I'm no Labour supporter, they're as bad as each other, so reducing it to 'at least the Tories aren't as bad as them' isn't going to wash on me.
Politics at Westminster | BREAKING: UKIP
- Thread starter Team Brian GB
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
I'm no Labour supporter, they're as bad as each other, so reducing it to 'at least the Tories aren't as bad as them' isn't going to wash on me.
Income tax, not all tax, in the mean time they wacked VAT up to 20 %
And tax credits were cut. The ol' switcheroo.
Income tax.
Why are you attributing an increase in tax receipts to a cut in the top rate of income tax? Post hoc ergo propter hoc? Surely you can't be that stupid.
Here's a funny statistic: in 2009/10, income tax accounted for 58% of receipts and VAT for 17% of receipts. Now the figures are 54% and 21% respectively.
Clegg did it, but as has been pointed out already, he is taking the poorest out of income tax which they hardly pay anyway. National Insurance and VAT are much bigger burdens, and have been made bigger burdens by this government. It's decent PR for the Coalition, which could make for a fine excuse for cutting the higher rates further in the near future.
The office for fiscal responsibility(the body the Conservatives set up to stop people making false claims ) stated after that budget, that the conclusion you make here cannot be drawn from the stats in the budget. It points out that one year’s figures during a terrible period for tax receipts, when people were forewarned and avoided the increase by taking income early or pushing it past the abolision, would be a poor metric for deciding the cause and effect of raising the higher rate of tax.
I take everything you say with a pinch of salt because you do this a lot. You are misleading people and I think you are doing so deliberately.
More like a particularly thick bullshitter. You don't even need the OBR or HMRC to say this shouldn't be considered cause and effect because it's perfectly obvious from elementary reasoning. That he tries to pass it off as a matter of fact is (ironically) 'pure ideology', straight out of the Chicago School.
I obviously meant income tax.
This is a fascinating post on RAWK that backs up my point about blind voting.
"I think Labour is as bad. They're all c*nts and largely the same. Sure the rhetoric will be left/right leaning (but staunchly anchored in the middle ground) but they end up doing the same things when they get into power.
The Tories are in power now, yes. But if Labour were, there'd still be massive fiscal tightening- it's the economic reality of the situation.
"Ah but the twat bankers! Labour would make them pay!" Would the feck. The City of London is important to the country's economy. Until that structurally changes (which should happen), anyone running the country would be idiotic to force them to go elsewhere.
The country's in a mess, but it's naive to think it's because of the Tories.
I voted Labour by the way, but it was a token vote. I was indifferent to voting Conservative or Labour (Lib Dems crossed my mind to some extent, but then I didn't think they'd have a chance to weasel their way into the government and do feck all as they're doing now). I didn't think hard about trying to distinguish between them because I didn't (and don't) believe there's a lot to distinguish between.
I suppose I see politics in a similar light to how I see religion. There's something there of worth, but it's been dumped with so much bullshit over time, for whatever reason, I don't see a point in getting involved to any great extent. Not financially, actively and certainly not emotionally. Objectively, yes. And objectively speaking, as I said, I don't think there'd be much of a difference in the actions of whoever was in charge; Labour or Tory."
This is exactly what I'm talking about. This guy openly accepts Labour's fault in government, says that the economic mess has nothing to do with the Tories, but then what?
"I voted Labour by the way."
This is what is so frustrating, and backs up my point about people voting for them absolutely regardless of what they've done. It leads to an immensely unaccountable party.
This is a fascinating post on RAWK that backs up my point about blind voting.
"I think Labour is as bad. They're all c*nts and largely the same. Sure the rhetoric will be left/right leaning (but staunchly anchored in the middle ground) but they end up doing the same things when they get into power.
The Tories are in power now, yes. But if Labour were, there'd still be massive fiscal tightening- it's the economic reality of the situation.
"Ah but the twat bankers! Labour would make them pay!" Would the feck. The City of London is important to the country's economy. Until that structurally changes (which should happen), anyone running the country would be idiotic to force them to go elsewhere.
The country's in a mess, but it's naive to think it's because of the Tories.
I voted Labour by the way, but it was a token vote. I was indifferent to voting Conservative or Labour (Lib Dems crossed my mind to some extent, but then I didn't think they'd have a chance to weasel their way into the government and do feck all as they're doing now). I didn't think hard about trying to distinguish between them because I didn't (and don't) believe there's a lot to distinguish between.
I suppose I see politics in a similar light to how I see religion. There's something there of worth, but it's been dumped with so much bullshit over time, for whatever reason, I don't see a point in getting involved to any great extent. Not financially, actively and certainly not emotionally. Objectively, yes. And objectively speaking, as I said, I don't think there'd be much of a difference in the actions of whoever was in charge; Labour or Tory."
This is exactly what I'm talking about. This guy openly accepts Labour's fault in government, says that the economic mess has nothing to do with the Tories, but then what?
"I voted Labour by the way."
This is what is so frustrating, and backs up my point about people voting for them absolutely regardless of what they've done. It leads to an immensely unaccountable party.
I've got another theory as well.
Let's say, to take an oft quoted argument in this thread, everyone who votes Tory just wants things to remain the same and they're not bothered about anyone else.
This does mean, however, that it makes sense to vote for them endlessly. If you don't want anything to change, then voting for a party that won't change anything is great.
If you're in a Labour constituency though, voting Labour(a vote for change, supposedly) at each election is not really a useful thing to do. This disincentivises every party from helping your area.
Labour won't bother improving it, because they can rely on your vote whatever they do. The Tories will just write it off because even if they improved it massively, invested hugely into the town, reduced unemployment and increased welfare, they'd still not get more than 10% of the vote.
The only people who lose here are the residents of perennial Labour constituencies. I'm not saying they should vote Tory, but they never even vote Lib Dem, Independent or anyone else. Voting for the same party religiously is merely going to disconnect your constituency even further from Westminster.
Let's say, to take an oft quoted argument in this thread, everyone who votes Tory just wants things to remain the same and they're not bothered about anyone else.
This does mean, however, that it makes sense to vote for them endlessly. If you don't want anything to change, then voting for a party that won't change anything is great.
If you're in a Labour constituency though, voting Labour(a vote for change, supposedly) at each election is not really a useful thing to do. This disincentivises every party from helping your area.
Labour won't bother improving it, because they can rely on your vote whatever they do. The Tories will just write it off because even if they improved it massively, invested hugely into the town, reduced unemployment and increased welfare, they'd still not get more than 10% of the vote.
The only people who lose here are the residents of perennial Labour constituencies. I'm not saying they should vote Tory, but they never even vote Lib Dem, Independent or anyone else. Voting for the same party religiously is merely going to disconnect your constituency even further from Westminster.
Quoting one person doesn't prove a point by the way - unless your point is that you have nothing of value to use as evidence.
It's not proving a point in the slightest. It's merely evidence that the point I'm making does exist. I'm not using it to claim that's how all Labour voters vote, or even a certain number.
Then I just don't get your point, because this really just sounds a lot like the argument for electoral reform. When you're in a political system that's dominated by two very similar parties, you're going to find that lots of people will almost always vote for the one they like most/dislike least. This is hardly a fault with Labour voters, and it's ridiculous to suggest it's only Labour voters.
It isn't ridiculous at all. If you read my other post, you'll see that what I'm trying to say is that the common argument is that a vote for the Tories isn't a vote for change, and thus it makes more sense to vote for them every time.
And I've never been averse to electoral reform.
Depends on the Tories you're voting for then - there's a few old gits on the backbenches who would be happy enough to take us back to the 50s.
Edit: Most people tend use the argument 'tories aren't progressive', rather than Tories want to maintain the status quo, because when they're not in power it's obvious they won't want to keep the status quo.
Edit: Most people tend use the argument 'tories aren't progressive', rather than Tories want to maintain the status quo, because when they're not in power it's obvious they won't want to keep the status quo.
The point is very much that Labour is supposed to be a party for change, moreso than the Tories. I don't think that's much up for debate.
