Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)
- Thread starter unchanged_lineup
- 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.
It's a definition thing again though isn't it ? You've got so-called poor people who live on benefits, who are overweight & spend a lot of money on takeaway food & cigarettes. Then you've got poor people, who are not overweight, don't eat takeaways, & don't smoke, who struggle to put food on the table for themselves & their children. Maybe more stringent means-testing needs to put in place to ensure the right people get the right money. VAT was 10% when it was introduced back in 1973. It's double that now. I sincerely doubt the poor are twice as worse off as a result. Mind you we didn't have as many takeaways back then, or supermarkets stacking their shelves with snacks & copious amounts of unhealthy shite that is now consumed daily by the tonnage.
You can't really put 'the poor' into one category because it's a sweeping generalization that doesn't take into account many factors. Lot's of people are poor through no fault of their own. But there are also lot's who are poor through their own lifestyle choices. & those in the 2nd bracket are the ones who'd probably still be poor if VAT was abolished altogether.
Cheers they were the tweets I was thinking of.
Last edited:
Last edited:
Yeah. It's also difficult for an ordinary pleb to know the truth. Right wingers will say increasing tax too far results in wealth producers going elsewhere, and so in reality less tax is raised. Leftists will say that's a selfish lie. Presumably there are people in the treasury who can at least deliver educated opinions on the matter, but can we trust politicians with extreme views to consider them without prejudice ? I suspect not personally, it's a reason why I'd vote for a more centrist party rather than an extreme one.
Also the 'other people should pay more tax but not me' thing doesn't wash, anyone with that view doesn't really care about social issues, they're just pretending.
I'm not sure how anyone on the planet can take this idiot seriously. He's an appeaser like May.
These kind of people used to make sense until they got elected, now they make no sense at all.
Our voting options are shit. Political revolution coming within 10 years.
These kind of people used to make sense until they got elected, now they make no sense at all.
Our voting options are shit. Political revolution coming within 10 years.
Surely you have to look at how much of an income the top 10% take from an economy rather than the number of people. From what I can see the top 10% take in around 50% of the wealth in the country, so surely the tax contributions in total should be approaching that figure?
Well worth a read of that thread. Absolute rancid state of that party.
Income tax wise it's already over that figure... (It's actually over 70%)
If you wanted to change tax so that you got rid of the regressive taxes like fuel duty and vat and focus on taking 50% of total tax from the top 10% then I guess at around 40k the tax rate would go up to around 90% of earnings (Income tax accounting for I think less than a third of total tax revenue)
Not sure we would manage to keep many doctors or headmasters or software engineers or frankly any engineers in the country.
One of the nuanced realities some on the left struggle with is that often income to the Exchequer is higher when taxes are low or held and that often decreases when you put taxes up and effectively incentives those with the means to avoid the increase, to do so. Of course that doesn't mean you keep taxes low purely for fear the wealthy might not pay as much if you don't, but it does mean that it's more complicated than "raising taxes = increased revenue".
Hell some of them even think we'd still have doctors if doctors and cleaners had the same take-home pay.
Who the feck allowed Iranian state TV near that vote? They are even weeting #WeAreCorbyn. Someone needs to get a grip.
US starting science researchers get paid <$15/hour, while Disneyland employees are getting more.
Yet there are scientists in the US.
These percentages are only relevant if we know what % tax the rich are paying on their earnings. All well and good to say they contribute X % in tax collected but unlike joe soap, are they paying the right % tax on their earnings? The answer is no!
Like you say, I think the resentment comes from paying your % but knowing people earning more are paying less of a %. Or knowing someone doing an identical job as you through a different employment mechanism is paying less than you.
But unless you have a global income/interest tax %, wealthier people will always live in the lower % places. Bonus points if you don't have to actually be there to 'live' there.
What would you regard as "the rich" and how do you come to the conclusion that they aren't paying enough in tax?
Obviously, offshore loopholes and all that sneaky kind of shite should've been shut down years ago, I'm not talking about that. I'm talking purely about well to do people in the UK, living and working in the UK, paying their taxes in the UK.
This perhaps should go to a new thread as it's getting derailed.
With Jeremy Corbyn's recent announcement that he plans to take the water industry back under national control it made me wonder whether people who support renationalisation of various industries are aware that the reality is that for a significant/majority of time they will be at the mercy of Tory governments. Whilst there are things that shouldn't be run for the purpose of generating a profit (schools, prisons, hospitals), I'm not sure had the water industry been ran by this government for the last 8 years it'd be in a better shape than it is today. Renationalisation as a concept only really works if you pretend it's going to benefit from a Labour government funding it who recognises the need for investment. If you don't have that, and over the last 41 years only 1 person has ever been elected PM who wasn't from the Tory party, then arguably you're putting these industries and levels of services they can provide in greater peril than is currently the case.
