its foundations. The ten million strong campaign of mass non-payment, led by the All Britain Anti-Poll Tax Federation, has the power to defeat Thatcher's tax and drive the Tories from office. That is our objective. We are determined to achieve it.
That diatribe is positively Scargillian.It was the largest protest seen this century. Its effect has shaken the Tory government to its foundations. The ten million strong campaign of mass non-payment, led by the All Britain Anti-Poll Tax Federation, has the power to defeat Thatcher's tax and drive the Tories from office. That is our objective. We are determined to achieve it.
In Defence of Marxism also said:
The poll tax, totally rejected and despised by more than 80 percent of the population, is doomed. It is seen by the vast majority as a blatant class tax. It ruthlessly takes from the poor and gives generously to the rich. It puts the billionaire royal family (except the Queen who pays nothing) on the same level as the low paid.
In July 1988, Militant predicted mass non-payment by Scottish workers, "an irresistible force that could bring the government to its knees.
That unfailing combination of accuracy and logic won the day In July 1988, Militant predicted mass non-payment by Scottish workers, "an irresistible force that could bring the government to its knees.
but the government remained and Scargillism failed for the second time.IDoM did get around to families at one point, but these families were interviewed rather than being catapulted onto the streets by political indignation.
In Defence of Marxism said:
Minnie Adam, a 70-year-old widow from Glasgow, says: "It's not that I won't pay. I just can't pay. I've honestly thought about killing myself because of the worry."
Norman Say, a 54-year-old farm worker from West Oxfordshire, now faces a £2,400 poll tax demand because he and his wife Mary still have four grown-up sons living at home. His old rates bill was £418.60. Mr Say has never voted in an election because he says that he doesn't understand politics; if he did vote, however, it would not be for Mrs Thatcher. His mistrust is based chiefly on the knowledge that he is doing all he can to support his large family. He does an early-morning paper round to supplement his £97 per week farm wages - and can do no more to meet this extra bill.
It was some while ago but I recall reading that there were rebates of up to 80% for the unemployed and low earners so Norman should have had a rebate as well as contributions from his employed or unemployed sons, taking 'his' demand to well below £2400 and closer to £500. It's not as though six adults make less demand on a range of local services than one or two adults whether employed or not. The government of the day had also pledged to spend £1bn phasing in the tax, equivalent to over £3bn today. Norman Say, a 54-year-old farm worker from West Oxfordshire, now faces a £2,400 poll tax demand because he and his wife Mary still have four grown-up sons living at home. His old rates bill was £418.60. Mr Say has never voted in an election because he says that he doesn't understand politics; if he did vote, however, it would not be for Mrs Thatcher. His mistrust is based chiefly on the knowledge that he is doing all he can to support his large family. He does an early-morning paper round to supplement his £97 per week farm wages - and can do no more to meet this extra bill.
Even then, the Marxists were unhappy with Labour.
In Defence of Marxism said:
Three times, Labour's Executive Committee decided against organising a demonstration against the poll tax because of the cost and for fear "it would he taken over by the Militant Tendency!" This is a scandalous abdication of responsibility.
To maintain a statesmanlike image, Neil Kinnock and the other leaders have attempted to ingratiate themselves with the Tory press by denouncing mass non-payment and slavishly accepting unjust laws. "Wait until 1992 for a new Labour government!" they cry as if it was simply a case of people being impatient, and "It is against the law".
1992 and a Labour win, not quite as it happens.To maintain a statesmanlike image, Neil Kinnock and the other leaders have attempted to ingratiate themselves with the Tory press by denouncing mass non-payment and slavishly accepting unjust laws. "Wait until 1992 for a new Labour government!" they cry as if it was simply a case of people being impatient, and "It is against the law".
The poll tax was abandoned and an analysis of how this came about from a paper in The National Tax Journal of 1991 is below.
Paper by Dr Peter Smith of the University of York said:
The architects of the poll tax believed that the enhancement of accountability would lead to increased allocative responsibility (in terms local councils).
Yet this proposition was not tested before implementation, even though such tests could have been undertaken. Even if one views such ex ante tests with suspicion, at the very least it would have been prudent to have exposed the electorate gently to the full rigours of an accountable tax system by means of pilot schemes and gradual phasing in of the reforms.
It might then have been possible to test whether the accountability arguments were sustained. The evidence that does exist suggests that they would not have been (sustained).
And here we are in 2015 tolerating an envy tax on property values for the funding of local services which takes insufficient account of the service users and allied costs in any one occupied property. The lessons are there, history isn't always bunk.Yet this proposition was not tested before implementation, even though such tests could have been undertaken. Even if one views such ex ante tests with suspicion, at the very least it would have been prudent to have exposed the electorate gently to the full rigours of an accountable tax system by means of pilot schemes and gradual phasing in of the reforms.
It might then have been possible to test whether the accountability arguments were sustained. The evidence that does exist suggests that they would not have been (sustained).
