Turn on thread page Beta

We now have our party back! Its time to get busy and make our case heard! watch

    Offline

    18
    (Original post by ElephantMemory)
    There is no such thing as 'earning money'. It's all the lottery of birth.

    The entitlement of the rich is ridiculous. They want to use the land and services built and run by the poor, but do not want to contribute to helping the poor at all.
    'They want to use the land and services built and run by the poor in return for a mutually agreed wage enforced by legal contract, but do not want to contribute to helping the poor at all except by paying a higher rate of income tax and capital gains tax which is then used to subsidise the poor through the state.'

    There you go, corrected it for you. Apologies for breaking my promise not to reply to you, but that simply had to be corrected. The no-reply policy is for real this time.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    'They want to use the land and services built and run by the poor in return for a mutually agreed wage enforced by legal contract, but do not want to contribute to helping the poor at all except by paying a higher rate of income tax and capital gains tax which is then used to subsidise the poor through the state.'

    There you go, corrected it for you. Apologies for breaking my promise not to reply to you, but that simply had to be corrected. The no-reply policy is for real this time.
    It's not enough. The poor have had enough of this flawed system. In reality hidden taxes **** over the poor. Of course you won't understand this because you probably benefit from this flawed system.

    And you still haven't posted your study about the Tory newspapers and votes. You brought it up without posting it.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by ElephantMemory)
    It's not enough. The poor have had enough of this flawed system. In reality hidden taxes **** over the poor. Of course you won't understand this because you probably benefit from this flawed system.

    And you still haven't posted your study about the Tory newspapers and votes. You brought it up without posting it.
    Alright, breaking the no-reply policy one last time to clear this up: It wasn't a study and nor did I claim it was. It was simple arithmetic that I did with Bornblue (another leftist on this forum) on a different thread entitled something like '2300 people die two weeks after being declared fit for work.' You're free to go looking for it; I'm certainly not going through it again.

    'Hidden taxes.' You mean consumption taxes, which are probably the fairest kind of tax possible? Sure, I'm really going to buy that. (And before you start, most essential items are VAT-exempt.)
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    Alright, breaking the no-reply policy one last time to clear this up: It wasn't a study and nor did I claim it was. It was simple arithmetic that I did with Bornblue (another leftist on this forum) on a different thread entitled something like '2300 people die two weeks after being declared fit for work.' You're free to go looking for it; I'm certainly not going through it again.

    'Hidden taxes.' You mean consumption taxes, which are probably the fairest kind of tax possible? Sure, I'm really going to buy that. (And before you start, most essential items are VAT-exempt.)
    And did you take into account circulation? Remember that 1 Sun is worth 12+ Guardian Papers.

    Actually i was thinking things like bedroom tax or non dependent deductions. Taxes for people who literally cannot afford it. Taxes for people doing the right thing. And both taxes that have either been fully introduced by this government or increased. Of course you won't understand council estate taxes.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    I'll c+p you my post from another thread:

    Weirdly I agree with David Davis.
    Corbyn's rise is part of a worldwide phenomenon - of people being fed up of 'politcs as normal'. People are fed up of the establishment and their 'centre ground' and their grip on what opinions are acceptable.

    We've seen it in Spain, in Greece , Bernie Sanders and Trump in America, the SNP, Greens and UKIP here.

    And now Corbyn. There is growing resentment and growing unease with how politics is in this country. Corbyn above the other candidates will hopefully be able to tap in to this. I can see him pulling in lots of UKIP supporters, winning back lots of Scotland and most Green voters. He won't win that many off the tories or Lib Dems - the big question is if he can get the apathetic to vote but if anyone can, he can.

    It would be incredibly foolish for the tories to be complacent or resort to personal attacks. Every personal attack made on Corbyn and even Farage backfires and they become more popular as a result.