All I'm saying is that there's part of me that thinks that people get what they deserve when they are so unwilling to withdraw their vote from a party. Why do we live in a two party system? Partly due to the electoral system, and partly because people in general vote out out fear of politics, as opposed to actually setting the agenda themselves.
You make it sound like that's the easiest thing in the world. Say I wanted to set my own agenda, how would I go about competing with the bucketloads of money Labour and the Tories spend? Certainly in a safe seat.
Sure, I can vote for the green party, I could even run myself - but is there much difference between that and doing nothing?
You can't compete with the money they spend country-wide. You can easily deal with the amount they spend in one-off communities though. I think the Tories put about £200 into their South Shields campaign last time out.
You should vote green. Thinking it doesn't matter doesn't help. If you vote Green and encourage someone else to do so, then they will grow. Not much, of course, but it's better morally than voting for a party with which you have no affiliation.
Where are you getting this stuff from? Labour are ostensibly a social democrat party, with the philosophy of investing in public services through a growing economy. Change is a sound-bite, not a political programme. The tories used it at the last election, like every opposition ever.
We live in a two-party system because there's no realistic choice elsewhere. And that's almost entirely due to the electoral system.
It is a system people voted for when they had the chance to change it.
When in power the Labour party does for political reasons loads of things I dislike it doing. The Tories do even more things I dislike and they insult me while they do them. Voting in a way which lets them get into power would be very stupid.
Let’s take an example.
Regional pay how is that a good idea? How would it be a good idea to not vote labour if you live outside a very few select areas in major cities or the south east and work in the public sector?
Alastair assumes that people don't have valid reasons to vote Labour because the Tories are great and everyone must surely see how great they are and can only vote Labour out of some form of outdated loyalty. Whereas in fact the Tories continue to show in every way they can, utter contempt for voters outside their natural demographic.
When in power the Labour party does for political reasons loads of things I dislike it doing. The Tories do even more things I dislike and they insult me while they do them. Voting in a way which lets them get into power would be very stupid.
Let’s take an example.
Regional pay how is that a good idea? How would it be a good idea to not vote labour if you live outside a very few select areas in major cities or the south east and work in the public sector?
Alastair assumes that people don't have valid reasons to vote Labour because the Tories are great and everyone must surely see how great they are and can only vote Labour out of some form of outdated loyalty. Whereas in fact the Tories continue to show in every way they can, utter contempt for voters outside their natural demographic.
Regretfully, yes. Although AV was something even the pro-reformers like myself were only half-heartedly behind given that PR is the real goal, and the No campaign was far more effective in putting across their message. The fact remains that the current system inherently limits choice, and choice is something voters are always bemoaning the lack of.
Yeah but a coalition in a plurality system is almost a paradox in and of itself, it's not what the system was designed to do. I agree though that it's made the task of selling PR in a potential future referendum a harder task.
I don't think any political party is great. I do, however, think that the Tories are far less cynical than Labour.
It strikes me that once you analyse pretty much any social issue, Labour have damaged the working class over the middle and upper classes, yet plenty of working class people still vote for them.
If it isn't blind loyalty, what is it? It's basically a mixture of ignorance about the severity of the cuts(really not that severe) and just a general desire to not see the Tories in office, even if it means the situation for them will probably get worse.
I've also yet to hear on this forum any genuine and specific reasons why anyone does vote Labour, even though we have plenty of card carriers.
The general reasons I hear are: I hate the Tories, I believe in social justice, I care about disabled people.
It's such a load of bollocks.
The general reasons I hear are: I hate the Tories, I believe in social justice, I care about disabled people.
It's such a load of bollocks.
Hating the Tories is good reason enough in my book.
People do hate realism in this country, especially young people.
If the Lib Dems and Labour ceased to exist and a new party ran just on that, it'd probably get over 50% of the popular vote every election.
Here are a few of my specific reasons:
1. A desire for less income inequality. Despite the last Labour government being relatively redistributionist in a covert way (through tax credits, benefits and the like), income inequality did not improve. However, it did manage to stem the rocketing inequality that the previous Tory government had presided over.
