Join TSR now and get all your revision questions answeredSign up now

Anyone who supports Labour hasn't a clue about politics Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Sorry but it is true :cool: just deal with it (y)
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    no I definitely get your argument

    that big black space right there

    written in white and white
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nopizzaleftbeef)
    no I definitely get your argument

    that big black space right there

    written in white and white
    Labour would just run the England into the ground again like in the past. Conservatives all the way!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    no, I totally agree. They shouldn't have caused that banking crisis.

    Instead we need to remove rights from working people and lie to Tory supporters using anti-Labour propaganda.

    by the way, gullible is written on the ceiling
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nopizzaleftbeef)
    no, I totally agree. They shouldn't have caused that banking crisis.

    Instead we need to remove rights from working people and lie to Tory supporters using anti-Labour propaganda.

    by the way, gullible is written on the ceiling
    I don't believe it is removing rights from working people XD everyone has rights (Article 2 UND). Labour are looking to increase wages to £8 an hour which will give people more money, in the eyes of the working class this is great. However, for those working class who support conservative will realise that with the rise of wages comes the rise of unemployment. So yes wages will rises but with this so will unemployment as business won't want to be paying high wages to unskilled workers as the turn over would be smaller. As for trying to get supporters votes using "anti-labour" means this isn't true any business owner recognises the importance of labour.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    That's a big generalisation claiming labour supporters know little about politics.

    I would find it difficult defining what being a labour supporter means or is, so I'll just say my own reasons, not all of them of course, but a short rant as such.

    I believe that both the conservatives and labour hold merits and have their vices in government. The main reason I vote labour is because since 2010, the conversatives have tried to justify their policies of austerity over and over again claiming it's the only way not to end up like Greece. Here's a read on it in more detail:
    http://www.theguardian.com/business/...erity-delusion

    Yet I'm also naturally more left than right on principles such as welfare and money distrubtion. Under the converatives the gap between the rich and the poor has widened even more than under labour in the 15 years they held power for. Oh, and did you guys know, the bottom 10% of the population (in terms of wealth) pay a higher amount of tax in terms of proportion of their income than do the top 10% of the population? Seems as if the conservatives want the country to go backwards while they line their own pockets. Though mostly all politicians will end up doing this nowadays so there's that..
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ayvoia)
    That's a big generalisation claiming labour supporters know little about politics.

    I would find it difficult defining what being a labour supporter means or is, so I'll just say my own reasons, not all of them of course, but a short rant as such.

    I believe that both the conservatives and labour hold merits and have their vices in government. The main reason I vote labour is because since 2010, the conversatives have tried to justify their policies of austerity over and over again claiming it's the only way not to end up like Greece. Here's a read on it in more detail:
    http://www.theguardian.com/business/...erity-delusion

    Yet I'm also naturally more left than right on principles such as welfare and money distrubtion. Under the converatives the gap between the rich and the poor has widened even more than under labour in the 15 years they held power for. Oh, and did you guys know, the bottom 10% of the population (in terms of wealth) pay a higher amount of tax in terms of proportion of their income than do the top 10% of the population? Seems as if the conservatives want the country to go backwards while they line their own pockets. Though mostly all politicians will end up doing this nowadays so there's that..
    I can see where you are coming from but I believe that some of Labour policies in their manifesto will not benefit England. The conservatives have a clearer economic plan in comparison to Labour. Also the rise in minimum wage will also lead to the rise in unemployment as not many employers will want pay employees £8 an hour as the turn over will be less.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ribenas)
    I can see where you are coming from but I believe that some of Labour policies in their manifesto will not benefit England. The conservatives have a clearer economic plan in comparison to Labour. Also the rise in minimum wage will also lead to the rise in unemployment as not many employers will want pay employees £8 an hour as the turn over will be less.
    Given full power, any party could easily cause damage to Britain. Be it the Liberal Democrates through become a mere EU state subject to brussels or through Labour spending too much money in too many areas at once. Even the Conservatives are guilty of being too pro-business that would see many basic rights of people removed and the break up of the UK. I highly doubt Conservative rule will help Scotland reconcile their issues with recent governence of the UK.