It's also ridiculously easy to undo. Let's say Labour get in and within the term they re-nationalise the railways, water, gas and electricity industries at great expense. Do you think the next time the Tories get in they're not going to help their mates out in the city and have another mass sell-off once again, once more likely at terrible value to the taxpayer even worse than last time given that in this scenario the tax payer would have only recently been asked to invest eye-watering sums of money into taking control of all those industries only very recently.
Re-nationalisation seems to one of these tropes the left love without ever really thinking about what it'll mean. Unless you can guarantee the Tory party will never win power again or at least be assured that they'll change so fundamentally that they won't see a freshly nationalised industry as a carrot to dangle in front of big business then the concept in almost every example when it comes to renationalising industries is naive at best, reckless at worse.
It's also ridiculously easy to undo. Let's say Labour get in and within the term they re-nationalise the railways, water, gas and electricity industries at great expense. Do you think the next time the Tories get in they're not going to help their mates out in the city and have another mass sell-off once again, once more likely at terrible value to the taxpayer even worse than last time given that in this scenario the tax payer would have only recently been asked to invest eye-watering sums of money into taking control of all those industries only very recently.
Re-nationalisation seems to one of these tropes the left love without ever really thinking about what it'll mean. Unless you can guarantee the Tory party will never win power again or at least be assured that they'll change so fundamentally that they won't see a freshly nationalised industry as a carrot to dangle in front of big business then the concept in almost every example when it comes to renationalising industries is naive at best, reckless at worse.
Alternative Models Of Ownership
https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Alternative-Models-of-Ownership.pdf
and review of it here - https://newsocialist.org.uk/labours-alternative-models-of-ownership-report/
I'd imagine it's something that comes up on the doorsteps all the time. Parents concerned a bit about lack of childcare provision in the local area but above all the undemocratic way in which Cholderton and District Water has been run over the last few years. That's when they're not fretting over whether the establishment of Israel was a racist endeavour or not.
In any event my point was that the left didn't really understand the consequences of nationalisation, citing the fact it'd be very expensive, easily reversible and history tells us that for great lengths of time will be effectively under the control of Tory govts likely keen to bring each industry to its knees to justify it's inevitable sell-off down the line to the benefit of it's donors. Not that the Labour party don't have a preferred public-ownership structure in mind. You seem to have answered the question about the left not understanding realities of nationalisation of industry by showing you didn't understand the question itself.
In any event my point was that the left didn't really understand the consequences of nationalisation, citing the fact it'd be very expensive, easily reversible and history tells us that for great lengths of time will be effectively under the control of Tory govts likely keen to bring each industry to its knees to justify it's inevitable sell-off down the line to the benefit of it's donors. Not that the Labour party don't have a preferred public-ownership structure in mind. You seem to have answered the question about the left not understanding realities of nationalisation of industry by showing you didn't understand the question itself.
Last edited:
You’re making a lot of assumptions with this point you’re trying to make. Really not convinced we’ll be seeing this play out like that. Not least because the future looks so unbelievably bleak for the Tories as they currently are.
Is your opinion really that you shouldn’t try to implement what you believe to be the right policies in terms of national ownership... because someone will eventually come in and privatise? Well if that’s the case, what time are we wasting? Labour might as well pledge to sell off the NHS now. Why waste any more money investing in it, if privatisation is eventually inevitable as it’s a Tory end goal?
Any other policies they should scrap because a Tory Government would undo them? Perhaps they should just take the Tory manifesto and go with that instead... since it’ll eventually happen anyway. Save wasting public money on any silly investments that will eventually get quashed.
Realistically, if an industry is nationalised and running well under national ownership... a policy to sell it off and privatise again will be a very difficult sell, even for the Tories. Hardly a pledge that will help them win back power when the majority of voters would be very against it.
You didn't read the links did you ?
That's one way of getting Oscie voting for Labour again.
Their is no competition within the water industry, it should never have been privatised
It's again sensationalism and frankly a non-story. Another stick to hit Labour. Hardly a collusion with Iran on Trump scale. National Iranian TV was nowhere at the meeting or recording. A UK resident formerly from Iran a member of the labour party recorded/ing some part of the process on the phone. It likely went around on WhatsApp and was then broadcast on Iranian TV.
Last edited:
It's not a stick it's an unnecessary own goal. They were live tweeting the event. And at such a time like this, it's the last thing Corbyn needs.
Absolutely. However, how does Corbyn monitor such events or rogues within the party?
According to his Linkedin profile, Roshan Salih worked for Press TV for five years:
"I was responsible for Press TV's news output from the UK. This covered the news packages that we produced as well as all the live reporting, features and, occassionally, documentaries that we did."
Coincidentally these were the years Jeremy Corbyn made a number of appearances as a guest/host on Press TV.
Salih claims this role ended in 2012, which is of course the year Press TV was banned in the U.K. Not unreasonable to assume he has maintained his links with the station since then.
