FlyTheNest

A haven
It is currently Thu 15 Nov, 2018 6:47 pm

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Welcome to FTN. New posters are welcome to join the conversation. You can follow us on Twitter @FlythenestHaven You are responsible for the content you post. This is a public forum. Treat it as if you are speaking in a crowded room. Site admin and Moderators are volunteers who will respond as quickly as they are able to when made aware of any complaints. Please do not post copyrighted material without the original authors permission.



Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 51 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Friday 2nd November 2018
PostPosted: Fri 02 Nov, 2018 7:03 am 
Online
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 6:22 pm
Posts: 3337
Location: Wombwell, United Kingdom
Has thanked: 899 times
Been thanked: 6042 times
Morning all.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 02 Nov, 2018 7:49 am 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 11:40 pm
Posts: 21844
Has thanked: 17338 times
Been thanked: 31651 times
Further to previous

https://nearlylegal.co.uk/2018/11/unive ... more-woes/

_________________
"under consideration "/may self destruct.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 02 Nov, 2018 7:52 am 
Offline
Home Secretary

Joined: Sun 29 Nov, 2015 1:24 pm
Posts: 1669
Has thanked: 4950 times
Been thanked: 2359 times
Happy to report that Diane Abbott more than survived Mr Humphrys on Toady earlier .

That’s a statement of the obvious. "

Stout party reduced to a draw .

EX-copper currently on Toady . "We've lost 44,000 people from policing in the last 'n' years ."

'N' because it's early ! Labour rabbits on about x thousand police lost, but never a word on PCSO's , who are also front line. Or rather, 'were'.

Murder and knife squad case numbers exploding.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 02 Nov, 2018 8:53 am 
Online
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 9:18 pm
Posts: 7444
Has thanked: 4531 times
Been thanked: 17235 times
Morning all.

Given that Ministers are responsible for policy and therefore expected to know what it is, the timing of a report saying that Rudd was let down by officials for being somewhat confused in public about her own government's policy, is interesting to say the least.

_________________
FTN's supplier of tedious, pedantic education policy waffle; and Pedant-in-Chief generally.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 02 Nov, 2018 9:07 am 
Offline
Home Secretary

Joined: Sun 29 Nov, 2015 1:24 pm
Posts: 1669
Has thanked: 4950 times
Been thanked: 2359 times
" The revolt was led by Lisa Nandy, a respected former shadow minister, who had warned the Labour leadership that the cut was “unacceptable” to many of the party’s backbenchers.

Yvette Cooper, David Lammy, Alison McGovern and Liz Kendall were among other prominent Labour MPs who joined the rebellion – a hike in the threshold before the 40p income tax rate kicks in to £50,000.

Mr McDonnell said he would not oppose the change because Labour is “not going to take money out of people’s pockets” "

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 13271.html

Not one of his better moments. If he really wants to join the Tories in a race to the bottom on taxation he could have told us before :-)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 02 Nov, 2018 9:38 am 
Online
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 9:18 pm
Posts: 7444
Has thanked: 4531 times
Been thanked: 17235 times
Quote:
Alberto Nardelli

Verified account

@AlbertoNardelli
10h10 hours ago
More
“The Mail understands that in early 2016 the then home secretary Theresa May declined a request by one of the security services to investigate Banks”


Oh really?

Well that could get very interesting...

_________________
FTN's supplier of tedious, pedantic education policy waffle; and Pedant-in-Chief generally.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 02 Nov, 2018 9:51 am 
Online
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 9:18 pm
Posts: 7444
Has thanked: 4531 times
Been thanked: 17235 times
And re someone 'deciding' that they would like to make a comeback...

Quote:
Mollie Goodfellow

Verified account

@hansmollman
11h11 hours ago
More
why don’t they make David Cameron the editor of the Waitrose magazine and that will tie up this week nicely


:D

_________________
FTN's supplier of tedious, pedantic education policy waffle; and Pedant-in-Chief generally.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 02 Nov, 2018 9:57 am 
Online
Speaker of the House

Joined: Thu 28 Aug, 2014 9:51 am
Posts: 2637
Has thanked: 5716 times
Been thanked: 6073 times
HindleA wrote:

Quote:
The Govt’s stated view at the time only confirms that everyone should have a housing lawyer with them at all times

_________________
One world, like it or not - John Martyn


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 02 Nov, 2018 10:41 am 
Offline
Home Secretary

Joined: Sun 29 Nov, 2015 1:24 pm
Posts: 1669
Has thanked: 4950 times
Been thanked: 2359 times
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... Party.html

More good news for labour , it had all gone rather quiet on the A-S front .


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 02 Nov, 2018 11:01 am 
Offline
Home Secretary

Joined: Sun 29 Nov, 2015 1:24 pm
Posts: 1669
Has thanked: 4950 times
Been thanked: 2359 times
https://twitter.com/AlbertoNardelli/sta ... 8060713984

A bit more bio on the Bad Boy -- https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... monds.html
ANDREW PIERCE: Minutes after I first met Arron Banks he produced a pouch of diamonds. Keep them, he said, I've a whole mountain full


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 02 Nov, 2018 11:14 am 
Online
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 8:26 pm
Posts: 8202
Has thanked: 820 times
Been thanked: 17297 times
frog222 wrote:
" The revolt was led by Lisa Nandy, a respected former shadow minister, who had warned the Labour leadership that the cut was “unacceptable” to many of the party’s backbenchers.