Einion Yrth said:
crankedup said:
Shame that so many young people can't afford to by those ten ex council houses, and if they were still available to rent from the council maybe that would be ten families housed in a proper house rather then B&B.
Unless these 10 houses are actually standing empty, this is total nonsense; or do their current inhabitants in some way deserve a place to live less than your hypothetical families?Smollet said:
crankedup said:
This is ridiculous, whilst we speak are not the Tories spending cash up North, re-balancing the economy. The Northern Powerhouse!
The difference being they're trying to spend it on rebuilding the economy whereas Brown was just giving it away on creating non jobs in the civil service. Seems that the defenders of a badly thought through tax really have yet to demonstrate as to why it was the tax was rebuked dropped abandoned. Not because of the protesting masses, can't be that, Thatcher and her cronies were well used to public protest and well versed in using the police to disband the protesters. So what was the reason, I can tell you, Thatcher was furious with her advisers having not advised her of the full implications of the poll tax, including the impossible task of administrating such a tax. She ordered the policy be dropped.
Isn't this whole debate fundamentally flawed? People who believe X can only be exposed to the opposition of people who disagree with them. They cannot be exposed to the opposition of people who agree with them ..... because they agree with them. So how do we compare one with another? Other than just wait for PHers to join in with tales of their own experiences. And since PHers are mostly pretty right wing (that's just a fact), the thread can only go one way.
Smollet said:
crankedup said:
This is ridiculous, whilst we speak are not the Tories spending cash up North, re-balancing the economy. The Northern Powerhouse!
The difference being they're trying to spend it on rebuilding the economy whereas Brown was just giving it away on creating non jobs in the civil service. Manufacturing declined with him at the helm .http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8c257da6-dfab-11de-98ca-...
Edited by Smollet on Monday 14th September 14:46
alock said:
crankedup said:
Interesting question, based upon the much publicised Late Bob Crow housing methinks.
In the World that Thatcher seemed to strive for it would seem that those tenants who 'made good' in the open competitive society would wish to 'move up' the housing ladder of their own free will. For each individual betterment was available for all. Not all would go along with such motives but judging by the sales of the former housing stock, many have and continue to do so.
Did you not see the left's reaction to the nicknamed 'bedroom tax'? The theory behind the legislation was to free up usable properties as 'social housing'. Exactly the same benefit you are stating council houses solve. The same people would stop them working as a concept. In the World that Thatcher seemed to strive for it would seem that those tenants who 'made good' in the open competitive society would wish to 'move up' the housing ladder of their own free will. For each individual betterment was available for all. Not all would go along with such motives but judging by the sales of the former housing stock, many have and continue to do so.
Huge numbers of people do not willingly give up on a good thing. They fight it and complain they are being kicked out of their family home. The council house concept only works if there is a high turn over of tenants who are moved around based on need.
Tell me why it is that our European partners seem to be able to run social housing to a reasonable degree of success.?
Apart from that, the fact is clear Thatcher wanted to create a society that would not be dependant upon the state, very idealogical thinking. Step one was to remove social housing, step two bribe the electorate with heavily discounted selling prices. Step three, well the future wasn't considered apparently!
I strongly dislike the idea of 'moving tenants around' as though they are somehow a lesser being having no choice in where they wish to live. Just a personal thing on my part.
Bedroom tax, just another example of an ill considered policy based upon nothing whatsoever to do with practicality or fairness. Zero consideration from the outset for people in their homes, another reason I seriously dislike Tory attitude when it comes down to legislation and Society.
Having said all that I do strongly believe in personal betterment and striving for a better life. However, I recognise that not all people are thus inclined or able, it seems to me in the world of Toryism that is simply an unacceptable situation not to be tolerated?
fblm said:
otolith said:
crankedup said:
Shame that so many young people can't afford to by those ten ex council houses, and if they were still available to rent from the council maybe that would be ten families housed in a proper house rather then B&B.
But the waiting list would be ten places longer, because the ten families currently living in the ten ex-council houses would now need council houses too. You haven't thought this through.Scenario A:
There is a council house. The nasty witch sells it to the tenant. The following year someone else needs a council house and there isn't one.
Scenario B:
There is a council house. The following year someone else needs a council house and the only one has a tenant in it.
Does it really need explaining, again, that the only thing that changes the outcome is building another council house? She might have prevented councils using the proceeds to build more, but if there had been no sales and no sale proceeds there wouldn't have been any building in any event. Why is this so difficult? In any event I don't think Thatcher has prevented anyone building any more for the last 25 years has she?
Plenty of councils/ housing association's have continued to build stock but are unable to keep up with demand. Thanks in part to the upward trend in private housing costs, meaning more people cannot afford to buy.
Can you and others honestly not see that we are so short of houses for homes to rent that we are at crisis level for housing. Do you not understand the differences between building for social need and private housing financial and social implications?