    The next 5 years will be exciting, that's for sure.
    I'm not sure this has any relevance to what I said, but I totally agree: people don't like professional-looking politicians and they want a change of style - they don't care whether the substance of that change is on the left or right, they just want someone who looks different and talks differently.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr JB)
    The way in which he put across his post implied exactly that, and whilst implications are drawn, if that wasn't his point he'd have not mentioned 'people working hard' in that context at all.
    It really didn't. You made the (completely accurate) statement that he UK is not a wholly capitalist system, and the other guy retorted by asking whether putting more taxes on the rich would solve that issue, remarking as well that the rich earn their wealth through hard work. This was a point about the rich alone; about the ownership of that wealth and whether it would be good to take money from the rich who work hard for their wealth. There was no mention of the poor at all, and it is perfectly acceptable for the poster to then also say he believes in less taxes for the nurses etc, as they, too, work hard for their income. To say the rich work hard is not to say the poor do not and there wasn't even a slither of evidence for you to infer that from the poster's statement.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ibzombie96)
    I'm not sure this has any relevance to what I said, but I totally agree: people don't like professional-looking politicians and they want a change of style - they don't care whether the substance of that change is on the left or right, they just want someone who looks different and talks differently.
    Which is why I think Corbyn will win back a fair few Labour-UKIP switchers.
    Besides leaving the EU how many policies of Farage could people actually name? What made him popular, more so then immigration, was his anti-establishment vibe ready to stick it to Westminster.

    I think Corbyns like that but also has the policies to back it up.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Which is why I think Corbyn will win back a fair few Labour-UKIP switchers.
    Besides leaving the EU how many policies of Farage could people actually name? What made him popular, more so then immigration, was his anti-establishment vibe ready to stick it to Westminster.

    I think Corbyns like that but also has the policies to back it up.
    But why would they leave Farage? Corbyn will quite easily be portrayed as a limp-wristed, 'liberal', who is teetotal and writes poetry on the train. I think you're right that he'll get a few UKIPers, but he doesn't fit the whole kind of macho vibe UKIP have got going on in their camp. Being accurately described as a comma won't do him any favours with these guys, attractive as his different-ness may be.

    Crumbs you're very quick off the mark today, aren't you? As you're being so efficient, you might like to pick up on the two threads you've shut up on.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ibzombie96)
    But why would they leave Farage? Corbyn will quite easily be portrayed as a limp-wristed, 'liberal', who is teetotal and writes poetry on the train. I think you're right that he'll get a few UKIPers, but he doesn't fit the whole kind of macho vibe UKIP have got going on in their camp. Being accurately described as a comma won't do him any favours with these guys, attractive as his different-ness may be.

    Crumbs you're very quick off the mark today, aren't you? As you're being so efficient, you might like to pick up on the two threads you've shut up on.
    Because Corbyn has a greater vehicle so to speak (in terms of a party) to achieve his aims.
    Some no doubt vote UKIP because of immigration but I really do feel many do it because they're fed up with establishment politics. Many wouldn't consider themselves right wing.

    We're going through a real period of political change and there is a storm brewing , not just here but accross the world. Sharp suit, smart tie, soundbite politics is losing its grip.

    And the tories can laugh it off and pretend it isn't happening but it is - and it's gaining momentum. Write it off at your own risk.

    People on here tend to think in terms of right v left - but that's because we're political geeks. Most people don't think in terms of ideologies but issues.


    As to the other threads, I feel we've done them to death and aren't going to come to agreement and are merely going round in circles.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ibzombie96)
    This makes me cringe so much. It really smacks of someone who has no idea what happened to the party in the 80's. New Labour are the dinosaurs? Grow up and read a little. The party changed because they realised what they wanted wasn't what the rest of the country wanted. The electorate really hasn't changed a huge amount politically since the 1980's. You say that the rich sequester the wealth created by the poor. Have you thought why the poor are creating that wealth in the first place? The 'rich' pay money to the poor so that the poor do some work - the product of that endeavour is not owned by the poor, is it?You might also like to remember that tax credits and the minimum wage were created by those New Labour 'dinosaurs'. Haha.
    A proper dinosaur is a poltiican who refuses to listen to the people. That is why Brown & Ed Millband got dumped. And now im glad that all the fools on the front bench have gone with them.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by illegaltobepoor)
    A proper dinosaur is a poltiican who refuses to listen to the people. That is why Brown & Ed Millband got dumped.
    Exactly. And Corbyn is old enough to know the troubles in the 1980's Labour Party. They refused to offer what the people wanted. Yet Corbyn doesn't acknowledge that. What's worse, not only does he know that hard-left Labour parties don't work, he knows that centrist Labour parties do work. It is this refusal to accept fact that shows his utter ideological arrogance.