Yvette Cooper, David Lammy, Alison McGovern and Liz Kendall were among other prominent Labour MPs who joined the rebellion – a hike in the threshold before the 40p income tax rate kicks in to £50,000.

Mr McDonnell said he would not oppose the change because Labour is “not going to take money out of people’s pockets” "

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 13271.html

Not one of his better moments. If he really wants to join the Tories in a race to the bottom on taxation he could have told us before :-)


The identity of most (not all) of the "rebels" tells its own story. This was largely driven by opportunism and has thus met a rather frosty response.

(must admit I don't mind Nandy though, her heart is in the right place at least)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 02 Nov, 2018 11:20 am 
Online
Site Admin

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 6:27 pm
Posts: 6233
Has thanked: 2174 times
Been thanked: 10306 times
A nice by-election win for Labour up here in marginal Denby Dale :-)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 02 Nov, 2018 11:21 am 
Online
Site Admin

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 6:27 pm
Posts: 6233
Has thanked: 2174 times
Been thanked: 10306 times
frog222 wrote:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6345289/Police-launch-investigation-anti-Semitism-Labour-Party.html

More good news for labour , it had all gone rather quiet on the A-S front .

Likely to be a non-story I reckon. Cressida Dick was a bit scaring about the way this evidence had been presented to her in a radio studio "of all places".


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 02 Nov, 2018 11:22 am 
Online
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 8:26 pm
Posts: 8202
Has thanked: 820 times
Been thanked: 17297 times
PaulfromYorkshire wrote:
A nice by-election win for Labour up here in marginal Denby Dale :-)


Yep, majority of 7 on Klrklees council now - we only took overall control earlier this year.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 02 Nov, 2018 11:31 am 
Offline
Home Secretary

Joined: Sun 29 Nov, 2015 1:24 pm
Posts: 1669
Has thanked: 4950 times
Been thanked: 2359 times
AnatolyKasparov wrote:
frog222 wrote:
" The revolt was led by Lisa Nandy, a respected former shadow minister, who had warned the Labour leadership that the cut was “unacceptable” to many of the party’s backbenchers.
Yvette Cooper, David Lammy, Alison McGovern and Liz Kendall were among other prominent Labour MPs who joined the rebellion – a hike in the threshold before the 40p income tax rate kicks in to £50,000.
Mr McDonnell said he would not oppose the change because Labour is “not going to take money out of people’s pockets” "
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 13271.html
Not one of his better moments. If he really wants to join the Tories in a race to the bottom on taxation he could have told us before :-)

The identity of most (not all) of the "rebels" tells its own story. This was largely driven by opportunism and has thus met a rather frosty response.
(must admit I don't mind Nandy though, her heart is in the right place at least)

I thought it was a hasty misjudgement by J McD, interesting that some quite centrist Labour are to the left of him on this :-)
It has been pointed out all over the press that the better-off gain far more than the less well-paid. So is the 'frosty response' a sincere widespread one or just loyalty to the party line ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 02 Nov, 2018 11:34 am 
Online
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 8:26 pm
Posts: 8202
Has thanked: 820 times
Been thanked: 17297 times
frog222 wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote:
frog222 wrote:
" The revolt was led by Lisa Nandy, a respected former shadow minister, who had warned the Labour leadership that the cut was “unacceptable” to many of the party’s backbenchers.
Yvette Cooper, David Lammy, Alison McGovern and Liz Kendall were among other prominent Labour MPs who joined the rebellion – a hike in the threshold before the 40p income tax rate kicks in to £50,000.
Mr McDonnell said he would not oppose the change because Labour is “not going to take money out of people’s pockets” "
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 13271.html
Not one of his better moments. If he really wants to join the Tories in a race to the bottom on taxation he could have told us before :-)

The identity of most (not all) of the "rebels" tells its own story. This was largely driven by opportunism and has thus met a rather frosty response.
(must admit I don't mind Nandy though, her heart is in the right place at least)

I thought it was a hasty misjudgement by J McD, interesting that some quite centrist Labour are to the left of him on this :-)
It has been pointed out all over the press that the better-off gain far more than the less well-paid. So is the 'frosty response' a sincere widespread one or just loyalty to the party line ?


Except that they aren't really, that's the whole point.

A few not only went along with the welfare cuts abstention in mid-2015, but actually wanted Labour to support them (I'm looking at a former leadership hopeful in particular)

Some of them (I would include Nandy) have repented of that episode. Others, it is fair to say, have not.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 02 Nov, 2018 11:40 am 
Online
Prime Minister

Joined: Tue 26 Aug, 2014 11:18 am
Posts: 10680
Has thanked: 21022 times
Been thanked: 18773 times
frog222 wrote:
https://twitter.com/AlbertoNardelli/status/1058135218060713984

A bit more bio on the Bad Boy -- https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... monds.html
ANDREW PIERCE: Minutes after I first met Arron Banks he produced a pouch of diamonds. Keep them, he said, I've a whole mountain full


Thank you so much for reminding me of the existence of Michael Hancock . . .


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 02 Nov, 2018 11:40 am 
Online
Prime Minister

Joined: Tue 26 Aug, 2014 11:18 am
Posts: 10680
Has thanked: 21022 times
Been thanked: 18773 times
Good morfternoon.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 02 Nov, 2018 1:33 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 11:40 pm
Posts: 21844
Has thanked: 17338 times
Been thanked: 31651 times
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/p ... ssion=true

Paris bus driver hailed a hero for kicking off ALL passengers after they refused to make room for wheelchair user
Ban the bastards.If you deny others travel you should be able to yourself.

