advertisement


Winter election II

Status
Not open for further replies.
One thing that constantly baffles me is that Labour never fight back against the Tories economically. Why don’t they attack with the hard cold facts that the Conservatives have presided over two consecutive down-grades of the UK credit rating (AAA to AA to AA negative) and have increased the national debt year on year since 2010? I’ve just seen yet another Labour bell-end on the TV failing to counter right-wing misinformation and effectively acknowledging a false narrative of ‘right-wing economic competence’ that stands up to no scrutiny whatsoever.

PS I’m not saying Corbyn and McDonnell won’t make it even worse, I’m just astonished by poorly prepared MPs are that don’t seem able to challenge what is a truly dreadful decade of Tory rule.
 
Tony L said:
One thing that constantly baffles me is that Labour never fight back against the Tories economically. Why don’t they attack with the hard cold facts that the Conservatives have presided over two consecutive down-grades of the UK credit rating (AAA to AA to AA negative) and have increased the national debt year on year since 2010? I’ve just seen yet another Labour bell-end on the TV failing to counter right-wing misinformation and effectively acknowledging a false narrative of ‘right-wing economic competence’ that stands up to no scrutiny whatsoever.

PS I’m not saying Corbyn and McDonnell won’t make it even worse, I’m just astonished by poorly prepared MPs are that don’t seem able to challenge what is a truly dreadful decade of Tory rule.
Click to expand...
I'd say a decision has been made to push their own positive policies rather than go on the attack - for now. Given how good the policies are I think this is the correct approach. Difficult to attack on debt when you're planning to borrow a lot more. Where they are attacking it's on failure to invest for business, allowing infrastructure to decay - this means more to people than AAA ratings.

Edit: Also true though that Labour aren't coming down with talented media performers. GE campaign is going to be spreading your Starmer's and your Pidcock's pretty thin so you end up pitching a lot more, e.g., Burgon.
 
Talking of pronunciation, why can't Johnson pronounce a simple adverb like "to".

He always says "ta" instead. Didn't they teach him how to speak properly in that expensive school?

Corbyn speaks more naturally imo. Johnson just makes me cringe with his fluff and bluster.
 
Seanm said:
I'd say a decision has been made to push their own positive policies rather than go on the attack - for now. Given how good the policies are I think this is the correct approach. Difficult to attack on debt when you're planning to borrow a lot more. Where they are attacking it's on failure to invest for business, allowing infrastructure to decay - this means more to people than AAA ratings.
Click to expand...

I consider Labour’s capitulation to the right-wing narrative that they have a track record of poor economic management to have been just as disastrous to the party’s current position as their refusal to take hold of the moral Brexit argument. This perception was largely based on the joke post-it that ‘there is no money left’ way back in 2010, conveniently forgetting that Alistair Darling pretty much saved the UK economy from an almost certain bank-run and the total collapse of Stirling. A global banking crash that stemmed in the USA and where the Tories had at every stage argued for less banking regulation and even freer financial markets. This whole right-wing narrative is entirely false, yet the Labour party has allowed it to grow into an accepted truth. Along with a controversially excessive tax and spend manifesto with more than a whiff of class warrior to it I guarantee this will come back to bite them on the 12”. There is absolutely zero prospect of a Corbyn government now, in fact I have a feeling the new Labour manifesto has just handed the repugnant Johnson a clear majority. A huge shame. Had they forcefully countered this narrative over the past decade and stuck to the far more reasonable 2017 manifesto they might have been in a rather better position now.
 
McDonnell Economics

Income Tax (and other taxes) explained in beer terms:

Suppose that every evening, 10 men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100.

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this :-

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay £1.
The sixth would pay £3.
The seventh would pay £7.
The eighth would pay £12.
The ninth would pay £18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.

So, that's what they decided to do.......

The 10 men drank in the bar every evening and were quite happy with the arrangement until one day, the owner said,

"Since you are all such good customers, I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by £20".

Drinks for the 10 men would now cost just £80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes.

So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free.

But what about the other six men? The paying customers? How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?

They realised that £20 divided by six is £3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

Therefore, the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing.
The sixth now paid £2 instead of £3 (33% saving).
The seventh now paid £5 instead of £7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid £9 instead of £12 (25% saving).
The ninth now paid £14 instead of £18 (22% saving).
The tenth now paid £49 instead of £59 (16% saving).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a pound out of the £20 saving," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got £10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a pound too.
It's unfair - he got 10 times more benefit than me!"

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get £10 back,
when I got only £2? The wealthy always win!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get
anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that is how our tax system works.

The people who pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore.

In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D. Professor of Economics.
 
stephen bennett said:
That is weird. I gather as a protest she wore a doctored t-shirt of Corbyn at an anti-apartheid rally!

Anyhow, the choice appears clear.

Labour will borrow to improve infrastructure, health and education and to make the state actually work for people while offering a Brexit referendum, while the Tories will borrow almost as much to pay for tax cuts for the rich and exit the EU with no-deal in December 2020.

Stephen
Click to expand...
I said up thread I'm a Labour voter
 
gavreid said:
I'm expecting much more from the Israeli apologists before this election is over. We need an investigation into whether the Israeli State is messing in UK politics, in a similar vein to Ukraine and Russia. Epstein/Stein - who gives a flying one - it's an anglicisation, they'll be accusing people of failing to pronounce Jamie correctly next...

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ng-labour-antisemitism-progressive-government
Click to expand...
Indeed, and what about Rick Stein?
 
Minio said:
A bit like some of the people on here, waffling on about Corbyns pronunciation and other petty allegations as if it has some relevance to the Labour manifesto or influence on the average Labour voter.
Click to expand...
Or others on here who can't seem to understand the concept of being critical while still supporting said party. Perhaps it is of relevance to some Labour voters.
 
gavreid said:
I'm expecting much more from the Israeli apologists before this election is over. We need an investigation into whether the Israeli State is messing in UK politics, in a similar vein to Ukraine and Russia. Epstein/Stein - who gives a flying one - it's an anglicisation, they'll be accusing people of failing to pronounce Jamie correctly next...

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ng-labour-antisemitism-progressive-government
Click to expand...
It would be the Israeli govt rather than state.
 
Tony L said:
I consider Labour’s capitulation to the right-wing narrative that they have a track record of poor economic management to have been just as disastrous to the party’s current position as their refusal to take hold of the moral Brexit argument. This perception was largely based on the joke post-it that ‘there is no money left’ way back in 2010, conveniently forgetting that Alistair Darling pretty much saved the UK economy from an almost certain bank-run and the total collapse of Stirling. A global banking crash that stemmed in the USA and where the Tories had at every stage argued for less banking regulation and even freer financial markets. This whole right-wing narrative is entirely false, yet the Labour party has allowed it to grow into an accepted truth. Along with a controversially excessive tax and spend manifesto with more than a whiff of class warrior to it I guarantee this will come back to bite them on the 12”. There is absolutely zero prospect of a Corbyn government now, in fact I have a feeling the new Labour manifesto has just handed the repugnant Johnson a clear majority. A huge shame. Had they forcefully countered this narrative over the past decade and stuck to the far more reasonable 2017 manifesto they might have been in a rather better position now.
Click to expand...
Re the narrative, sure, but the time to fight that was 2015. Different situation now and what's needed is solutions. If you don't want to be underwater in 20 years time, if you don't want to die in a hospital waiting room, if you don't want landlords taking 61% of your income then it's time to invest. We're way past tinkering at the edges or arguing about who's the best manager and lots of people, *most* people, IMO, understand this. It's another great manifesto and it's going to drag the entire political ground to the left just like the last one did.
 
MichaelC said:
McDonnell Economics

Income Tax (and other taxes) explained in beer terms:

Suppose that every evening, 10 men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100.

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this :-

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay £1.
The sixth would pay £3.
The seventh would pay £7.
The eighth would pay £12.
The ninth would pay £18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.

So, that's what they decided to do.......

The 10 men drank in the bar every evening and were quite happy with the arrangement until one day, the owner said,

"Since you are all such good customers, I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by £20".

Drinks for the 10 men would now cost just £80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes.

So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free.

But what about the other six men? The paying customers? How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?

They realised that £20 divided by six is £3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

Therefore, the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing.
The sixth now paid £2 instead of £3 (33% saving).
The seventh now paid £5 instead of £7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid £9 instead of £12 (25% saving).
The ninth now paid £14 instead of £18 (22% saving).
The tenth now paid £49 instead of £59 (16% saving).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a pound out of the £20 saving," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got £10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a pound too.
It's unfair - he got 10 times more benefit than me!"

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get £10 back,
when I got only £2? The wealthy always win!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get
anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that is how our tax system works.

The people who pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore.

In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D. Professor of Economics.
Click to expand...
These guys sound like ****s you should stop hanging around with them.
 
MikeMA said:
Indeed, and what about Rick Stein?
Click to expand...

Stein or Schtien? It doesn't stop you see. Most middle-aged people in this country, if they learnt a language at all, would have been taught French at school. The Germanic languages have always been less well understood, take Reesling vs Ryesling for example.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top