    Saying that, I still would argue that although the Conservative have a "clearer economic plan", that doesn't mean it's the best or even only economic plan. The trouble with Labour is that they've lost their identity between 1994-97 and when Blair came into power, while it allowed Labour 15 years of rule, it also secured that Labour would not recover after as Labour's new appeal was to be 'Conservative light'. Even within the last 5 years, the faults of Ed Miliband saw Labour lose again. He was more traditionally left, too soon after Blair and didn't even attempt to fight the Conservative propaganda or the agenda they set of the economy.

    Sorry if this reply is a little long by the way.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    The number of people who seem to think raising the minimum wage will absolutely cripple every business and leave thousands of people unemployed is astonishing. The minimum wage has risen since after the recession and employment has continued to decrease?

    Small businesses could be affected to an extent agreeably, but many companies have already pledged to pay the living wage (7.83) which is quite a clear indicator that it won't be the end of the employed working class.

    I agree there should be a cut off limit (i.e. I wouldn't support the green party's 10 pound an hour) though.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ayvoia)
    Under the converatives the gap between the rich and the poor has widened even more than under labour in the 15 years they held power for. Oh, and did you guys know, the bottom 10% of the population (in terms of wealth) pay a higher amount of tax in terms of proportion of their income than do the top 10% of the population?.
    I'm sorry, that's simply not true. Yes, the gap has grown larger, but the poor are also richer than they were under new Labour. In fact, raising the personal allowance and tax cuts have meant the poorest 3 million don't pay tax at all, allowing them to be better off. Surely that's something to be supported?

    Also, the richest 1% pay 28% of the taxes - more than they have ever paid in the history of our country. And yet they don't pay their fair share?!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alexgr97)
    I'm sorry, that's simply not true. Yes, the gap has grown larger, but the poor are also richer than they were under new Labour. In fact, raising the personal allowance and tax cuts have meant the poorest 3 million don't pay tax at all, allowing them to be better off. Surely that's something to be supported?

    Also, the richest 1% pay 28% of the taxes - more than they have ever paid in the history of our country. And yet they don't pay their fair share?!
    Well, you claim the poor are earning more, and I agree as that's obviously true. Inflation happens so more money is in circlulation, yet inflation has risen faster than pay rises. I seem to recall every party pledging to raise the tax threshold to £12,000 - £12,500, which would see minium wage workers lifted out of tax further by millions. I don't see how Labour or Conservatives have the edge on that point you were making as both parties support this as well as less taxes for the poor. Yet the Conservatives, unlike Labour wish to cut benefits to the poor, which basically makes those people out of the tax bracket just the same as before or in a worse position.

    Considering the income tax was lowered to 45p from 50p, the top 1% have seen less money going towards the government. I don't see that going back up under the Conservatives. The poorest 10% of households pay eight percentage points more of their income in all taxes than the richest – 43% compared to 35%, according to a report from the Equality Trust. So while you point out the 1% pay, 28% of 'the taxes' you don't mention where the other 72% of 'the taxes' come from.

    I haven't even mentioned offshore outsourcing of income that accounts for trillions of pounds. But remember, the top 1% own as much money as the bottom 55% of the population. So, if the rich pay less in taxes than do the poor in terms of percentage, that would mean that 55% would pay as much in taxes as the top 1%. That, does not seem the least bit fair to me mate.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ayvoia)
    Well, you claim the poor are earning more, and I agree as that's obviously true. Inflation happens so more money is in circlulation, yet inflation has risen faster than pay rises.
    Not true since 2012, at least. Inflation now at close to zero and wages in real terms rising.

    I seem to recall every party pledging to raise the tax threshold to £12,000 - £12,500, which would see minium wage workers lifted out of tax further by millions. I don't see how Labour or Conservatives have the edge on that point you were making as both parties support this as well as less taxes for the poor.
    It wasn't part of the Labour manifesto unless I'm mistaken?

    Yet the Conservatives, unlike Labour wish to cut benefits to the poor, which basically makes those people out of the tax bracket just the same as before or in a worse position.
    But many of those who would have been on benefits are now in work. Not only does this provide them with a regular wage, it also encourages creativity, self-respect it provides dignity. Having a job is better than relying on benefits.

    Considering the income tax was lowered to 45p from 50p, the top 1% have seen less money going towards the government. I don't see that going back up under the Conservatives. The poorest 10% of households pay eight percentage points more of their income in all taxes than the richest – 43% compared to 35%, according to a report from the Equality Trust. So while you point out the 1% pay, 28% of 'the taxes' you don't mention where the other 72% of 'the taxes' come from.
    Wow. Do you have any idea how economics works? Decreasing the tax bracket doesn't decrease the revenue - too high a tax rate and the money stops coming in. There's a reason France got rid of their ridiculously high 75% tax rate - because it simply didn't work. This link demonstrates how the Conservatives' lower tax rates brought in more income than Labour did. http://order-order.com/2012/12/12/la...JVrbsV6HcCCFlQ Also important to note the poorest 10% are paying more because they've become much richer.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Then if Rich kids billionaire' sons and daughters can spend loads of cash on expensive products - that has no effect on them.

    Raise the minimum wage - and everyone argues that it leads to businesses collapsing.

    Irony??
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Marshall)
    Then if Rich kids billionaire' sons and daughters can spend loads of cash on expensive products - that has no effect on them.

    Raise the minimum wage - and everyone argues that it leads to businesses collapsing.

    Irony??
    Not really.

    I would imagine that utility is a positive function of personal consumption and a negative function of input cost.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PPF)
    Not really.

    I would imagine that utility is a positive function of personal consumption and a negative function of input cost.
    No I mean its fine for the rich to spend cash without ever getting into financial worry.

    For those that struggle on financial stuff - its not a good thing.

    It is just ironic.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Wow, what a fantastic argument you've put forward for yourself, there.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Marshall)
    No I mean its fine for the rich to spend cash without ever getting into financial worry.

    For those that struggle on financial stuff - its not a good thing.

    It is just ironic.
    I understand where you're coming from but that's not the way we think about it. If you were a Business Tycoon I imagine you would be happier to spend £300,000 on buying your son a Lamborghini than spending that money on increasing the wages of your staff and hence reducing profits and competitiveness internationally.

    Its incorrect to raise wages artificially. They should rise in line with productivity. If you are to increase the national minimum wage then introduce an additional legislation of what more is required from workers. A trivial example, If I spend eight hours at work stacking 4000 bottles of Coke on the shelves - earning, say, £7.00 per hour. Then it makes little sense to increase that amount to £9.00 unless the purchasing power of money has decreased or I am now more productive - so perhaps I now do 6500 bottles a day.

    There's a balance between demonizing corporates and societal welfare. It wasn't my personal choice, but as a collective we've all decided upon Capitalism therefore we plan accordingly.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by battycatlady)
    Wow, what a fantastic argument you've put forward for yourself, there.
    Who's argument are you referring to?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PPF)
    I understand where you're coming from but that's not the way we think about it. If you were a Business Tycoon I imagine you would be happier to spend £300,000 on buying your son a Lamborghini than spending that money on increasing the wages of your staff and hence reducing profits and competitiveness internationally.

    Its incorrect to raise wages artificially. They should rise in line with productivity. If you are to increase the national minimum wage then introduce an additional legislation of what more is required from workers. A trivial example, If I spend eight hours at work stacking 4000 bottles of Coke on the shelves - earning, say, £7.00 per hour. Then it makes little sense to increase that amount to £9.00 unless the purchasing power of money has decreased or I am now more productive - so perhaps I now do 6500 bottles a day.

    There's a balance between demonizing corporates and societal welfare. It wasn't my personal choice, but as a collective we've all decided upon Capitalism therefore we plan accordingly.
    -I am not economically knowledgeable so please excuse my lack of economic knowledge as I attempt to answer this as best as I can.

    Not really, I would encourage them to work in the real world. Because they should understand the difference between a rich life and a poor one. Of course any parent would spend lots of money for their kids - it happens in the Middle Class, and working class.

    I would also disagree that businessmen are purely demonizing. You seem to have misunderstood what I said. I fully acknowledge that there are some brilliant businessmen that have risen wages for their staff and that their companies haven't gone bust. Only one needs to look at Chinese CEOs, one of them took their employees to a month's holiday in Singapore. Another Chinese billionaire rebuilt the whole of his town - because they had treated him well in the past.

    If it is incorrect to raise wages artificially - then why do factory workers in China working for Apple live in such poor conditions? Especially because China has become a mix of communism and capitalism? If I understand your argument, what you basically say that a worker that has his wage increased will be less incentisivied to work? That is completely out of touch with the real world. A reason for this because if worker A is working at Tesco shifting supplies, he will no doubt be want to paid more. You cannot live on £7.00 your entire life and hope to make a decent living - its impossible. As the former leader of the Labour party said, we live in a society where hard work does not pay. I do not accept your neo-liberal economics - because the state can be used to incentive workers. I know many workers in low skilled paid jobs that would love a wage increase. As far as I know, those working with low wages - cannot afford to buy a house that's over £350 k. How can you justify this?

    But surely, aren't companies today paying their employees more? What about Google, Facebook, Apple? Those companies pay a lot of money to their employees and I haven't seen any collapses. I do understand what happens should you increase the minimum wage in the small business - as you increase your profit - your wage would go up. But while the wages grow, the profit that is generated becomes less and lesser. In this sense there should be a welfare bank for small business that ensures that they do not run out of profit.

    I'd say switch back to Macmillan's system of privatization and a mixed economy. Capitalism was never decided - it eventually evolved into a system far from the social injustice system it was in the 19th century. You seem to be taking on the position of Anthony Crossland, but I would argue that the gap between the rich, working and middle class have become much much wider. It cannot be justifiable to defend rich cats who smoke cigars when someone really struggles just to live. You think paying £30,000 a debt, while getting a job that is low skilled and low paid, plus trying to find a house which is more than your budget is really the sort of life that people want to live? I don't think so.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Marshall)
    -I am not economically knowledgeable so please excuse my lack of economic knowledge as I attempt to answer this as best as I can.

    Not really, I would encourage them to work in the real world. Because they should understand the difference between a rich life and a poor one. Of course any parent would spend lots of money for their kids - it happens in the Middle Class, and working class.

    I would also disagree that businessmen are purely demonizing. You seem to have misunderstood what I said. I fully acknowledge that there are some brilliant businessmen that have risen wages for their staff and that their companies haven't gone bust. Only one needs to look at Chinese CEOs, one of them took their employees to a month's holiday in Singapore. Another Chinese billionaire rebuilt the whole of his town - because they had treated him well in the past.

    If it is incorrect to raise wages artificially - then why do factory workers in China working for Apple live in such poor conditions? Especially because China has become a mix of communism and capitalism? If I understand your argument, what you basically say that a worker that has his wage increased will be less incentisivied to work? That is completely out of touch with the real world. A reason for this because if worker A is working at Tesco shifting supplies, he will no doubt be want to paid more. You cannot live on £7.00 your entire life and hope to make a decent living - its impossible. As the former leader of the Labour party said, we live in a society where hard work does not pay. I do not accept your neo-liberal economics - because the state can be used to incentive workers. I know many workers in low skilled paid jobs that would love a wage increase. As far as I know, those working with low wages - cannot afford to buy a house that's over £350 k. How can you justify this?

    But surely, aren't companies today paying their employees more? What about Google, Facebook, Apple? Those companies pay a lot of money to their employees and I haven't seen any collapses. I do understand what happens should you increase the minimum wage in the small business - as you increase your profit - your wage would go up. But while the wages grow, the profit that is generated becomes less and lesser. In this sense there should be a welfare bank for small business that ensures that they do not run out of profit.

    I'd say switch back to Macmillan's system of privatization and a mixed economy. Capitalism was never decided - it eventually evolved into a system far from the social injustice system it was in the 19th century. You seem to be taking on the position of Anthony Crossland, but I would argue that the gap between the rich, working and middle class have become much much wider. It cannot be justifiable to defend rich cats who smoke cigars when someone really struggles just to live. You think paying £30,000 a debt, while getting a job that is low skilled and low paid, plus trying to find a house which is more than your budget is really the sort of life that people want to live? I don't think so.
    Hey man, I specifically mentioned that it wasn't my personal decision or opinion, also I am not a Neo-Liberal economist. Rather, I do have certain technical disagreements with them.

    But more importantly, I didn't for a second say that higher wages would act as a disincentive!

    Look, let me give you a practical response. Is Wealth Inequality increasing? Yes. Do the rich have more favorable terms? Yes. Are the poor struggling with debt? Yes. Is raising the minimum wage the answer? No. Not really.

    We have a system which favors elite corporations. We can't do anything about it. If you do want to make a difference then the most you can do is to get rich and donate. You wont be able to change the system, and the rich and poor will never have equal rights or treatment. This is the way in which the world works.
 
 
 
Poll
Would you rather

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

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