_________________
"under consideration "/may self destruct.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 02 Nov, 2018 2:01 pm 
Online
Speaker of the House

Joined: Thu 28 Aug, 2014 9:51 am
Posts: 2637
Has thanked: 5716 times
Been thanked: 6073 times
frog222 wrote:
https://twitter.com/AlbertoNardelli/status/1058135218060713984

A bit more bio on the Bad Boy -- https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... monds.html
ANDREW PIERCE: Minutes after I first met Arron Banks he produced a pouch of diamonds. Keep them, he said, I've a whole mountain full

Quote:
His parents decided to name him after the Scottish island of Arran but got the spelling wrong.

:D

_________________
One world, like it or not - John Martyn


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 02 Nov, 2018 2:15 pm 
Online
Prime Minister
User avatar

Joined: Thu 18 Sep, 2014 1:40 pm
Posts: 5143
Has thanked: 10472 times
Been thanked: 12542 times
AnatolyKasparov wrote:
frog222 wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote:
The identity of most (not all) of the "rebels" tells its own story. This was largely driven by opportunism and has thus met a rather frosty response.
(must admit I don't mind Nandy though, her heart is in the right place at least)

I thought it was a hasty misjudgement by J McD, interesting that some quite centrist Labour are to the left of him on this :-)
It has been pointed out all over the press that the better-off gain far more than the less well-paid. So is the 'frosty response' a sincere widespread one or just loyalty to the party line ?


Except that they aren't really, that's the whole point.

A few not only went along with the welfare cuts abstention in mid-2015, but actually wanted Labour to support them (I'm looking at a former leadership hopeful in particular)

Some of them (I would include Nandy) have repented of that episode. Others, it is fair to say, have not.


That there is so much room to the left of John McDonnell on this that those to the right of the party can so comfortably squeeze into it is part of the problem.

In the context that the Tories are bringing in these tax cuts, paid for out of the pockets of those on working age benefits, they are just plain wrong and it's just so depressing that Labour still, even under Corbyn, feels it can't oppose such blatant transfer of wealth from the poorest to the richest.

And this isn't an attack on Corbyn either as he is clearly far more uncomfortable with this stance than McDonnell, who has the support of a lot of political commentators who normally are the first to criticise him, not a good look in itself given how many of them will be some of the bigger beneficiaries of these cuts.

It's probably not that important in the wider scheme of things, but it remains a bad call from McDonnell, regardless of the identity of the Labour MPs who have chosen to challenge him on it.

_________________
“Find a nice, self sufficient hilltop, and fortify it.” - The Kraken Wakes


Last edited by Willow904 on Fri 02 Nov, 2018 2:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 02 Nov, 2018 2:16 pm 
Online
Speaker of the House

Joined: Thu 28 Aug, 2014 9:51 am
Posts: 2637
Has thanked: 5716 times
Been thanked: 6073 times
Labour's Tax Bombshell

This is the first comment btl which I don't entirely agree with but I'd say it's a good summary of McDonnell's position.
Quote:
People earning £50,000 a year, or even £100,000 a year are not rich, or even to use the correct terminology (rich refers to stock of wealth, not flow of income) affluent. They are generally people who have to sell their labour-power, albeit they get a bit of a higher price for their labour-power than many other workers.

The problem with social-democracy, has always been that in order to pay for the welfare state, it has taxed this group of workers increasingly heavily in order to pay for benefits to be paid to the rest, which become necessary, because a large number of inefficient small capitalists pay poor wages, whilst the cost of living for things like housing rises. This transfer of income also requires a huge state bureaucracy to implement, which is also very inefficient, compared to workers simply having high enough incomes to begin with.

So Labour is right to say a) it does not want to penalise these slightly higher paid workers, so as to subsidise lower wage paying employers, and b) that its main means of reducing public spending will be to reduce the amount of benefits it has to pay out, by raising the minimum wage, and restoring union collective bargaining power. Of course, the Blair-rights don't like this latter approach, because it implies encouraging direct working-class self-activity, which they fear getting out of hand.

All of the tax redistributive stuff is so much nonsense, sa Marx described over 150 years ago. The Tories, for example, and Liberals, boast about having reduced taxes on millions, but fail to mention about the massive rise in VAT they imposed on them, which had a more dramatic negative effective, or the increased costs imposed upon those who now have to pay for local government services no longer provided.

The rich are not those who have to work to earn a living, but those with sufficient capital to be able to live comfortably without working. If you have, say £1 billion, then even if you just got 1% a year on it, that is £10 million, which shows how paltry an income of £50,000 really is. But the truly rich, of course get far more than that on their capital, and in recent years, their main form of increase in wealth has come not in the form of revenues, but in the form of capital gains, as their shares, bonds and property have soared in value, by 10, 20 and more percent a year. That is why central banks and governments have been prepared to wreck the real economy with QE and austerity, so as to keep those asset prices high.

Its against that parasitic wealth, that Labour should focus its attention.

_________________
One world, like it or not - John Martyn


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 02 Nov, 2018 2:23 pm 
Online
Prime Minister
User avatar

Joined: Thu 11 Sep, 2014 11:22 am
Posts: 15423
Has thanked: 84971 times
Been thanked: 13786 times
RogerOThornhill wrote:
Morning all.

Given that Ministers are responsible for policy and therefore expected to know what it is, the timing of a report saying that Rudd was let down by officials for being somewhat confused in public about her own government's policy, is interesting to say the least.
Tory government insist they lead the UK simultaneously arguing they're not the ones responsible for their whacked policies
Tory government wanting it all and more than that too, they want ownership of reality


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 02 Nov, 2018 2:27 pm 
Online
Speaker of the House

Joined: Thu 28 Aug, 2014 9:51 am
Posts: 2637
Has thanked: 5716 times
Been thanked: 6073 times
Willow904 wrote:
it's just so depressing that Labour still, even under Corbyn, feels it can't oppose such blatant transfer of wealth from the poorest to the richest.

As you know from our discussion the other day (Tuesday?) I don't agree with you but see your point on the main issue. But I don't agree with this interpretation of it at all.
They can't stop the tories doing it and they'd be mad to say they'd reverse it. Opposing it is 'sound and fury, signifying nothing'.

_________________
One world, like it or not - John Martyn


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 02 Nov, 2018 2:34 pm 
Online
Prime Minister
User avatar

Joined: Thu 11 Sep, 2014 11:22 am
Posts: 15423
Has thanked: 84971 times
Been thanked: 13786 times
beautiful day here
Good afternoon, everyone


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 02 Nov, 2018 2:35 pm 
Online
Prime Minister
User avatar

Joined: Thu 11 Sep, 2014 11:22 am
Posts: 15423
Has thanked: 84971 times
Been thanked: 13786 times
HindleA wrote:
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/paris-bus-driver-hailed-for-kicking-all-passengers-off-after-they-refused-to-make-room-for-a3977531.html?amp&__twitter_impression=true

Paris bus driver hailed a hero for kicking off ALL passengers after they refused to make room for wheelchair user
Ban the bastards.If you deny others travel you should be able to yourself.
that's brilliant


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 02 Nov, 2018 2:43 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 11:40 pm
Posts: 21844
Has thanked: 17338 times
Been thanked: 31651 times
Sorry,regression is regression there is no justifiable gloss on it.I personally gain by it,I should be paying more tax not less.In general not just income.Until it is accepted that taxes need to go up beyond applicable to a particular targeted section we are screwed.IMHO.The relative well off majority need to take responsibility rather than bemoan/ rely on the rich.

_________________
"under consideration "/may self destruct.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 02 Nov, 2018 2:45 pm 
Online
Prime Minister
User avatar

Joined: Thu 11 Sep, 2014 11:22 am
Posts: 15423
Has thanked: 84971 times
Been thanked: 13786 times
In the twenty years I've relied upon public transportation, I've only one encounter with a moderately unhelpful public transportation worker. He was under a lot of pressure and apparently new at his job; I was lost and getting colder.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 02 Nov, 2018 3:04 pm 
Online
Prime Minister
User avatar

Joined: Thu 18 Sep, 2014 1:40 pm
Posts: 5143
Has thanked: 10472 times
Been thanked: 12542 times
gilsey wrote:
Labour's Tax Bombshell

This is the first comment btl which I don't entirely agree with but I'd say it's a good summary of McDonnell's position.
Quote:
People earning £50,000 a year, or even £100,000 a year are not rich, or even to use the correct terminology (rich refers to stock of wealth, not flow of income) affluent. They are generally people who have to sell their labour-power, albeit they get a bit of a higher price for their labour-power than many other workers.

The problem with social-democracy, has always been that in order to pay for the welfare state, it has taxed this group of workers increasingly heavily in order to pay for benefits to be paid to the rest, which become necessary, because a large number of inefficient small capitalists pay poor wages, whilst the cost of living for things like housing rises. This transfer of income also requires a huge state bureaucracy to implement, which is also very inefficient, compared to workers simply having high enough incomes to begin with.

So Labour is right to say a) it does not want to penalise these slightly higher paid workers, so as to subsidise lower wage paying employers, and b) that its main means of reducing public spending will be to reduce the amount of benefits it has to pay out, by raising the minimum wage, and restoring union collective bargaining power. Of course, the Blair-rights don't like this latter approach, because it implies encouraging direct working-class self-activity, which they fear getting out of hand.

All of the tax redistributive stuff is so much nonsense, sa Marx described over 150 years ago. The Tories, for example, and Liberals, boast about having reduced taxes on millions, but fail to mention about the massive rise in VAT they imposed on them, which had a more dramatic negative effective, or the increased costs imposed upon those who now have to pay for local government services no longer provided.

The rich are not those who have to work to earn a living, but those with sufficient capital to be able to live comfortably without working. If you have, say £1 billion, then even if you just got 1% a year on it, that is £10 million, which shows how paltry an income of £50,000 really is. But the truly rich, of course get far more than that on their capital, and in recent years, their main form of increase in wealth has come not in the form of revenues, but in the form of capital gains, as their shares, bonds and property have soared in value, by 10, 20 and more percent a year. That is why central banks and governments have been prepared to wreck the real economy with QE and austerity, so as to keep those asset prices high.

Its against that parasitic wealth, that Labour should focus its attention.


