The Student Room Group

Your 6 most disliked UK politicians active today

Scroll to see replies

Original post by DarrenBCFC
Osbourne who you probably see as an hero is cutting 5bn fron welfare either way it doesnt matter with the sale of public assets. Hes doing that anyway with the money he saves he is paying for tge loss on sale if public assets making the rich richer and the poor poorer.You said your neutral but i have not seen you argue with a tory find me an example


http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=3253917&page=12&p=55131845#post55131845

Just one example - it's happened plenty of times but it seems to me that you think people, like you, vote Labour no matter what or Tory no matter what. I take a more reasoned approach, and I'm sorry if that defeats your argument, but that's the truth.

You argued that he sold off these businesses in order that he could cut benefits - all I expect of you is a reason why he needed to bring in money in order to save money.
Angus Robertson is another!
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by DarrenBCFC
Find me an Urban area a birmingham a manchester or liverpool sized city who win a tory majotity seats wise you will not find ne bar London then yiu have ****ty seaside towns which have small populations which are won by then conservatives which arw somehow equal to massive towns and cities .


firstly, you would really help yourself if your arguments weren't full of grammatical errors.

Secondly, the Tories still won more votes overall so your point is invalid.

Thirdly,to use your argument Labour aren't welcome where I live in the South West.

If Labour can't win in rural areas then that's their fault for being metropolitan elites who don't understand the countryside such as yourself.

Finally, on the populations of constituencies, the constituency with the highest population is a Conservative one so again your point on that issue is also invalid.

It would also be very much appreciated, if you would stop blaming everything but Labour as the reason they lost the election, as it isnt constructive. Instead, you should look inwards on Labour and examine and criticise them and the reasons why thy failed, which is themselves and no one else.


Posted from TSR Mobile


Posted from TSR Mobile
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Bornblue
You seemed to be...
You're trying to de-politicize the issues stating that 'everyone should have their taxes cut' as if it is simply common sense in order to remove debate from the assertion you are making.

I accept there is an argument for reducing taxes but personally there are plenty who don't think taxes should be cut and have good reason for that view.

I personally want us to have the very best and most well funded PUBLIC healthcare, education and services in the world and want as little to no privatization or profit driven motive in the process. Thus taxation in my opinion should rise for those who can afford it.

And 'everyone having their taxes cut' is frankly not true anyway. How about VAT which has shot up again? Or how about the fact that wages in real terms have fallen? Offsets a modest increase in the personal allowance.


A "modest" income in personal allowance? You mean up to ~£800 per person? How much would you have to spend for the VAT increase to outstrip that? Well, the VAT increase, supposing all prices rose accordingly, represents about a 2% increase in prices (2.08 % if you want to be a bit more pedantic), so to offset that £800 personal allowance increase you would need to spend nearly £40k on goods that are at that 20% rate. Now, who is going to spend that much? Not the poor, I would argue not even the well off, it will be the wealthy (by my definition) at the very least.


I would also argue that real wages are largely irrelevant here given that the personal allowance works on nominal terms, not real terms, although I can't particularly be bothered looking up the wage growth figures to account for it in the nominal terms , I can VERY safely say that it isn't the 70pc increase in personal allowance and that even when considering this the amount needed for VAT to be relevant still comfortably pulls us out of the working class/poor category


Original post by Bornblue
You've hardly been much better yourself Jammy Duel. Writing things like 'Labour will mess things up' and making loads of posts simply sniping at 'lefties' and resorting to Daily Mail sensationalist type headline posts and then asking for 'sensible debate'.
When will you stop being a mouthpiece for the tory party and actually regain your ability to think independently?
Step off your high horse and stop acting like you're better or more intelligent then other people.
The election was 6 weeks ago, unless they're paying you there's no reason to keep acting like a tribal football supporter as you have been.


There is a difference between opening with a simplistic, more emotive argument, and falling back to it when I have no logical/factual argument left. Could you be bothered to write out your argument in its full form when it is more likely than not going to be rejected by some right/left wing/authoritarian/liberal loon? No, you save it until the argument is established.

