Don't vote Tory

[Bonaneas]

2 minutes ago, incident said:

She seems to have the backing of the party members. Whether or not it got as far as a vote doesn't actually matter in this context. If there was a huge (or any significant) disquiet amongst Tory party members, we'd have heard about it.

She's got the backing of her members, and of her MPs, hence the comparatively united front they're putting out - and because of that unfortunately it's likely she'll soon have the backing of the electorate. She's managing to gain the backing of all 3 constituencies - yes Corbyn has managed 1 but that doesn't put you in power.

Unheard of? It's how the system works. It's not a new thing - there's been some changes over the years within the parties as to what constitutes a majority and who's eligible to vote for leader and regarding block voting from unions etc, but the underlying structure is essentially the same. I would hope most people know how at least approximately how the system works.

I actually think May is beatable. Despite the spin they're trying to put out, she's not a strong leader or a good orator. Which is why it's so frustrating that Labour have put their faith in a man who seems uninterested in doing anything other than preach to the converted.

Converted in what way? From what notice Ive taken his / labours policies seem very very far away from previous manifestos going back to Michael foot. Since Kinnock lost in 87 they've been on a centrist path that was nothing more than Tory lite. Just to get elected. To me it seems labour, and the huge labour membership (which you seem to keep dismissing!) put their faith in policies not a man.

I don't do politics at all really as Ive said previously, never voted never will on principle, but I have been drawn in to debating comments & views that stem around attacking Corbyn, or saying they won't vote for labour cos of him, and I ask why? This isn't a presidential election, you aren't voting for a person you're voting for a set of policies put forth in a manifesto by the parties. He didn't sit down over a veg soup and write out the policies himself then dictated them to the party. Leaders come & go but parties remain in power even if the PM isn't elected (Brown & Mays tenures the example.) 

May is beatable only with those policies. Do you think a new leader but those polices could have done it? Or do you think the policies are the issue? 

[incident]

1 minute ago, Bonaneas said:

Converted in what way? From what notice Ive taken his / labours policies seem very very far away from previous manifestos going back to Michael foot. Since Kinnock lost in 87 they've been on a centrist path that was nothing more than Tory lite. Just to get elected. To me it seems labour, and the huge labour membership (which you seem to keep dismissing!) put their faith in policies not a man.

I don't do politics at all really as Ive said previously, never voted never will on principle, but I have been drawn in to debating comments & views that stem around attacking Corbyn, or saying they won't vote for labour cos of him, and I ask why? This isn't a presidential election, you aren't voting for a person you're voting for a set of policies put forth in a manifesto by the parties. He didn't sit down over a veg soup and write out the policies himself then dictated them to the party. Leaders come & go but parties remain in power even if the PM isn't elected (Brown & Mays tenures the example.) 

May is beatable only with those policies. Do you think a new leader but those polices could have done it? Or do you think the policies are the issue? 

You're arguing against points I've not made. I've not talked specific policies, and I've not said who I'm voting for. I don't even know that yet. For what it's worth you absolutely are "voting for a person". Just not the leader.

My local MP is Ken Clarke and he'll get a personal vote that makes it as safe a Tory seat as you can get, so whatever I do is essentially a protest vote. All I know at this point is I'm not voting Tory. I did vote Labour in the Nottinghamshire Council elections earlier this month for all the good it did - what should be a safe Labour council now has a Tory leader.

I'm not dismissing the labour membership. They're an important part of the process, and a base that any Party Leader needs to win over. But so are the MPs, and so are the General Populace. If you play to one while ignoring the others, you're ultimately going to fail. Corbyn is great at enthusing people who are naturally inclined to agree with him - some previous labour members, some that he's brought into the party. If there was enough of them to win an election then that'd be great (and if there were - the MPs would have followed as well). But there's not enough of them, and he's either not trying or not able to win round people who are sceptical to his message. It has a limited audience and I fear we're going to find out exactly how limited in a couple weeks time. That's what I mean by preaching to the converted.

[Bonaneas]

I didn't and wouldn't ask who you're voting for. You didn't talk about policies neither but you said May was beatable, but how? A labour leader other than Corbyn and a whole new set of policies? A new leader with these policies? A new party altogether, akin to this progressive alliance Ive seen pop up in last week or so? Do you think another bland Brown / Milliband type with yet another set of mumbled Tory-lite / new labour policies could challenge her who now has the UKIP and the brexiters vote, which Cameron didn't have and he still won a majority? This will be a landslide, but it's not because of Corbyn.