It's because of arguments like this that I accompanied my first comment on this subject with a link to an article which shows just how little tax people on middle to higher incomes were already paying in this country compared to other comparable countries. These are the same people who were protected from austerity by Osborne who are now reaping the benefits of the austerity suffered by those on far, far lower incomes than themselves. And here's the rub, everything above suggests these people need to be bribed to vote Labour with money taken from poor people when I would argue that a lot of these people are already happy to vote Labour without promises of Labour protecting a couple of hundred pounds in their pockets because they see the need for radical reform of everything from the housing market and social care and, yes, how we deal with the very wealthy and corporation and tax havens that are threatening our welfare state and standard of living.
£50,000 a year is not "paltry". It's well above the median full time wage of £29,500. It's also a high enough wage that a few hundred pounds per annum either way will make little difference to someone's overall standard of living while the hundreds, and sometimes thousands, per annum being cut from working age benefits is the difference between just about managing (remember them?) and full blown crisis.
People who support austerity for the poor and tax cuts for the rich will never vote Labour so can we please stop pandering to such people and can we also have a bit more faith in people on slightly better incomes choosing to support Labour in creating a fairer society and investing in better public services for the benefit of everyone and being willing to pay a little bit more (though certainly no more than people on comparable incomes in many other countries) to do so.

_________________
“Find a nice, self sufficient hilltop, and fortify it.” - The Kraken Wakes


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 02 Nov, 2018 3:12 pm 
Online
Prime Minister
User avatar

Joined: Thu 11 Sep, 2014 11:22 am
Posts: 15423
Has thanked: 84971 times
Been thanked: 13786 times
HindleA wrote:
Sorry,regression is regression there is no justifiable gloss on it.
(cJA edit)
Not true, people vote against their interests; it's how Tories manage holding onto leadership
Compromise isn't capitulation; sometimes good enough is the best it'll get
HindleA wrote:
---
Until it is accepted that taxes need to go up beyond applicable to a particular targeted section we are screwed.IMHO.The relative well off majority need to take responsibility rather than bemoan/ rely on the rich.
(cJA edit)
I agree; even those losing nothing and gaining more than they thought possible won't
Your friendship and our conversations are invaluable to me; I learn from you
What I learn I use helping others understand


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 02 Nov, 2018 3:46 pm 
Online
Prime Minister
User avatar

Joined: Thu 18 Sep, 2014 1:40 pm
Posts: 5143
Has thanked: 10472 times
Been thanked: 12542 times
Quote:
BBC Politics
@BBCPolitics
On #marr on Sunday Arron Banks will respond to National Crime Agency investigation into campaign funding during Brexit referendum
@Arron_banks


BBC One, 10am


https://mobile.twitter.com/BBCPolitics/ ... 6584815616

The BBC did this before, of course, when Vote Leave were given a platform to push their propaganda before the Electoral Commission were legally allowed to publish the offences they had been found guilty of and fined for.

They are on even shakier ground with this though, I would have thought. The NCA are potentially investigating financial crimes as well as irregularities related to electoral law. Such a high profile platform could prejudice a jury and make a fair trial impossible. Though it could also provide a platform for Banks to further incriminate himself, of course!

_________________
“Find a nice, self sufficient hilltop, and fortify it.” - The Kraken Wakes


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 02 Nov, 2018 5:10 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 11:40 pm
Posts: 21844
Has thanked: 17338 times
Been thanked: 31651 times
Pure self interest in wanting to pay more tax,collective miniscule amounts saves countless,a responsible Government puts that to good use.First,we have to relentlessly get people to see/accept that if you want a decent Society and inure against the vagaries and inevitabilities of life you have to put your hand in your own pocket rather than expecting everybody but you to pay for it.

_________________
"under consideration "/may self destruct.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 02 Nov, 2018 5:29 pm 
Online
Site Admin

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 6:27 pm
Posts: 6233
Has thanked: 2174 times
Been thanked: 10306 times
Willow904 wrote:
gilsey wrote:
Labour's Tax Bombshell

This is the first comment btl which I don't entirely agree with but I'd say it's a good summary of McDonnell's position.
Quote:
People earning £50,000 a year, or even £100,000 a year are not rich, or even to use the correct terminology (rich refers to stock of wealth, not flow of income) affluent. They are generally people who have to sell their labour-power, albeit they get a bit of a higher price for their labour-power than many other workers.

The problem with social-democracy, has always been that in order to pay for the welfare state, it has taxed this group of workers increasingly heavily in order to pay for benefits to be paid to the rest, which become necessary, because a large number of inefficient small capitalists pay poor wages, whilst the cost of living for things like housing rises. This transfer of income also requires a huge state bureaucracy to implement, which is also very inefficient, compared to workers simply having high enough incomes to begin with.

So Labour is right to say a) it does not want to penalise these slightly higher paid workers, so as to subsidise lower wage paying employers, and b) that its main means of reducing public spending will be to reduce the amount of benefits it has to pay out, by raising the minimum wage, and restoring union collective bargaining power. Of course, the Blair-rights don't like this latter approach, because it implies encouraging direct working-class self-activity, which they fear getting out of hand.

All of the tax redistributive stuff is so much nonsense, sa Marx described over 150 years ago. The Tories, for example, and Liberals, boast about having reduced taxes on millions, but fail to mention about the massive rise in VAT they imposed on them, which had a more dramatic negative effective, or the increased costs imposed upon those who now have to pay for local government services no longer provided.