    And now im glad that all the fools on the front bench have gone with them.
    You've typified why people are critical of Corbynistas. You haven't got any acceptance of those with different views. People who are not in accordance with your views are not always fools, you know. Jeremy Corbyn's principles are not shared by most of the front bench of the party and so they have stood down - does that make them any more foolish than Corbyn's likely refusal to be a part of Blair's front bench? No, of course not. Again, you need to grow up.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Because Corbyn has a greater vehicle so to speak (in terms of a party) to achieve his aims.
    Some no doubt vote UKIP because of immigration but I really do feel many do it because they're fed up with establishment politics. Many wouldn't consider themselves right wing.

    We're going through a real period of political change and there is a storm brewing , not just here but accross the world. Sharp suit, smart tie, soundbite politics is losing its grip.

    And the tories can laugh it off and pretend it isn't happening but it is - and it's gaining momentum. Write it off at your own risk.

    People on here tend to think in terms of right v left - but that's because we're political geeks. Most people don't think in terms of ideologies but issues.


    As to the other threads, I feel we've done them to death and aren't going to come to agreement and are merely going round in circles.
    I'm not sure you actually qualify as a political geek. You've said we can get 'way, way' more than £100bn from tax avoidance, you think the whipping system is fundamentally undemocratic, and you don't understand the difference between privatisation and outsourcing in re the NHS.

    Do you not accept that this is just another kind of style-based politics? People who are unshiny and unpolished and unpoliticiany are popular whether they're on the right or left; personality politics and the attention to the superficial are still rife, it's just they've changed slightly. This movement is as much about style as anything else.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ibzombie96)
    I'm not sure you actually qualify as a political geek. You've said we can get 'way, way' more than £100bn from tax avoidance, you think the whipping system is fundamentally undemocratic, and you don't understand the difference between privatisation and outsourcing in re the NHS.
    I do and still believe all those things and you're being incredibly arrogant and quite rude suggesting I know less then you because I disagree with you on some issues.
    I do feel the whipping system is undemocratic - there are legitimate arguments for both sides.
    I do understand the difference and I feel PFI is back-door privatization.
    And I do feel we can get way more then the 100 billion from tax avoidance.


    You disagree, that's fine but please don't insult my intelligence and get off your high horse.


    Do you not accept that this is just another kind of style-based politics? People who are unshiny and unpolished and unpoliticiany are popular whether they're on the right or left; personality politics and the attention to the superficial are still rife, it's just they've changed slightly. This movement is as much about style as anything else.
    No. This movement is about anger that every day people are being increasingly ignored in favour of corporate and political elites, from both the right and the left.
    It's anger at the fact ordinary people are being made to pay the price for the corporate elites causing the financial crash.

    UKIP are an interesting party who's supporters come from different angles. You have the very libertarian Carswell wing, you have the 'I hate Muslims and immigrants wing' and then you have the 'Labour has turned its back on ordinary people and all the parties are the same wing'.

    The first two Labour won't draw many from, the last one they might.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ibzombie96)
    Exactly. And Corbyn is old enough to know the troubles in the 1980's Labour Party. They refused to offer what the people wanted. Yet Corbyn doesn't acknowledge that. What's worse, not only does he know that hard-left Labour parties don't work, he knows that centrist Labour parties do work. It is this refusal to accept fact that shows his utter ideological arrogance.