 

I honestly feel that the new labour debacle broke a lot of true labour people's hearts. That wasn't labour, that was get elected at all costs no matter what we have to sacrifice.  They lost a whole generation of supporters with the Iraq war and the economy, and immigration as well as overseeing the beginning of the NHS being privatised through introducing PFIs all over the place. New Labour got away with things that a Tory govt never would have back then. Voters haven't forgiven them for it. The voters who flocked to Blair in 1997 then 2001 will never forget what he did in the name of labour. That's why they're unelectable. Losing Scotland to the snp doesn't help but only had themselves to blame for that. 

 

I fear / feel that we are looking at decades of Tory rule now, especially with the boundary changes coming. 

 

And give over with the 'you do vote for a person' line! Technically of course you do, the candidate for MP, so don't split hairs you're better than that, but the vast majority of the electorate vote for a party not their specific candidate. It's a fact most people don't know the name of their local MP. And if you pulled every voter as they left the polling station and asked who did you vote for, should they choose to disclose, would almost 100% say the name of the party not the candidate. 

[SallyFaulknerStantonWarrio]

15 hours ago, eFestivals said:

ok. Want to tell me how the proposed 'tobin tax' will bring in the claimed revenues?

Cos I can point to one of the few places which has introduced a 'financial transaction tax' - Sweden - and can point out that it was (overall) revenue neutral in it's first year, before decimating 50% of Sweden's financial business (that moved overseas) and causing a big loss of tax revenues.

And I say that as a big big supporter of a tobin tax because killing speculation (or at least some it) would be a fantastic thing, but its not the miracle income stream that the manifesto claims.

But even if it were, there's no accounting in the manifesto for the reduction in transactions it would cause nor for the effect on the profits - and so tax - of the businesses that would be impacted by it.

PS: those places with higher tax rates aren't giving 15% of workers a no-tax rate nor charging the majority just 20% on their incomes, either.

I worked briefly on the tobin tax years ago, when it was being pushed as the Robin Hood tax. I have no idea how much money it raises or how it went in Sweden, I never heard of that before. It's just not something I know enough about to comment on to be honest.

The labour manifesto sets out a high tax, high public spending vision for the UK that would make us a more normal country. I find the general principle realistic. I guess you can argue about the particulars of costings etc, but really I find the media debate around this weird - its so hard to know i) how much things will cost and ii) how much a tax will bring in that to some extent I think even the professionals are guessing. 

On tax rates for people without a load of money, you're right. A big difference compared to (an easy example) Sweden is that the level of inequality in terms of salaries etc is much lower, so it is more reasonable to tax people without much money more. The UK is weirdly unequal in terms of income so its quite a different situation.

 

[eFestivals]

4 hours ago, Bonaneas said:

Since Kinnock lost in 87 they've been on a centrist path that was nothing more than Tory lite. Just to get elected

Just to make a difference to people's lives. The bastards, eh?

Glorious failure is for losers. It does nothing to help people.

[p.pete]

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Just to make a difference to people's lives. The bastards, eh?

Glorious failure is for losers. It does nothing to help people.

Helps Jc justify another few years at the helm

(and another busy day for Neil begins...)

[eFestivals]

4 minutes ago, SallyFaulknerStantonWarrio said:

The labour manifesto sets out a high tax, high public spending vision for the UK that would make us a more normal country.

Hmmmm. You mentioned those high tax places in Europe. Do those high tax places give 15% a free-pass from tax, and give another 60% a 20% rate? Or do they have to tax *everyone* highly in order to pay for the high levels of social benefit?

Is the socialist angle "let loads get a freebie and tax the rich hard" or is it "from each according to their ability to each according to their needs"?

[eFestivals]

4 minutes ago, p.pete said:

Helps Jc justify another few years at the helm

(and another busy day for Neil begins...)

as does another vacuous nothing-to-say day for p.pete.

[eFestivals]

 

8 hours ago, waterfalls212434 said:

I love it when I see corbyn described as an extremist.....his politics are actually pretty centre/left hes certainly not the rabid communist hes made out to be...but when the rest of the party have sadly moved so far over to the right he seems more extreme then he really is! There is nothing `extremist` about simply wanting a fair society.

But there is in backing Militant in the 80s. There is in lauding Chavez and Castro. There is in standing with the IRA against the UK. There is in backing Iran who back Assad, and there is in taking the default position that the west is always wrong.

And yes, I know plenty will attempt to explain those things away, and sometimes with things I'd agree with myself. The point is that for the vast majority of people on issues such as those, Corbyn was/is standing apart, and holding an extreme view.

[SallyFaulknerStantonWarrio]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

Hmmmm. You mentioned those high tax places in Europe. Do those high tax places give 15% a free-pass from tax, and give another 60% a 20% rate? Or do they have to tax *everyone* highly in order to pay for the high levels of social benefit?

Is the socialist angle "let loads get a freebie and tax the rich hard" or is it "from each according to their ability to each according to their needs"?

It's both right (to summarize about 15 countries). A higher base level of tax for everyone and then higher marginal rates at the top end. You're talking about the former - the tax rates that most people pay. Like I said before, it is a bit hard to think about this in isolation, because the UK has a high level of inequality in terms of salaries and assets etc. So you can't have much higher rates of tax on (for example) the bottom 30% of earners, because they are already not earning as much as their counterparts in other countries. 

[eFestivals]

8 minutes ago, SallyFaulknerStantonWarrio said:

Like I said before, it is a bit hard to think about this in isolation, because the UK has a high level of inequality in terms of salaries and assets etc. So you can't have much higher rates of tax on (for example) the bottom 30% of earners, because they are already not earning as much as their counterparts in other countries. 

the socialist angle says that bollocks. You tax everyone highly, and redistribute where needed.

There's a reason why Corbyn isn't offering that, and it's because those who support him want low personal taxes no less than a tory does. Everyone wants the benefit, but it's for someone else to pay for.

In itself, offering those low taxes isn't a bad thing, as any offering has to be supportable (otherwise it's a waste of time). To me, the bad thing is making promises that can't be fulfilled as claimed, which means if Corbyn were elected it would all turn to shit because it wouldn't be delivered as promised (which had the Libdems labelled as traitors - and often by the same people now uncritically praising Corbyn).

[SallyFaulknerStantonWarrio]

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

the socialist angle says that bollocks. You tax everyone highly, and redistribute where needed.

There's a reason why Corbyn isn't offering that, and it's because those who support him want low personal taxes no less than a tory does. Everyone wants the benefit, but it's for someone else to pay for.

In itself, offering those low taxes isn't a bad thing, as any offering has to be supportable (otherwise it's a waste of time). To me, the bad thing is making promises that can't be fulfilled as claimed, which means if Corbyn were elected it would all turn to shit because it wouldn't be delivered as promised (which had the Libdems labelled as traitors - and often by the same people now uncritically praising Corbyn).

I don't think there's such a thing as one socialist angle . Changing what people earn is as important as changing tax rates I would say, even from a socialist perspective. And actually what people have to spend on basic necessities, eg housing. The cost of housing probably has as much of an impact on people in the south as changes to tax rates, or at least it can't be far off.

Again I find it hard to say whether the numbers Labour laid out in the manifesto are accurate. They say that they are balanced. But I don't have a way of assessing this. I do think that every manifesto in the UK ultimately goes unfulfilled if you understand it as a plan to be executed. It is a bit of a fiction, and they are not bound by it. I don't actually see it as something so bad if you make promises which aren't fulfilled - I think a manifesto tells you a general direction of travel. To take the easy example, the Tory commitments on deficit elimination were never met, which did not deliver on what they were promising. But it still changed a lot, it was not a meaningless promise.

[Spindles]

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

There's a reason why Corbyn isn't offering that, and it's because those who support him want low personal taxes no less than a tory does.

I don't think there is any basis to say that, nor to make blanket statements about what a group of people might want.  One of the problems today, as I see it, is this conflation of ideas about people into big homogenised groups that can be said to all have the same ideas.  It is the same thinking that labels all leave supporters as racist as it is to label all Corbyn supporters as Trotskyists.  The truth is that everyone has their own opinions, wants and needs based on their own experiences in life.  This tribalism is a problem, I believe, that keeps us divided.

Personally I very much doubt that, while I have reached the same conclusion as to how to cast my vote as you state you have, that we do so for the same reasons or motivations.