The rich are not those who have to work to earn a living, but those with sufficient capital to be able to live comfortably without working. If you have, say £1 billion, then even if you just got 1% a year on it, that is £10 million, which shows how paltry an income of £50,000 really is. But the truly rich, of course get far more than that on their capital, and in recent years, their main form of increase in wealth has come not in the form of revenues, but in the form of capital gains, as their shares, bonds and property have soared in value, by 10, 20 and more percent a year. That is why central banks and governments have been prepared to wreck the real economy with QE and austerity, so as to keep those asset prices high.

Its against that parasitic wealth, that Labour should focus its attention.


It's because of arguments like this that I accompanied my first comment on this subject with a link to an article which shows just how little tax people on middle to higher incomes were already paying in this country compared to other comparable countries. These are the same people who were protected from austerity by Osborne who are now reaping the benefits of the austerity suffered by those on far, far lower incomes than themselves. And here's the rub, everything above suggests these people need to be bribed to vote Labour with money taken from poor people when I would argue that a lot of these people are already happy to vote Labour without promises of Labour protecting a couple of hundred pounds in their pockets because they see the need for radical reform of everything from the housing market and social care and, yes, how we deal with the very wealthy and corporation and tax havens that are threatening our welfare state and standard of living.
£50,000 a year is not "paltry". It's well above the median full time wage of £29,500. It's also a high enough wage that a few hundred pounds per annum either way will make little difference to someone's overall standard of living while the hundreds, and sometimes thousands, per annum being cut from working age benefits is the difference between just about managing (remember them?) and full blown crisis.
People who support austerity for the poor and tax cuts for the rich will never vote Labour so can we please stop pandering to such people and can we also have a bit more faith in people on slightly better incomes choosing to support Labour in creating a fairer society and investing in better public services for the benefit of everyone and being willing to pay a little bit more (though certainly no more than people on comparable incomes in many other countries) to do so.

I think there are two different issues here. The overall amount of tax we should collect and then what is taxed.

I haven't really followed this story because I've been busy and travelling, but one thing I would say is that McDonnell understands the importance of taxing wealth rather than income if we are finally to achieve any kind of equality in the UK.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 02 Nov, 2018 6:24 pm 
Online
Prime Minister
User avatar

Joined: Thu 11 Sep, 2014 11:22 am
Posts: 15423
Has thanked: 84971 times
Been thanked: 13786 times
HindleA wrote:
Pure self interest in wanting to pay more tax,collective miniscule amounts saves countless,a responsible Government puts that to good use.First,we have to relentlessly get people to see/accept that if you want a decent Society and inure against the vagaries and inevitabilities of life you have to put your hand in your own pocket rather than expecting everybody but you to pay for it.
This is one of your best strictly political-sociological posts, in my opinion.
:rock:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 02 Nov, 2018 6:46 pm 
Offline
Home Secretary

Joined: Sun 29 Nov, 2015 1:24 pm
Posts: 1669
Has thanked: 4950 times
Been thanked: 2359 times
citizenJA wrote:
beautiful day here
Good afternoon, everyone

Same here, so much so that I went for a dip in the sea . It may well be the last for the year tho :-)
Now to catch up !

PS EDIT -- are people always taxed as individuals... or households ?

Two median incomes is £50k odd ...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 02 Nov, 2018 6:50 pm 
Online
Prime Minister
User avatar

Joined: Thu 18 Sep, 2014 1:40 pm
Posts: 5143
Has thanked: 10472 times
Been thanked: 12542 times
@PaulfromYorkshire

For me there's a difference between what you would put in a manifesto as part of a cohesive tax policy and long term economic reform (taxing wealth in preference to income, as you say) and what you do in opposition. I just don't see how Labour can separate the Tories tax cut from the continued cuts to the public sector and working age benefits because the latter are funding the former. Support for Tory tax cuts then risks becoming an endorsement of Tory overall tax and spend policy (slash taxes, slash the state) in the minds of voters.

_________________
“Find a nice, self sufficient hilltop, and fortify it.” - The Kraken Wakes


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 02 Nov, 2018 6:52 pm 
Online
Prime Minister
User avatar

Joined: Thu 18 Sep, 2014 1:40 pm
Posts: 5143
Has thanked: 10472 times
Been thanked: 12542 times
frog222 wrote:
citizenJA wrote:
beautiful day here
Good afternoon, everyone

Same here, so much so that I went for a dip in the sea . It may well be the last for the year tho :-)
Now to catch up !

PS EDIT -- are people always taxed as individuals... or households ?

Two median incomes is £50k odd ...


I think average household income may actually be less than the median full time wage. I'll check.

Average disposable household income is £27,200.

I'm not actually sure what disposable income is, mind. :)

_________________
“Find a nice, self sufficient hilltop, and fortify it.” - The Kraken Wakes


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 02 Nov, 2018 7:02 pm 
Offline
Home Secretary

Joined: Sun 29 Nov, 2015 1:24 pm
Posts: 1669
Has thanked: 4950 times
Been thanked: 2359 times
A touching family history to begin Crace’s Week —

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... ron-return


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 02 Nov, 2018 7:03 pm 
Offline
Home Secretary

Joined: Sun 29 Nov, 2015 1:24 pm
Posts: 1669
Has thanked: 4950 times
Been thanked: 2359 times
Willow904 wrote:
frog222 wrote:
citizenJA wrote:
beautiful day here
Good afternoon, everyone

Same here, so much so that I went for a dip in the sea . It may well be the last for the year tho :-)
Now to catch up !