Original post by Катя
Bull**** see studies cited here
http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/dec/22/poorest-uk-households-pay-half-income-tax-campaigners

Tax payers' alliance and ONS would disagree with you :tongue:


Ah, you miss two things:
1) As a proiportion of the whole the taxes paid by the richest have increased not insignificantly
2) The guardian, unsurprisingly, completely ignores benefits. When you throw benefits in, the amount of tax paid by all quintiles is approximately the same.

Of course, it goes down to the decile, but I can keep going finer and finer and argue the same for the top. And the guardian shoots itself in the foot for a right winger given that it basically supports the stereotype that the poorest waste money on tobacco and alcohol. And the percentages offered seem a bit off. The council tax should be much lower, as should the VAT (and as said, tobacco/alcohol should be 0 or they should stop bitchin')

I do generally prefer if people quote studies directly rather than via biased media, even if I do so myself.

I also guess you ignored what Jisby said, as quoted in the article, "but those at the top are already contributing far more than anybody could reasonably describe as their ‘fair share’"

p.s. did you realise that Jisby is a Tory, or at least used to, claiming not to be non-partisan on the basis of his position?

At least it's a recent article, better than many manage
Original post by Jammy Duel



I also guess you ignored what Jisby said, as quoted in the article, "but those at the top are already contributing far more than anybody could reasonably describe as their ‘fair share’"

p.s. did you realise that Jisby is a Tory, or at least used to, claiming not to be non-partisan on the basis of his position?

At least it's a recent article, better than many manage


The top 1% of this country own as much wealth as the bottom 55%. Although pointing this out according to the tories makes me a left wing extremist who hates ambition, the argument that those at the top pay too much tax when there is such staggering inequality is really nonsense.
I'll respond to the VAT point tomorrow after work.
As to the simplsitic arguments, genuinely since the election you really do seem to be a tribal football supporter of the tories. You follow the party line consistently and firmly and seem to have lost the ability to actually form your own opinion. You've made many sensationalist Daily Mail type headline posts aswell which is really disappointing for a poster of your intellect.
You're starting point in your arguments seem to be 'the tories are correct'. You find your conclusion and work backwards to justify it rather than the other way round.

I could understand such partisanship in the build up to an election, I was guilty as charged even though Labour are horribly too right wing for me. But now it's been six weeks yet you're still trapped in party tribalism.

I genuinely do think you're one of the most intelligent posters on here and did enjoy a debate with you but I wish you'd stop being a mouthpiece for the tories, not because I think you should be left wing but rather you're not a tory minister with collective cabinet responsibility so don't act like it.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Bornblue
The top 1% of this country own as much wealth as the bottom 55%. Although pointing this out according to the tories makes me a left wing extremist who hates ambition, the argument that those at the top pay too much tax when there is such staggering inequality is really nonsense.


The very very top do pay too much tax, IMO, but then do some of those at the very bottom. Bar the impracticality, I advocate a perfectly flat tax rate (for both direct and indirect taxes combined), perhaps with a negative income tax at the very bottom, although I am somewhat uncertain on that point. However, given the impracticality, I see what we have as an accetable compromise, however that does not mean that the taxes are perfect. By one mean or another the VERY bottom need their taxes reducing (bar where they choose to spend their money on alcohol and tobacco, that should be added on top of the "flat" rate, same as with the rest of the system), whether that be by further increase in the tax free allowance in the not quite bottom, or further income support at the very very bottom, but the taxes should also be cut at the very top, namely by abolishing the 45pc rate of income tax.
Original post by Jammy Duel
The very very top do pay too much tax, IMO, but then do some of those at the very bottom. Bar the impracticality, I advocate a perfectly flat tax rate (for both direct and indirect taxes combined), perhaps with a negative income tax at the very bottom, although I am somewhat uncertain on that point. However, given the impracticality, I see what we have as an accetable compromise, however that does not mean that the taxes are perfect. By one mean or another the VERY bottom need their taxes reducing (bar where they choose to spend their money on alcohol and tobacco, that should be added on top of the "flat" rate, same as with the rest of the system), whether that be by further increase in the tax free allowance in the not quite bottom, or further income support at the very very bottom, but the taxes should also be cut at the very top, namely by abolishing the 45pc rate of income tax.