2. Workers' rights. The Tories want to weaken them, often significantly.
3. I am generally pro-Europe and pro-immigration. The Labour party may be moving slightly away from those positions recently, but they are still far more pro-immigration than the Tories.
4. I am in favour of extending equal rights to minority groups, for example gay marriage. Though the coalition has managed to legislate for gay marriage (and they should be commended for it), it passed on Labour votes and we had to endure the wailing of the nasty bigots of the Tory right.
In the long run it will be pan-global socialism. Will take a while.
More cynisism cloaked as realism.
Hows that a solution?
I think my biggest problem for the electoral system is we encourage parties to be different.
Theres some things that for me are common sense, but we need to have this illusion of choice. We can't have the Tories and Labour agreeing on things.
If at the heart of all politics was 'doing best for the country' rather than my team winning we'd all be better off.
Sorry, I forgot to get back to this.
1. I agree with your main argument on this, but I think Labour's obsession with short-termist ideas such as giving people more welfare money is why I wouldn't vote for them. It might be redistributionist in one sense, but unless you help these people become skilled and get good jobs, it makes no real difference to inequality.
2. Are the unions not the problem?
3. Both parties are pro-immigration. Labour are pro mass immigration, whereas the Tories at least want to count people in. The latter is infinitely more sensible.
4. The nasty bigots of the Tory right are really dying out now. You've got the odd one or two, but the majority of the front bench is relatively sane with regards to these issues.
New Statesman: 5 Benefit changes the Government don't want you to know about
1. Disabled people denied a key benefit have had their right to appeal reduced
On 28 October the Department of Work and Pensions introduced a major change to the appeal process to the main disability benefit for people who are too ill to work, Employment and Support Allowance (ESA). If a claimant wishes to appeal against a decision that they are not entitled to ESA, they must now ask the DWP to reconsider the decision before lodging an official appeal – and receive no money in the meantime.
2. Long-term sick people are having their benefits sanctioned...for being sick
11, 000 sick and disabled people had their ESA penalized in just seven months – either for not participating in work related activity or missing a meeting with the Job Centre. 120 disabled people receiving JSA have had their benefits stopped for three years.
I reported in October the Work Programme’s failure to help disabled people gain employment; things as basic as making an effort to find them suitable work or understand that, when you’re dealing with claimants with health conditions, some days an appointment will be missed as they will be too ill to get up. Put this together with an increase in sanctions, and the system’s failings are now seeing sick and disabled people losing parts of their benefits.
3. 50,000 disabled people are being cut out of work
The cocktail of cuts being made to benefits mean the DWP are managing to simultaneously penalize disabled people for not working and stopping them from having a job.
50,000 disabled people could lose their jobs due to the Government removing Disability Living Allowance (DLA), the Disability Benefits Consortium (DBC), an organisation of over fifty leading charities, has found.
One in five disabled people who receive the now scrapped DLA are in work and use the benefit to cover the additional costs that come with that – be it help showering in the morning or a motability vehicle to get to the office.
4. There’s now a one-year limit on hundreds of thousands of people’s sickness benefit
In fact, the government is way ahead of us. They have now ‘time limited’ Employment and Support Allowance – meaning many people who have been found too ill to find work without support can only get the benefit for a year.
700,000 people with long-term sickness or disability have had their benefit taken as a result. The means test is only £7,500 for this change, leaving someone earning barely £8,000 per year having to support themselves and their ill partner.
5. Eviction letters are now including veiled threats to remove people’s children
Depressingly, even the cuts that do gain media attention seem to have certain aspects that remain hidden. It’s well highlighted that policies like the bedroom tax are leaving people unable to pay the rent. Less well publicized is the scale of rent arrears social tenants are finding themselves in – or the tacit threats being used to get monetary blood from the stones.
More:
http://www.newstatesman.com/2013/11/5-benefit-changes-government-dont-want-you-know-about
1. Disabled people denied a key benefit have had their right to appeal reduced
On 28 October the Department of Work and Pensions introduced a major change to the appeal process to the main disability benefit for people who are too ill to work, Employment and Support Allowance (ESA). If a claimant wishes to appeal against a decision that they are not entitled to ESA, they must now ask the DWP to reconsider the decision before lodging an official appeal – and receive no money in the meantime.
2. Long-term sick people are having their benefits sanctioned...for being sick
11, 000 sick and disabled people had their ESA penalized in just seven months – either for not participating in work related activity or missing a meeting with the Job Centre. 120 disabled people receiving JSA have had their benefits stopped for three years.
I reported in October the Work Programme’s failure to help disabled people gain employment; things as basic as making an effort to find them suitable work or understand that, when you’re dealing with claimants with health conditions, some days an appointment will be missed as they will be too ill to get up. Put this together with an increase in sanctions, and the system’s failings are now seeing sick and disabled people losing parts of their benefits.
3. 50,000 disabled people are being cut out of work
The cocktail of cuts being made to benefits mean the DWP are managing to simultaneously penalize disabled people for not working and stopping them from having a job.
50,000 disabled people could lose their jobs due to the Government removing Disability Living Allowance (DLA), the Disability Benefits Consortium (DBC), an organisation of over fifty leading charities, has found.
One in five disabled people who receive the now scrapped DLA are in work and use the benefit to cover the additional costs that come with that – be it help showering in the morning or a motability vehicle to get to the office.
4. There’s now a one-year limit on hundreds of thousands of people’s sickness benefit
In fact, the government is way ahead of us. They have now ‘time limited’ Employment and Support Allowance – meaning many people who have been found too ill to find work without support can only get the benefit for a year.
700,000 people with long-term sickness or disability have had their benefit taken as a result. The means test is only £7,500 for this change, leaving someone earning barely £8,000 per year having to support themselves and their ill partner.
5. Eviction letters are now including veiled threats to remove people’s children
Depressingly, even the cuts that do gain media attention seem to have certain aspects that remain hidden. It’s well highlighted that policies like the bedroom tax are leaving people unable to pay the rent. Less well publicized is the scale of rent arrears social tenants are finding themselves in – or the tacit threats being used to get monetary blood from the stones.
More:
http://www.newstatesman.com/2013/11/5-benefit-changes-government-dont-want-you-know-about
Just to play devil's advocate here...I've studied some of these policy changes quite closely in the past and the amount of misreporting around them is rife. Some of the assertions in this article don't seem to understand the difference between what each of the benefits are for or the reason behind some of the changes, many of which were requested by those working in the field and with disability organisations.
Having mandatory reconsiderations before going to the courts with an appeal provides a much, much quicker resolution for the claimant if the decision is overturned. It also saves a huge amount of stress and money compared to going through the tribunal system. High appeals rates don't lead to any winners so as a rule I'd say it's always better to try and get the right decision through before getting courts involved. If the claimant wins then the benefit is paid back to when they first applied so they don't lose out financially if they succeed, regardless of if its a re-consideration or an appeal.
Equally, there's absolutely no evidence to prove that any of the changes are going to push disabled people out of work. There's been a big drive to support disability employment and things like Access to Work are generally very popular schemes. In fact, BBC did a radio programme a while back about the massive underspend on Access to Work so whilst that budget remains unused I don't see how it can be claimed there isn't anything there to support disabled people getting into work.
Disability is such a hugely complex area but I find it frustrating when some of the quite reasonable changes get attacked or claims are made with absolutely zero evidence, when there are plenty of quite genuine suggestions or criticisms that could be made to actually try and improve the system and some of the major flaws in it. In my experience, those who complain about everything that comes through simply lessen the impact of their points and make it much easier for people to zone as opposed to working together on solutions.
Today during a parliamentary committee hearing, Vaz asked Rusbridger whether he loves his country. Is this McCarthyism for the new century?
It was a stupid fecking question certainly, but ultimately beaten into 2nd place by Micheal Ellis accusing Rusbridger of inadvertently outing homosexuals in GCHQ.
There was also some other stupid question (by Ellis as well, unsurprisingly) about whether Rusbridger would've given the Enigma secrets to the Nazis.
The Caf will love this. Pure gold. I'm sort of in the middle in this debate but the line 'You're just a person who is talking who is wrong' killed me.