[eFestivals]

24 minutes ago, Spindles said:

I don't think there is any basis to say that, nor to make blanket statements about what a group of people might want.

No basis?

Corbyn's plan is that everything can be paid for by justy 5% of the population, and the other 95% get a freebie.

If normal people were willing to pay more he'd feel able to ask for more and know it wouldn't cost him electoral support - instead of promising the world on a stick, and for free.

[Spindles]

No amount of smiley faces will make your statement correct.  You are stating that a whole group of people are motivated according to your perception, it simply isn't true.

[eFestivals]

49 minutes ago, SallyFaulknerStantonWarrio said:

I don't think there's such a thing as one socialist angle . Changing what people earn is as important as changing tax rates I would say, even from a socialist perspective. And actually what people have to spend on basic necessities, eg housing. The cost of housing probably has as much of an impact on people in the south as changes to tax rates, or at least it can't be far off.

Damn, had written a long reply and my browser crashed. I'm going for the short version 2nd time.

There is one socialist angle. It's an ideology.

Changing what people earn requires the money to pay for that change. I'm all for increasing the wages of the lowest paid, but it's something that can only happen without creating unemployment if employers like me are sat on a big pile of money (I'm not, i'm sat on a big pile of debt) AND are willing to hand over that pile. Again, nothing of this is factored in to that "fully costed" manifesto.

 

Quote

Again I find it hard to say whether the numbers Labour laid out in the manifesto are accurate. They say that they are balanced. But I don't have a way of assessing this.

You do, actually. I'm sure you're smart enough to realise that changes in taxation causes changes in behaviour towards taxation.

That's ignored in almost everything of the manifesto, and where it's touched upon what's set aside for that is far too small.

 

Quote

I do think that every manifesto in the UK ultimately goes unfulfilled if you understand it as a plan to be executed. It is a bit of a fiction, and they are not bound by it.

Except ... the tories had a manifesto commitment to not raise NI. What happened when they recently tried to make NI rates fair across everyone by removing a loophole that benefits the rich?

The world is turned on its head. Jezza said it was unfair.

 

Quote

I don't actually see it as something so bad if you make promises which aren't fulfilled - I think a manifesto tells you a general direction of travel.

You might not see it as bad, but i suggest you go read up what happened with Hollande in France.

And it's quite possible to set out aims of perfection, while giving a programme to help progress things in that direction.

 

Quote

To take the easy example, the Tory commitments on deficit elimination were never met, which did not deliver on what they were promising. But it still changed a lot, it was not a meaningless promise.

Is this another of those instances where someone says "tories are failures" because they didn't cut as hard as they would have needed to, while also calling them evil for cutting?

People understand the need for not over-spending. They also understand the need to spend on society and not cut it to death. They can forgive that, it costs them nothing.

Can they forgive tax rises? The budget in March says they can't, not even Jezza can when it's targeted against a loophole that exists to benefit the rich.

Edited May 24, 2017 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

9 minutes ago, Spindles said:

No amount of smiley faces will make your statement correct.  You are stating that a whole group of people are motivated according to your perception, it simply isn't true.

 

you think Corbyn's support would be unchanged if he was proposing extra taxes across all of the society? That no one would say "i won't support someone who'll tax me harder"?

If so, Corbyn would have offered something real and not the world on a stick for free.

[mcshed]

3 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

 

you think Corbyn's support would be unchanged if he was proposing extra taxes across all of the society? That no one would say "i won't support someone who'll tax me harder"?

If so, Corbyn would have offered something real and not the world on a stick for free.

Do I think Corbyn's supporter base would accept a higher tax manifesto? Yes.

Do I think Corbyn is more likely to win an election with one? No.

You've said that nothing matters if you can't get elected.

 

[Spindles]

As I have said, and you've not responded to.  It is incorrect to make massive generalisations about whole groups of people based on your own perception and this is a part of what is wrong with the discussion in politics today.

I could go on about increased corporation tax being a manifesto pledge when the tories have consistently lowered it over the last 7 years and pledge to do so further being a method of sharing the tax burden more evenly in society by ensuring that tax is taken from business rather than the individual, or about how as a proportion of income the poorest often pay more (take for example the percentage of take home pay that a council tax bill represents for someone on £12k compared to someone on £100k), but I know there'd be no real response, just a deflection, a suggestion I'd said something else entirely, some smileys and an attempt to goad into further argument.  No time for that.  Enjoy your games, arguing on the internet isn't my hobby.