He seems like a stand up guy:
The establishment is using all the tools at its disposal to discredit Corbyn and the sections of the Labour party. I'm not sure what to believe any more with the state of the Press.
According to his Linkedin profile, Roshan Salih worked for Press TV for five years:
"I was responsible for Press TV's news output from the UK. This covered the news packages that we produced as well as all the live reporting, features and, occassionally, documentaries that we did."
Coincidentally these were the years Jeremy Corbyn made a number of appearances as a guest/host on Press TV.
Salih claims this role ended in 2012, which is of course the year Press TV was banned in the U.K. Not unreasonable to assume he has maintained his links with the station since then.
He seems like a stand up guy:
Clearly Salih still works for Press TV:
Weren't they banned by filming a 'confession' by someone who had been tortured whose torturer was in the room during the video? Don't they also show executions of homosexuals?
But Tony Blair was stood near Margaret Thatcher once at a war memorial event, so I guess that's worse and to suggest otherwise is a smear. And if you don't buy that false equivalence, there's the picture of Prince Charles with Jimmy Savile for some reason probably too.
But Tony Blair was stood near Margaret Thatcher once at a war memorial event, so I guess that's worse and to suggest otherwise is a smear. And if you don't buy that false equivalence, there's the picture of Prince Charles with Jimmy Savile for some reason probably too.
Press TV is vile, here is an example of the type of 'political analysts' they invite on to discuss Israel:
Never watched Press TV if I can remember correctly. Didn't even know it was Irans' national broadcaster.
@2cents Is Ken O'keefe banned from releasing such material or producing such videos?
@2cents Is Ken O'keefe banned from releasing such material or producing such videos?
I would think not since he seems to split his time between Ireland (unfortunately) and the US, where he's free to be as crazy and racist as he likes. Press TV is about the only station that'll stoop so low as to have him on though.
You didn't read the links did you ?
Like you have any fecking clue what's contained within the links you provided. You Googled and posted whatever results looked relevant from the 1st page.
You likely don't even know that you posted a link to a 12,000 word article and a 25,000 word document. The contents of either being something you've never mentioned, discussed or alluded to in the past on this thread at any time. Yet somehow everyone is supposed to believe you presented each as a retort to the suggestion that the realities of nationalisation of industry in a country where the majority of time there exists a Tory government is problematic.
You're not across a single thing posted in either of those two links, you didn't even know the links contained 37,000 words of text to the point you've actually just tried to make a point out of the fact I hadn't read the contents of each link in a post I made 6 minutes after you posted them.
"Haha, you haven't even read the 37,000 words I posted 6 minutes ago did you?"
You absolute unconvincing charlatan.
Last edited:
You misunderstand me. I'm not having a go at Corbyn. I'm saying someone that thinks he or she supports Corbyn allowed Iranian State TV to use that vote for their crap.
I was once in a crappy hotel in Nigeria and the only news channel was Press TV. Back then I didn't even know it was Iranian state TV. I know most news stations are biased in some way but this was incredible.
The kept referring to the West as "imperialists". I had been watching for a while but I was getting worked up. Kept thinking that this was unprofessional. Was a while later I got to know where they were based, then it all made sense.
The kept referring to the West as "imperialists". I had been watching for a while but I was getting worked up. Kept thinking that this was unprofessional. Was a while later I got to know where they were based, then it all made sense.
They've barely even begun to that yet, as Brexit is consuming the establishment's attention as much as everyone else's. When Brexit is over, in whatever shape or form, then the establishment guns will turn to Corbyn.
https://www.redcafe.net/search/102758954/?q=alternative+models+of+ownership&o=date&c[node]=13
Oscie the search function is there for a reason
Last edited:
Chuka Umunna urged Mr Corbyn to "call off the dogs".
Real classy from an MP.
Real classy from an MP.
From that link you provided the two previous times you've mentioned it:
Wow you're really across the context of a 25,000 word article you've now mentioned three times providing no other contents each time other than:
"Interesting", "Really interesting" and most recently "
and a review of it here"I don't know how I ever questioned your familiarity with a document that you've repeatedly displayed so much knowledge of. I mean that's three times now you've posted the link and I'm sure had you had time you'd have given more of an insight as to your thoughts, views, criticisms and praises of what was contained within but you've twice gone so far as to say the document was "interesting" so that's pretty much exactly the same as if you had read and understood all 25,000 words.
Honestly I feel silly now doubting you. If only you'd have said earlier you've twice called the document interesting on previous occasions I never would have made the accusation in the first place.
Wow you're really across the context of a 25,000 word article you've now mentioned three times providing no other contents each time other than:
"Interesting", "Really interesting" and most recently "
Well yeah I posted on the forum with the hope that other might read it(Hint hint) and then talk about in the thread but well no one did(Shame really as it's rather interesting)
You moan that the left doesn't understand nationalisation and I posted links showing the left views on nationalisation which you didn't bother to read and I'm the charlatan ? Just read the report and learn something.