    You've typified why people are critical of Corbynistas. You haven't got any acceptance of those with different views. People who are not in accordance with your views are not always fools, you know. Jeremy Corbyn's principles are not shared by most of the front bench of the party and so they have stood down - does that make them any more foolish than Corbyn's likely refusal to be a part of Blair's front bench? No, of course not. Again, you need to grow up.
    I think you need to accept the fact that corbyn is in touch with the british people and those who don't vote in working class post industrial towns and cities.

    he has gained a huge mandate and no amount of whining is going to change that.

    9 out of 10 people i talk to tell me they dont vote and they talk about council housing and provision for the self employed. id rather listen to them than pander to those in the south east.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    I do and still believe all those things and you're being incredibly arrogant and quite rude suggesting I know less then you because I disagree with you on some issues.
    I do feel the whipping system is undemocratic - there are legitimate arguments for both sides.
    I do understand the difference and I feel PFI is back-door privatization.
    And I do feel we can get way more then the 100 billion from tax avoidance.


    You disagree, that's fine but please don't insult my intelligence and get off your high horse.



    No. This movement is about anger that every day people are being increasingly ignored in favour of corporate and political elites, from both the right and the left.
    It's anger at the fact ordinary people are being made to pay the price for the corporate elites causing the financial crash.

    UKIP are an interesting party who's supporters come from different angles. You have the very libertarian Carswell wing, you have the 'I hate Muslims and immigrants wing' and then you have the 'Labour has turned its back on ordinary people and all the parties are the same wing'.

    The first two Labour won't draw many from, the last one they might.
    That's the problem. You 'feel' a lot of things without actually having evidence for them. You may feel whips undemocratically shackle their MPs, but they're there to ensure an MP doesn't renege on the promises upon which the people elected them. You may feel the NHS is being privatised, when in fact what we're seeing is outsourcing. And you may feel we can get way more than £100bn from tax avoidance, but you've got literally no evidence for that claim (in fact, even Corbyn's economics guru says it is only £19 billion, and that's not even claiming we can get it all back.) - I wonder, do you have any non-emotional evidence for your claim?

    By the way, I really like your analysis of UKIP factions.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by illegaltobepoor)
    I think you need to accept the fact that corbyn is in touch with the british people and those who don't vote in working class post industrial towns and cities.

    he has gained a huge mandate and no amount of whining is going to change that.

    9 out of 10 people i talk to tell me they dont vote and they talk about council housing and provision for the self employed. id rather listen to them than pander to those in the south east.
    Corbyn is in touch with the Labour selectorate. That is not to say he is in touch with the British people. Most people are generally clumped around the centre of politics - why do you think a man who could reopen the coal mines, impose a maximum wage, take us out of NATO and TTIP, get rid of Trident, encourage immigration and impose higher rates of tax than is prudent, chime with the electorate?

    I'm sure the pollsters will be working hard getting some polls together, and we've got the local, European and mayoral elections next year. I look forward to how the Labour Party will cope.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ibzombie96)
    That's the problem. You 'feel' a lot of things without actually having evidence for them. You may feel whips undemocratically shackle their MPs, but they're there to ensure an MP doesn't renege on the promises upon which the people elected them. You may feel the NHS is being privatised, when in fact what we're seeing is outsourcing. And you may feel we can get way more than £100bn from tax avoidance, but you've got literally no evidence for that claim (in fact, even Corbyn's economics guru says it is only £19 billion, and that's not even claiming we can get it all back.) - I wonder, do you have any non-emotional evidence for your claim?

    By the way, I really like your analysis of UKIP factions.
    Well for a start whether something is democratic or not is not a factual issues. It's a matter of opinion and either side can be debated.

    Privatisation isn't a scientific term and looking at the definitions there is a strong argument to say PFI is back-door privatisation, giving private firms a big foothold in the service and making money off of it.

    And you have no evidence we can't claim it back with a sustained, purposeful effort.


    We've discussed each issue to death and quite frankly we're going round in circles, agree to disagree.So please enough about them.


    We're now in a very exciting and historical time politically and no one knows what will happen.
    Let's see in 8 months after the first set of elections. London mayor will be huge, council elections will tell us a lot about what the country thinks of Corbyn and whether Labour can be seen as the party of oppositon, not UKIP. Then we have the Scottish elections - Labour before Corbyn would have lost most of their, they still might but they might now put up a fight and hang on to more than expected. If Labour does well in those three, plus the Welsh assembly elections it really could get the party back on to its feet and energised again, something it hasn't been for over 10 years,

    Of course that's best case scenario and the reverse may happen. It's too soon to tell but we're in unchartered territory and i'm excited to find out.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Well for a start whether something is democratic or not is not a factual issues. It's a matter of opinion and either side can be debated.

    Privatisation isn't a scientific term and looking at the definitions there is a strong argument to say PFI is back-door privatisation, giving private firms a big foothold in the service and making money off of it.

    And you have no evidence we can't claim it back with a sustained, purposeful effort.


    We've discussed each issue to death and quite frankly we're going round in circles, agree to disagree.So please enough about them.


    We're now in a very exciting and historical time politically and no one knows what will happen.
    Let's see in 8 months after the first set of elections. London mayor will be huge, council elections will tell us a lot about what the country thinks of Corbyn and whether Labour can be seen as the party of oppositon, not UKIP. Then we have the Scottish elections - Labour before Corbyn would have lost most of their, they still might but they might now put up a fight and hang on to more than expected. If Labour does well in those three, plus the Welsh assembly elections it really could get the party back on to its feet and energised again, something it hasn't been for over 10 years,

    Of course that's best case scenario and the reverse may happen. It's too soon to tell but we're in unchartered territory and i'm excited to find out.
    1. The whipping system is democratic because it forces MPs to keep the promises upon which the people elected them. That's the fundamental point, and it proves that whips are fundamentally helpful to democracy.

    2. Privatisation has a clear, precise definition. I've given you three of them. Private firms neither have ownership nor control of the NHS, hence it is not being privatised. You seem to think privatisation is a fluffy term to describe any interference of private firms in the public sphere. It's just not.

    3. Are you aware that HMCR says tax avoidance is about £3bn, with even Corbyn's economics guru saying it is £19bn? It therefore stands to reason that even if Richard Murphy is right and HMRC is wrong, and even if we could get all that money back (which is frankly laughable), we could get £19bn. Not the 'way, way more than £100bn' you think. So I ask again: what evidence do you have for your claim?

    By the way, this is no historic occasion. Labour tried socialism under Mr Foot and it failed miserably. You may have no idea about what happened to the Labour Party in the 1980's, but your ignorance does not mean this event is unprecedented.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by illegaltobepoor)
    Your 15? That says it all then. Typical rich kid who inherits all their wealth from their parents.
    Typical leftist who assumes anyone with money was handed it rather than earned it.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ibzombie96)
    1. The whipping system is democratic because it forces MPs to keep the promises upon which the people elected them. That's the fundamental point, and it proves that whips are fundamentally helpful to democracy.

    2. Privatisation has a clear, precise definition. I've given you three of them. Private firms neither have ownership nor control of the NHS, hence it is not being privatised. You seem to think privatisation is a fluffy term to describe any interference of private firms in the public sphere. It's just not.

    3. Are you aware that HMCR says tax avoidance is about £3bn, with even Corbyn's economics guru saying it is £19bn? It therefore stands to reason that even if Richard Murphy is right and HMRC is wrong, and even if we could get all that money back (which is frankly laughable), we could get £19bn. Not the 'way, way more than £100bn' you think. So I ask again: what evidence do you have for your claim?

    By the way, this is no historic occasion. Labour tried socialism under Mr Foot and it failed miserably. You may have no idea about what happened to the Labour Party in the 1980's, but your ignorance does not mean this event is unprecedented.
    I'm not going to discuss the first three issues further- we've discussed them in detail and I disagree with you. So enough about them.

    Comparing now to the 1980s is lazy and it is not the same. Stop being so arrogant.
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.