For starters universal basic income would be a brilliant idea which is favoured by many on the right as well as the left.

Why should the 45pc rate be abolished? It was actually the tories who chose to raise Labour's 40pc rate (not counting boosting it to 50p weeks before the election).
One decent thing I will give the tories credit for.

Those at the top paying that rate have extraordinary amounts of wealth. If taxing them a little extra massively increases our public services and brings millions out of poverty that surely outweighs the people who are annoyed they have to spend a day less in the Bahamas over Easter.

Our concern should be those struggling to eat and find shelter, not those struggling to find a 7* hotel in Dubai.
Original post by Bornblue
For starters universal basic income would be a brilliant idea which is favoured by many on the right as well as the left.

Why should the 45pc rate be abolished? It was actually the tories who chose to raise Labour's 40pc rate (not counting boosting it to 50p weeks before the election).
One decent thing I will give the tories credit for.


I would say they aren't the same thing. Would the coalition had introduced a 50pc income tax rate had Labour not already done it? who knows? Not repealing something is not the same as introducing it, and I expect/hope the 45pc rate will be abolished in 2021.

As for why: fairness. As you may well be aware, the tax receipts come out at about 35% GDP. By the time you reach the 45pc tax threshold you have already paid ~40pc of your income in just income tax and NI, then, of course, above that you're losing 47 pence in the pound to the two. So just by reaching the 45pc rate you have already paid "too much" tax. Actually, on the back of this, I would actually like to see income tax come down even further, in the ideal world, however our taxes are far too complex and numerous to do this. Push that on to £1.5m and nearly 50pc of my income has been taken in taxes before I even spend a penny

Those at the top paying that rate have extraordinary amounts of wealth. If taxing them a little extra massively increases our public services and brings millions out of poverty that surely outweighs the people who are annoyed they have to spend a day less in the Bahamas over Easter.


Except taxing them a little harder doesn't get much extra. I can't find the article any more, but a few weeks back there was an article I read based on data from I think it was the OBR that suggests that while the 50pc income tax should generate over £3bn extra, in reality £500m would be optimistic because of changes is spending habits, payment and where assets are placed etc. And, of course, France has its is it 70pc top rate, and see how badly France is doing.

Our concern should be those struggling to eat and find shelter, not those struggling to find a 7* hotel in Dubai.

We're concerned about the 7* people?
Original post by Bornblue
For starters universal basic income would be a brilliant idea which is favoured by many on the right as well as the left.
i.


It isnt a good idea as its economically implausible, or the Greens idea of it is. Their one would cost around £90bn a year more than the total NHS and Trident budgets combined!!! - Where on Earth are you going to find that much money from?
Original post by Jack22031994
It isnt a good idea as its economically implausible, or the Greens idea of it is. Their one would cost around £90bn a year more than the total NHS and Trident budgets combined!!! - Where on Earth are you going to find that much money from?


That's because their idea was dreadful and include finding those that don't need it rather than just those in need

Posted from TSR Mobile
Thread for you? :wink: :tongue:
Original post by SassKing13
Thread for you? :wink: :tongue:


Unfortunately there are probably too many for me to narrow down to six :tongue:
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by mogwai98
Unfortunately there are probably too many for me to narrow down to six :tongue:


Hahaha :tongue:
Ed Miliband
Diane Abbott
Harriet Harman
Caroline Lucas
George Galloway
Yvette Cooper
Does Ed still count?
Yes, he's still an MP just not leader.
Original post by JGS12
Yes, he's still an MP just not leader.


I was just kidding, mate.
Is it any wonder we hate politicians so much when all we hear is malicious lies and party shaming from them.
Politics seems to take decent people and turn them into greedy money grabbing b*****ds.
iain duncan smith (his 500th mention on the forum ) - for celebrating during the budget
Original post by democracyforum
iain duncan smith (his 500th mention on the forum ) - for celebrating during the budget


As cheering a higher minimum/living wage is such a bad thing

Anyways as two of mine arent politicians anymore heres my new list:

Alex Salmond
Angus Robertson
Jeremy Corbyn
Harriert Harman
Diane Abbott
Ed Miliband

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending