Who would like the Boris

Discussion in 'Just Talk' started by Devil's Advocate, Oct 2, 2017.

  1. G&W Plumbing & Heating

    G&W Plumbing & Heating Active Member

    She’s dropping him isn’t she

    Those bikes in London are class, the boris bombers, what a legend
     
  2. btiw2

    btiw2 Active Member

    That's not what I'm implying. I'm questioning the prevailing "wisdom" that Mr Corbyn is ultra-left wing.

    The main tax increase that labour proposed was corporation tax. The main spending increase was in abolishing tuition fees. [1]

    Yet:
    In Mrs Thatcher's last budget corporation tax was 35% (25% for small businesses)[2]
    Labour proposed corporation tax of 26% (21% for small business)[3]

    Labour proposed putting tuition fees back to zero - the same as in 1990.

    There's a bunch of other stuff (more spending on the Police and customs officials), scrapping the bedrooms tax (although I suppose that didn't exist under Mrs Thatcher either) - but I'm just looking at the really big items.

    I get confused when people want to tell me that Mr Corbyn is Marx reborn.

    I offered three reasons why it might be the case (society has moved, media caricatures, people look at the direction - not the position).
    Here's another. Perhaps it's a marketing thing? Mr Corbyn wouldn't rally people to vote with a cry of "let's be a little more conservative than Mrs Thatcher's last budget!" - so perhaps Mr Corbyn wants to be seen as ultra-left wing?

    [1] http://www.labour.org.uk/page/-/Images/manifesto-2017/FUNDING-BRITAINS-FUTURE.PDF
    [2] Budget 1990: "I also have some changes to corporation tax. While the main rate of corporation tax will remain at 35 per cent., I propose to reduce the burden of tax for smaller companies. At present, companies with profits below £150,000 pay a reduced rate of corporation tax of 25 per cent. I propose to raise this ceiling by one third, to £200,000. "
    http://www.johnmajor.co.uk/page2510.html
    [3] Footnote 24. "Raising the headline rate to 21% from 2018-19, 24% from 2019-20 and £26% from 2020-21. Small Profits (below £300,000) rate is 20% from 2018-19 and 21% from 2020-21"
    http://www.labour.org.uk/page/-/Images/manifesto-2017/FUNDING-BRITAINS-FUTURE.PDF
     
  3. Jackoftrades

    Jackoftrades Well-Known Member


    Go on then, examples ?

    Dont fall into the trap of thinking I am supporting him, or promoting his ideas. Just simply pointing out his sincerity. Not his popularity.
     
  4. longboat

    longboat Well-Known Member

    I see what you mean now, and also agree that when judged by the economic policies set out in the 'Labour' manifesto you could say he's only slightly left of centre, or even centrist.
    The problem lies with the fact that, Corby is only the leader, a poor one at that when 75% of his own MP'S wanted him to step down.
     
  5. Isitreally

    Isitreally Active Member

    That Corbyn bloke looks familiar.?????

































    FB_IMG_1507646983040.jpg
     
  6. btiw2

    btiw2 Active Member

    I'm not sure I know what I mean myself.

    JoT called Mr Corbyn "quite extreme left wing". The phrase[1] "extreme left wing" rankled because, in my opinion, he's not.

    Maybe he's centre-left, centre-centre, centre-right. And compared to what? Actually, I don't know and don't really care.
    He could be south-by-southwest-veering-westerly-5-to-7-moderate-good for all labels really matter.
    I don't know what's in his heart, but in Labour's case we had numbers.

    So I suppose it's the exaggerated language that bothered me.

    I don't mind politicians slinging hyperbole about like over-excited American teenagers, that seems to be their job, but us regular Brits shouldn't get caught up in that nonsense.

    It's no different to when DA wants to label people ultra-right wing or fascists or Nazis.
    But they're usually not though are they?

    On the other hand, avoiding racial, religious or LGBTQ[2][3] epithets is always 'political correctness gone mad'.
    I agree that politically correct terminology is confusing (and this week's word for children who have parents with different skin tones is.... let's spin the adjective wheel!), but I'm not sure manners are mad.
    When did avoiding needlessly offending people become synonymous with mental illness?

    I'm going off topic now, so I'll stop before this becomes a rant.

    [1] I'm ignoring the oxymoron in JoT's "quite extreme" as I'm not sure whether that makes it better or worse.
    [2] Cool - after trying various combinations my spell checker says that's a word! Oh no, it's gone red and squiggly again - oh well - pretend it's right.
    [3] And what's with all the acronyms anyway? Do gay(etc. etc.) people really like Scrabble, or do they decide a name for themselves from a random password generator?
     
  7. longboat

    longboat Well-Known Member

    'Extreme' is certainly stretching it a tad, i must agree, i mean even if he wanted to emulate the socialist ideals of, Pol Pot, or Stalin, it simply wouldn't work in this country, he'd soon find out what extreme, means.

    The thing that worries me about the guy is the fact he's been sort of chucked in at the deep end, he's not suited to govern responsibly, the fringe, the militant activist who champions selective causes, the rebel.
    That's where he belongs the guerilla warfare stance, fighting for the underdog, until a more worthwhile cause appears.

    Take the 2017 Labour manifesto.
    Yes, it's all costed and appears well thought through (there's a few things that don't seem to add up, but that's beside the point) on the other hand it all says what everyone wants to hear. Like one of them deals that's too good to be true.
    Music to the ears.
    Do we need 10000 more police officers just because we used to have more than we do now? When you consider the technology they use nowadays, are bobbies walking the streets as effective and efficient as they once were?