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, mcshed said:

Do I think Corbyn's supporter base would accept a higher tax manifesto? Yes.

Do I think Corbyn is more likely to win an election with one? No.

You've said that nothing matters if you can't get elected.

I've also said it matters what you get elected on. 

But would corbyn's supporter base accept higher taxes? Some would, many wouldn't. They want free things, not things they have to pay for - and who doesn't like free things?

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, Spindles said:

As I have said, and you've not responded to.  It is incorrect to make massive generalisations about whole groups of people based on your own perception and this is a part of what is wrong with the discussion in politics today.

If paying higher taxes was an acceptable proposition to the public, even the tories would be suggesting it - because we cannot afford everything else when the costs of oldies is becoming an ever-bigger share of public expenditure

Just because we both know some people (but not enough people) who would pay higher taxes doesn't get to make a generalisation for the population as a whole wrong.

 

2 minutes ago, Spindles said:

I could go on about increased corporation tax being a manifesto pledge when the tories have consistently lowered it over the last 7 years and pledge to do so further being a method of sharing the tax burden more evenly in society by ensuring that tax is taken from business rather than the individual, or about how as a proportion of income the poorest often pay more (take for example the percentage of take home pay that a council tax bill represents for someone on £12k compared to someone on £100k), but I know there'd be no real response, just a deflection, a suggestion I'd said something else entirely, some smileys and an attempt to goad into further argument.  No time for that.  Enjoy your games, arguing on the internet isn't my hobby.

For once you actually try to discuss - but do it with all the things you say is wrong of me. Will you be making posts to slag yourself off?  

Taxing businesses at a higher rates isn't a bad thing in itself, but it comes with consequences - including the fact that tax is already paid at individual level on what is not being taxed at the business level at the moment. Meaning that the gains from higher corp tax are not as big as McD is claiming (because he's counted it all as extra income).

And when those businesses are taxed at a higher rate AND *have to* pay approx 30% more in wages in just three years time, how might you think businesses might react to that? Changes in taxation changes behaviour.

That's not me saying that higher taxes can't be done or shouldn't be done, that's me saying it's not the free lunch that Corbyn says it is.

It's not only the tories who can tell massive whoppers - and on this election they're not particularly doing so, the fact of Corbyn has given them such a big free pass they're promising the taboo of touching inheritance and still enjoy a 10% lead.

[eFestivals]

How about the big house build? Fantastic, and yet....

according to McD, he'll get 40% of the cost back in taxes - which only works if the 300,000 people who'll be needed each and every year to build those houses are currently sat around doing nothing and paying no tax, which they're not.

There is a way to do that - but which requires the import of 300,000 new people, who also come with the public costs of 300,000 people (NHS, roads, education, and all the rest), where those public costs are currently greater on average than the raised from the people those costs are spent on ... so an even bigger negative.

The ideas such as those houses are great. The fantasies that surround them are not.

In France the over-promises of Hollande similar to Corbyn's now first caused riots, then caused all the cuts he said wouldn't happen, and then destroyed socialism in what was the most socialist country in Western Europe. That's no progression of socialism.

[p.pete]

28 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

 

The ideas such as those houses are great. The fantasies that surround them are not.

In France the over-promises of Hollande similar to Corbyn's now first caused riots, then caused all the cuts he said wouldn't happen, and then destroyed socialism in what was the most socialist country in Western Europe. That's no progression of socialism.

What's a sensible way forward Neil?

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, p.pete said:

What's a sensible way forward Neil?

Perhaps by not deciding everyone's an idiot apart from 'me', the standard (laughable) 'leftist' narrative right now?

We get a better way by being better, not by deciding the other side is so shit that 'we' can be that shit too.

Why don't you tell me? You seem quick enough to post some words back to my posts, but you never have anything to say. I presume you have a brain in there, so why not use it?

[blackred]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

Perhaps by not deciding everyone's an idiot apart from 'me', the standard (laughable) 'leftist' narrative right now?

We get a better way by being better, not by deciding the other side is so shit that 'we' can be that shit too.

Why don't you tell me? You seem quick enough to post some words back to my posts, but you never have anything to say. I presume you have a brain in there, so why not use it?

Brilliant work Neil, much needed laugh out of that.