PS EDIT -- are people always taxed as individuals... or households ?

Two median incomes is £50k odd ...


I think average household income may actually be less than the median full time wage. I'll check.

Average disposable household income is £27,200.

I'm not actually sure what disposable income is, mind. :)


MY MISTAKE :-)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 02 Nov, 2018 7:04 pm 
Online
Site Admin

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 6:27 pm
Posts: 6233
Has thanked: 2174 times
Been thanked: 10306 times
Willow904 wrote:
@PaulfromYorkshire

For me there's a difference between what you would put in a manifesto as part of a cohesive tax policy and long term economic reform (taxing wealth in preference to income, as you say) and what you do in opposition. I just don't see how Labour can separate the Tories tax cut from the continued cuts to the public sector and working age benefits because the latter are funding the former. Support for Tory tax cuts then risks becoming an endorsement of Tory overall tax and spend policy (slash taxes, slash the state) in the minds of voters.

I tend to agree with you and would always have done so. But I do find Corbyn and McDonnell make me think again about things I've always taken as read. McDonnell essentially says why would you ever want to tax what people are paid for their labour. And it makes me ponder.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 02 Nov, 2018 7:05 pm 
Online
Site Admin

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 6:27 pm
Posts: 6233
Has thanked: 2174 times
Been thanked: 10306 times
Of course a rider to that is that salaries should be sensible and proportionate. But I think they do have a policy around reducing the multiplier between top and bottom salary in an organisation.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 02 Nov, 2018 7:45 pm 
Online
Prime Minister
User avatar

Joined: Thu 18 Sep, 2014 1:40 pm
Posts: 5143
Has thanked: 10472 times
Been thanked: 12542 times
PaulfromYorkshire wrote:
Willow904 wrote:
@PaulfromYorkshire

For me there's a difference between what you would put in a manifesto as part of a cohesive tax policy and long term economic reform (taxing wealth in preference to income, as you say) and what you do in opposition. I just don't see how Labour can separate the Tories tax cut from the continued cuts to the public sector and working age benefits because the latter are funding the former. Support for Tory tax cuts then risks becoming an endorsement of Tory overall tax and spend policy (slash taxes, slash the state) in the minds of voters.

I tend to agree with you and would always have done so. But I do find Corbyn and McDonnell make me think again about things I've always taken as read. McDonnell essentially says why would you ever want to tax what people are paid for their labour. And it makes me ponder.


Well, a lot of people only have the proceeds of their labour to contribute from, and everyone contributing according to their means and receiving according to their needs is kind of the cornerstone of the idea of a welfare state. It's the pooling of resources to achieve more than we can as individuals which I think is one of the most important functions of government. The point about asset wealth isn't that it should be taxed more to replace tax on earnings but that assets shouldn't be so over-inflated in the first place. Taxing wealth is a measure among others that can help curb asset bubbles but if successful will lead to less asset wealth to tax. Therefore some type of income tax is always going to be necessary to fund decent public services and social security. Although not perfect it's more progressive than VAT or council tax, which is precisely why the Tories choose to cut it.

_________________
“Find a nice, self sufficient hilltop, and fortify it.” - The Kraken Wakes


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 02 Nov, 2018 8:26 pm 
Online
Prime Minister
User avatar

Joined: Thu 11 Sep, 2014 11:22 am
Posts: 15423
Has thanked: 84971 times
Been thanked: 13786 times
Goodnight, everyone
love,
cJA


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 02 Nov, 2018 8:33 pm 
Offline
Home Secretary

Joined: Sun 29 Nov, 2015 1:24 pm
Posts: 1669
Has thanked: 4950 times
Been thanked: 2359 times
PaulfromYorkshire wrote:
Of course a rider to that is that salaries should be sensible and proportionate. But I think they do have a policy around reducing the multiplier between top and bottom salary in an organisation.

You have Meritocracy to thank for that, as predicted by Michael Young .

" I got where I am by my very own merit, and deserve everything I can get my hands on !" :-)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 02 Nov, 2018 8:45 pm 
Offline
Home Secretary

Joined: Sun 29 Nov, 2015 1:24 pm
Posts: 1669
Has thanked: 4950 times
Been thanked: 2359 times
" But the important similarity with those 1996 focus groups and today, in my view at least, is that once again, it is the office of the Labour leader that is right and the Shadow Treasury which is misjudging the public mood. The condition of the public realm, and particularly the growing demands on the National Health Service, all mean that voters are willing to consider the idea of tax rises to pay for better public services.

And in policy terms, Labour cannot sustainably end austerity without broad-based tax increases. Ducking out on a hard conversation with the electorate about income tax might help the party to win an election. In government, it might yet have reason to regret the missed opportunity to make the case for higher tax.

Read more at: https://inews.co.uk/opinion/columnists/ ... ony-blair/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 02 Nov, 2018 9:25 pm 
Online
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 8:26 pm
Posts: 8202
Has thanked: 820 times
Been thanked: 17297 times
Three local council byelections yesterday:

Newham - Labour hold with roughly three quarters of the vote, maintaining their 100% representation here (plus the elected mayor) in suitably emphatic fashion with a small swing in their favour since earlier this year. This ward has returned three Labour councillors at every election since 2002 and only in 2006 (when Respect were around in E London) was it even close, that was also the sole regular election at which the Tories did not come an - invariably distant - second as they did on this occasion also. Greens dropped by around 4 points from this May, but still secured around double the score of the LibDems who with under 4% got less than half of their last showing here in a previous 2015 byelection (when they got the token runners up spot)

South Gloucestershire - LibDem hold with almost half the vote in a ward which has consistently returned two members for them since it was set up in the 2007 elections, however the Tories finished 10 points behind which is relatively close for them here (they had actually come fourth in a previous 2012 byelection) Both benefited from the absence of UKIP who came second in 2015 (after beating the Tories in the 2012 poll) with around a quarter of the vote, but "transfers" to Tories outdid LibDems by about 2 to 1. Labour third with 11%, slightly down on three years ago.

Kirklees - Labour gain from Tory, consolidating their grip on this authority after they took it from a long period of no overall control this May. That was despite this ward voting Tory then as it has done in most recent elections - after splitting 2Lab/1Con in the 2004 all-outs the Tories won it in every successive election until 2011, and even since then Labour wins in 2012 and 2016 have been the only exceptions - until now. Labour's winning score was around 47% - a lead of 4 points and a swing from the Tories of 4% since earlier this year - whilst there was also a swing of around 4% with the two minor candidates, meaning that the LibDems moved up to 7% and overtook the Greens.

Four contests next week.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 02 Nov, 2018 10:39 pm 
Online
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 6:22 pm
Posts: 3337
Location: Wombwell, United Kingdom
Has thanked: 899 times
Been thanked: 6042 times
From this morning:
Quote:
Asa Winstanley

@AsaWinstanley

Video: Met police commissioner - NO investigation into Labour Party https://skwawkbox.org/2018/11/02/video- ... our-party/ … via @skwawkbox
https://twitter.com/AsaWinstanley/statu ... 3870208000


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 02 Nov, 2018 11:22 pm 
Online
Site Admin

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 6:27 pm
Posts: 6233
Has thanked: 2174 times
Been thanked: 10306 times
Willow904 wrote:
PaulfromYorkshire wrote:
Willow904 wrote:
@PaulfromYorkshire

For me there's a difference between what you would put in a manifesto as part of a cohesive tax policy and long term economic reform (taxing wealth in preference to income, as you say) and what you do in opposition. I just don't see how Labour can separate the Tories tax cut from the continued cuts to the public sector and working age benefits because the latter are funding the former. Support for Tory tax cuts then risks becoming an endorsement of Tory overall tax and spend policy (slash taxes, slash the state) in the minds of voters.

I tend to agree with you and would always have done so. But I do find Corbyn and McDonnell make me think again about things I've always taken as read. McDonnell essentially says why would you ever want to tax what people are paid for their labour. And it makes me ponder.


Well, a lot of people only have the proceeds of their labour to contribute from, and everyone contributing according to their means and receiving according to their needs is kind of the cornerstone of the idea of a welfare state. It's the pooling of resources to achieve more than we can as individuals which I think is one of the most important functions of government. The point about asset wealth isn't that it should be taxed more to replace tax on earnings but that assets shouldn't be so over-inflated in the first place. Taxing wealth is a measure among others that can help curb asset bubbles but if successful will lead to less asset wealth to tax. Therefore some type of income tax is always going to be necessary to fund decent public services and social security. Although not perfect it's more progressive than VAT or council tax, which is precisely why the Tories choose to cut it.

Willow I'm sorry but you are completely missing the point.

You are describing EXACTLY the mode that the upper classes / wealthy want us to think is inevitable.

The trouble is not what people earn it's what they own.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 02 Nov, 2018 11:37 pm 
Offline
Home Secretary

Joined: Sun 29 Nov, 2015 1:24 pm
Posts: 1669
Has thanked: 4950 times
Been thanked: 2359 times
[quote="PaulfromYorkshire"

Well, a lot of people only have the proceeds of their labour to contribute from, and everyone contributing according to their means and receiving according to their needs is kind of the cornerstone of the idea of a welfare state. It's the pooling of resources to achieve more than we can as individuals which I think is one of the most important functions of government. The point about asset wealth isn't that it should be taxed more to replace tax on earnings but that assets shouldn't be so over-inflated in the first place. Taxing wealth is a measure among others that can help curb asset bubbles but if successful will lead to less asset wealth to tax. Therefore some type of income tax is always going to be necessary to fund decent public services and social security. Although not perfect it's more progressive than VAT or council tax, which is precisely why the Tories choose to cut it.[/quote]
Willow I'm sorry but you are completely missing the point.

You are describing EXACTLY the mode that the upper classes / wealthy want us to think is inevitable.

The trouble is not what people earn it's what they own.[/quote]

TSK TSK ! In a completely-binary super-simple world it might be one or the other , but it very obviously is NOT :-)

Tho looking at our current world where the 0.01%'s share is galloping exponentially upwards he has a point on that extreme . ( Like er string 'em up .)

(Slowly)

NN !


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat 03 Nov, 2018 12:01 am 
Online
Site Admin

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 6:27 pm
Posts: 6233
Has thanked: 2174 times
Been thanked: 10306 times
@frog

Thanks nice post

*even if a formatting disaster ;-)


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 51 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: adam, Bing [Bot], citizenJA, gilsey, PaulfromYorkshire, PorFavor, refitman, RogerOThornhill, Willow904 and 53 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group