    Take that thoroughly skewed phrase "the bedroom tax" nothing of the sort, but that's all you hear from people who receive housing benefit "the Tories tax us by how many bedrooms we have" erŕrrr, no.
    Labour: "we'll do away with that too" hurray!
    Let's move into that five bedroom house over the nice end of town and force the tax payers to stump up the rent.

    Then we move onto student loans, why shouldn't they pay for their adult education if they choose to go to university?

    Abolish the pay cap, nationalise the railways, tax private companies if they pay their own employees high wages, say something about a living wage of £10 minimum for all, without any hope of enforcing it, tax the evil individuals that have done well for themselves who spit on your pathetic reliance on welfare, and on, and on.
    Ohh, Jeremy.
    You say all the things they want to hear.
     
  8. Devil's Advocate

    Devil's Advocate Well-Known Member

     
  9. Devil's Advocate

    Devil's Advocate Well-Known Member

    I was in the same dilemma about my support for Corbyn.

    But thankfully btiw2 has cleared that up for me - I can be even more relaxed at voting Labour next time.

    (Btw, Corbie's coming to Barnstie!)
     
  10. Harry Stottle

    Harry Stottle Active Member

    Absolutely spot on Lamgboat. Unfortunately there are millions of people out there who are too thick to see through Labour's airy fairy vote catching tosh. Your example of "bedroom tax" is a good one, "poll tax" is another where a catchy nickname encourages a noisy minority to make a big fuss without thinking things through. They don't understand why a strong economy benefits everyone, not just those who create it.

    The big three gains from a good economy can be strong defence, a good health service and first class education systems. I would be happy to pay more tax if I could be certain that it would be spent in those three areas. It's the waste that bugs taxpayers; things like misdirected overseas aid, badly run expensive projects that are eventually abandoned, shovelling money to the shambolic and dishonest EU etc. I would be a lot happier if I could be certain that x pence in the pound of my income tax could be guaranteed to go towards defence, y pence in the pound towards health and z pence in the pound towards education and ring-fenced for those purposes, with a smaller "pot" for less important spending.
     
  11. Devil's Advocate

    Devil's Advocate Well-Known Member

    Btiw2, I love your balanced posts - honestly. Sometimes I don't much enjoy the 'balance', tho'. Or find it misses the 'point'.

    Subjects such as Brexit or politics in general rarely comes down to any form of 'balance' - it's largely ideology-driven. If it were a Science, it could theoretically be proven either way.

    There is no amount of proof that will sway some ideologies.

    Anyhoo, enough of this sanity - Brexit is going well, isn't it?
     
  12. longboat

    longboat Well-Known Member

    DA, QUOTE.
    (Perhaps because the most empowering thing you can do your your people is to educate them. Some of the u-s on here openly disagree with that.)

    I don't recall anyone saying anything of the sort, be they your u-s or otherwise.

    Educate them how, in what way?
    Do you believe that all young adults should go to university or just the ones who choose to?
     
  13. Devil's Advocate

    Devil's Advocate Well-Known Member

    Phel et Mr Ha, I recall. Perhaps it was only one of them, but you get the idea.

    And, no, we shouldn't herd all young folk in to Unis. But we should offer all the chance to develop their edu as far as they can.
     
  14. longboat

    longboat Well-Known Member

    The offer is on the table already, those who measure up to a university's enrollment criteria are given the chance to develop their education as far as they can.
    Should the lorry driver, the bin man/woman, the carpenter, the self employed gas fitter, etc, pay taxes to give them that 'chance' or should they bear some of the responsibility themselves?
     
  15. Devil's Advocate

    Devil's Advocate Well-Known Member

    No, binwomen shouldn't - they need to know their place.
     
  16. longboat

    longboat Well-Known Member

    To think I went to the trouble of adding that little appeasement in the hope of avoiding an easy dodge, and what do I get...?
    A dodge!
     
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2017
  17. fillyboy

    fillyboy Active Member

    All British Prime Ministers leave, or hope to leave, or attempt to leave, some sort of 'legacy'.
    Clement Atlee (and Nye Bevan) : The National Heath Service
    Winston Churchill: Introduction of the minimum wage (yes, really), one of the co-founders of the welfare state and leader of Britain and the Commonwealth, the only countries opposing Hitler in 1940.
    Tony Blair: Peace deal with Northern Ireland, Keeping Britain out of the Euro and war with Iraq.
    David Cameron: Failure to do a deal to reform the EU, gay marriage and a tax on plastic carrier bags.

    My personal favourite is Harold Wilson who brought us the Open University.
     
    Devil's Advocate likes this.
  18. longboat

    longboat Well-Known Member

    Don't mention the introduction of nationwide tuition fees, less than a year after pledging not to do so.
     
  19. fillyboy

    fillyboy Active Member

    When I were a lad, we all kicked off when we stopped getting free milk.
     
    longboat and Devil's Advocate like this.
  20. joinerjohn1

    joinerjohn1 Screwfix Select

    Ermmmm It's called a bedroom tax simply because the government are exploiting people who have lived in a 2/ 3 bedroomed house for years. Now find themselves dependent upon benefits, but (usually) don't have a need for a second or third bedroom.. So yes the Tories are "taxing" people by the amount of bedrooms they have. Just because you live in rented , or social housing, doesn't mean you should have to move, just because you have fallen on hard times or become ill. The "Bedroom Tax" is a travesty. Many older people have grandchildren to stay the weekend, or relatives come to visit them over the weekend. Should they be denied these chances simply because they are claiming some sort of benefit? I don't think so Longs. Should a divorced parent be denied the chance of having children staying with them for a few days simply because a bedroom isn't used for three/four days of the week? Perhaps the parent with custody should be penalised because they have a bedroom that's not used during parental access rights too?
     
    chippie244 and Devil's Advocate like this.

Share This Page