Your ridiculously simplistic Scenario A and B completely ignores real life situations, like can't afford to buy - tough. Can't afford private rent - tough. You see that these are the reasons why so much taxation is being spent on housing welfare.
otolith said:
turbobloke said:
The OP isn't about occurrence of intolerance in general, however odious, it's about the Left and their deomomstrably greater intolerance of others merely for holding a different view.
"The Labour party is a moral crusade or it is nothing" - H WilsonIf you think that your politics are a moral crusade, it's a small step to thinking that those who disagree with you are immoral.
crankedup said:
Your ridiculously simplistic Scenario A and B completely ignores real life situations, like can't afford to buy - tough. Can't afford private rent - tough. You see that these are the reasons why so much taxation is being spent on housing welfare.
So simple and yet you missed the point entirely. There's only so many times I can be bother explaining that todays housing shortage, if it exists, is not the result of a change of ownership 30 years ago but a lack of building publicly or privately since. This thread has wobbled all over the place but at the end of the day it's the left wing who get upset and turn to demonstrate on the streets when an election goes against their wishes. Those of a right wing persuasion just accept the democratic process and accept the result. If anyone can find an example of anyone from the right of politics in this country protesting a general election result that didn't go their way I'd be very surprised. I shan't hold my breath.
Smollet said:
This thread has wobbled all over the place but at the end of the day it's the left wing who get upset and turn to demonstrate on the streets when an election goes against their wishes. Those of a right wing persuasion just accept the democratic process and accept the result. If anyone can find an example of anyone from the right of politics in this country protesting a general election result that didn't go their way I'd be very surprised. I shan't hold my breath.
Perhaps fewer Tory voters suffer significant negative consequences when the result goes against them. So there isn't really the urge to make a fuss. 
ks.I think the debate over immigration illustrates the fact that the left are much less tolerant of others views. The main argument of the left is that anyone who disagrees is a racist. Very typical of the left, invent a label and rant, ignore all logic, reason and fact just follow the line, repeat until everyone else gets bored and either gives in or walks away.
Randy Winkman said:
Perhaps fewer Tory voters suffer significant negative consequences when the result goes against them. So there isn't really the urge to make a fuss.
Don't be so pompous. When Labour run the economy everyone suffers because they haven't a clue and think money grows on trees. Every Labour government since time immemorial has screwed the fiscal state of this country so how you have the audacity to suggest otherwise beggars belief. Smollet said:
Randy Winkman said:
Perhaps fewer Tory voters suffer significant negative consequences when the result goes against them. So there isn't really the urge to make a fuss.
Don't be so pompous. When Labour run the economy everyone suffers because they haven't a clue and think money grows on trees. Every Labour government since time immemorial has screwed the fiscal state of this country so how you have the audacity to suggest otherwise beggars belief. Randy Winkman said:
But the impact on typical Tory voters is what?
Apart from having to put up with the drain on the financial wealth of this country you really are a bit naive if you cant see the impact that endless unregulated spending has on everyone. I really despair of you and your dream like world you live in.Edited by Smollet on Tuesday 15th September 21:32
otolith said:
Stoicism is not a virtue of the young.
Errr... I'm not sure where you were going with this but the Stoics were almost definitely not Kipper types...[i]Constantly regard the universe as one living being, having one substance and one soul; and observe how all things have reference to one perception, the perception of this one living being; and how all things act with one movement; and how all things are the cooperating causes of all things that exist; observe too the continuous spinning of the thread and the structure of the web.
— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, iv. 40[/i]
The common belief that Stoicism is the enjoyment of frugality and misery and the opposite of hedonism is a crude simplification. There's over 500 years worth of Stoic literature and teachings, it can't really be boiled down to a simple virtue and if it could it would have nothing to do with age or indeed money trees, Thatcherism or national debts. It probably does tell us a thing or two about tolerance of others and ourselves...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism#Social_phil...
Epictetus was a great man, a story to rival any in human history, perhaps one of the greatest humans ever to have lived (Farage aside obvs) and whilst I'm glad that over 2000 years past his death, on a motoring forum, his wisdom can once again be shared, I would ask you to add some context to the teachings.
Here endoth todays lecture....
[i]
Philosophy does not promise to secure anything external for man, otherwise it would be admitting something that lies beyond its proper subject-matter. For as the material of the carpenter is wood, and that of statuary bronze, so the subject-matter of the art of living is each person's own life.
—Epictetus[/i]
FredClogs said:
otolith said:
Stoicism is not a virtue of the young.
Errr... I'm not sure where you were going with this but the Stoics were almost definitely not Kipper types...[i]Constantly regard the universe as one living being, having one substance and one soul; and observe how all things have reference to one perception, the perception of this one living being; and how all things act with one movement; and how all things are the cooperating causes of all things that exist; observe too the continuous spinning of the Pistonheads thread and the structure of the worldwide web.
—?Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, iv. 40[/i]
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff