Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 294

Thread: GE2017 take 2

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Cambridge, Duxfordshire
    Posts
    2,885
    For F's sake, that was written by the Telegraph!

    Bruce, I'm surprised at you. I thought you'd get hold of the actual text before joining in the tired chorus of 'back to the seventies' like this is somehow a relevant taunt four decades of economic nonsense later.
    Last edited by Beermat; 11th May 2017 at 07:41.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Henlow, England
    Posts
    579
    Suspect it's probably better to wait for the actual published manifesto and be informed rather than being informed by a "leak" and through the blue filter of the DT.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    5,844
    One cannot be too rich or too thin. Similarly, one cannot be too 'left' or too EU federalist. All, axiomatic !

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    5,844
    "back to the seventies?"

    Looking at the present antics of the far left, it is the only deductive conclusion. Labour aren't using a shovel they're using a mechanical excavator !

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    7,841
    Newsnight had an article on about it last night, they referred to the previous version ( that was about the same in 1983 ) as having been referred to as the longest suicide note in history.

    I suppose leaking it means they can deny any of the real loonie elements that get picked up in the press, and cherry pick the better stuff for release... though in fairness you cannot really write a manifesto from scratch in two weeks without there being flaws.
    Last edited by TonyT; 11th May 2017 at 09:22.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Henlow, England
    Posts
    579
    "back to the 70's"

    BREXIT has taken us half way there already, all we need is a Corbyn government that pushes too much power and control to the unions and implements other extreme policies and we'll be on the 3 day week and enjoying powercuts!

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    5,844
    AK

    "half way there" It certainly seems that way. Our present economic state is parlous to write the least. Back to the Beano !

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Cambridge, Duxfordshire
    Posts
    2,885
    My parents rather enjoyed the three-day week.

    Seriously, though, hijacked unions and un-neccessary strikes were a problem for everyone and every government for quite a while until it all came to a head in the late 1970's. There is frankly nothing in the leaked draft manifesto that would somehow recreate the long-in-the-brewing conditions that led to to that particular meltdown. To use an eighties phrase - don't believe the hype.

    Taxing the super-rich and taking a portion of profit for hospitals, schools and Universities before it becomes free money for shareholders does NOT lead to flying pickets. There is absolutely no connection. Sadly no-one seems prepared to ask the Tory spin-machine to demonstrate one.
    Last edited by Beermat; 11th May 2017 at 11:39.
    www.whirlwindfighterproject.org
    It's all good. Probably.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Posts
    9,797
    BM - at no point did I mention 'Back to the 70's'.

    The draft manifesto - which appears to be accepted as genuine by all major news outlets this morning, and is available via the BBC site is clearly rather more left wing than any Labour manifesto since Michael Foot in 1983, so I stand by my last comment.

    Taking it at face value it is easy to see why people are making the connection to the 70's - there are many policies in there which hark back to a previous era. It is either workable, and affordable, or it isn't. My little brain tends toward the latter, for many reasons. I do see the need for a renewed social agenda, but this isn't it.

    To quote Mrs Thatcher, "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.” The blind assumption that businesses will just accept the tax rises, and that individuals will gladly pay a bit extra to help the deserving poor is pure nonsense. Costing your policy based on such assumptions is ridiculous.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    7,841
    Corbyn

    For the Many Not the Few

    Churchill probably foreseeing Corbyn's debt inducing policies written into their manifesto, and the results of the said disaster..

    Never was so much owed by so many to so few







    call me cynical
    Last edited by TonyT; 11th May 2017 at 14:11.

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Posts
    9,797
    Nicked from Guido Fawkes - a right wing blogger:

    Paul Johnson, the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, on the manifesto…

    “It’s certainly transformative what the Labour Party is suggesting here, and I think it’s important to be clear that this is not just about tax and spending; this is about the state getting deeply involved in much more of the private sector than it has been, certainly since the 1970s, and perhaps since the 1940s, with respect to, say, telling banks which branches they can’t close; setting minimum wages for a quarter of private sector workers and about 60% of young people, and dramatically improving labour regulation. All of those things are utterly different from anything we’ve experienced in many, many decades.

    If you take what’s here at face value, then much of it I think is unprecedented even in the 1970s. This is a level of state intervention that probably goes back more decades than that.”

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    5,844
    I have it on some authority that a few Tory MPs have been removed to hospital suffering from terminal laughter.

    Are there any who will join me in sending charitable donations to JC in an attempt to bribe him to stay in charge ?

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Cambridge, Duxfordshire
    Posts
    2,885
    Bruce, nobody is expecting or blindly assuming that individuals will gladly pay a bit extra - but it's only those who think that tax is optional who presume how glad they feel about it is a factor here.

    Similarly, I am not too sure whether a particular business 'accepts' a particular rate of tax is really the question here - or at least I doubt it would be under a Labour administration, even though tax does seem negotiable on an individual basis currently.

    TonyT - You're cynical! Thing about debt is - it's only real when we the people owe. And we do. In the seventies we (the people, ordinary people with a job and kids) didn't have big 4x4's, big tellies, big holidays, because we couldn't afford them. Now we do - but we still can't afford them! This is the actual national debt.

    Meanwhile money spent on a nurses wages gets spent by that nurse - and taxed. It does not disappear. This is why you cannot equate running a nation with running a business. The people who work for UK plc give their money (apart from what they spend on holiday) back to the business!

    The whole Tory 'book balancing' thing is an oversimplification that ignores reality in an attempt to make a national debt a 'thing' that only paying nurses less will solve.
    Last edited by Beermat; 12th May 2017 at 15:58.
    www.whirlwindfighterproject.org
    It's all good. Probably.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Posts
    9,797
    Hmm, I'm not quite sure where this is going.

    The thing about tax is that it is the responsibility of government to collect the optimum amount in the best way they see fit. It is noticeable that as a result of the current lot reducing the top tax rate, and despite the outcry that caused, that they have collected more income tax as a result. Similarly, the last reduction in corporation tax, led to an increase in overall tax take. For 2015/6, the government raised the most amount in taxes ever. The very wealthy are also paying more as a share of the whole than they ever have.

    This then is an issue of how best to collect tax. If you introduce another tax band at 80K, the people affected will look for ways to return their net income to the same level or more, and so will likely look for better paid jobs. As a result, the jobs they had been doing will have to pay a bit more to get a similar calibre of individual. In order to keep the wage bill down, somebody towards the bottom of the pile - and likely more than 1 will get made redundant. So the wage bill stays the same, the company makes cost savings, but people are now out of a job. There is no simple answer when it comes to raising more money through taxation, and the current Labour leadership is naïve in the extreme if it thinks that just by shuffling the system about a bit, they will collect more money. It has never worked in the past, and there is no evidence to suggest it will work this time.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Cambridge, Duxfordshire
    Posts
    2,885
    I would look at how much more the top 5% are earning as a factor in the raised tax take from the top - and certainly look at how the increased earnings differential between the rich and the poor might influence the differential in tax take.

  16. #46
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Posts
    9,797
    I agree there is an element of that, but it is also the case that by reducing the tax rate, they pay more.

  17. #47
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Cambridge, Duxfordshire
    Posts
    2,885
    Maybe a better policy would be proper enforcement?

    It might be easier if you hadn't been to school with them, who knows?

  18. #48
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Posts
    9,797
    BM, I do agree that there needs to be change in our political system. We need to get to grips once and for all with benefits, with the low paid, with the education system and with the NHS. Proper boundaries, if that is the word, need to be set, to determine how we target help to those most in need.

    I don't think the current Labour manifesto is the right approach. In my opinion, it is ill judged, and does not take enough account of how the world actually works before one tries to change it. That is crucial. It sets out a broad utopian ideal, and would have been better off concentrating on fewer policies which could be seen to be affordable by the majority of the electorate, and which could be built upon in future manifestos.

    For me, I would lose the renationalisation stuff, and much of the union stuff. That is all policy that would be simply reversed by the next Tory government, and nobody would ultimately gain. The trick is to find policy, like the NHS, which becomes so ingrained in public consciousness that it cannot be easily reversed. There is no point in making huge progressive strides for five years in every twenty when they will be wiped out by successive governments.

    That is why the current Labour Party doesn't work. It gives people false hope, and would, in power give the people that need them most, the idea that their lives will be forever improved whilst knowing full well that as soon as they are out of power again, those same people will suffer the most. That is what needs to be changed. The political footballs in every election are never the well off. They can afford not to care.


    Bruce

  19. #49
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Cambridge, Duxfordshire
    Posts
    2,885
    Comrade, you are suggesting revolution. Last one to the barricade is a rotten reactionary!

  20. #50
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    278
    Maybe a better policy would be proper enforcement?

    It might be easier if you hadn't been to school with them, who knows?
    The problem is simply that the top 5%, for the most part, can choose not to pay taxes here at all if they think they're too high. Indeed, many of the mega-rich in London are only there because of the low taxes. At least 3 Indians in the UK top 10 richest, several Russians in the Top 10-20 etc. The fact is that with higher taxes, they might well not be there and then the tax intake from them is zero rather than something, which is worse not better. The better way of actually balancing the rich poor divide in our country is arguably import tariffs, at least that way you're forcing mega-rich people who hire low income labour in other countries for the privilege of selling at higher prices in the UK market and at the same time encouraging more jobs to remain in the UK.

    BM, I do agree that there needs to be change in our political system. We need to get to grips once and for all with benefits, with the low paid, with the education system and with the NHS. Proper boundaries, if that is the word, need to be set, to determine how we target help to those most in need.
    Arguably mandating workplace life insurance/healthcare instead of workplace pensions would have been more effective, at least for the larger companies. That would have taken a lot of the burden off the NHS altogether whilst they still received the same amount of money for looking after everybody else.
    Last edited by Ryan; 13th May 2017 at 09:08.

  21. #51
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Cambridge, Duxfordshire
    Posts
    2,885
    So.. these are economic migrants we want? Not ones who work and pay taxes in their thousands but a handful who do neither and put house ownership out of reach of our children?

    It's like when the multinational banks (or Phil Collins) threatened to leave. A lot of people said 'bye then'.

    I agree that would affect the tax take, but in a miniscule way, as they only pay tacitly agreed token amounts now. Renegotiating these amounts upwards and enforcing payment would possibly net more - it has to be worth a try.
    Last edited by Beermat; 13th May 2017 at 10:14.

  22. #52
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    278
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017...ole-socialist/

    Revealed: Jeremy Corbyn's 'unprecedented' £30bn black hole in his socialist spending plans

  23. #53
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Cambridge, Duxfordshire
    Posts
    2,885
    You having an off-day? Normally you can do better than recycle Torygraph made-up stuff.

    Revealed: Not everything the right wing of the British press writes about socialists just before an election is all that reliable.
    Last edited by Beermat; 13th May 2017 at 14:43.

  24. #54
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    278
    So.. these are economic migrants we want? Not ones who work and pay taxes in their thousands but a handful who do neither and put house ownership out of reach of our children?

    It's like when the multinational banks (or Phil Collins) threatened to leave. A lot of people said 'bye then'.

    I agree that would affect the tax take, but in a miniscule way, as they only pay tacitly agreed token amounts now. Renegotiating these amounts upwards and enforcing payment would possibly net more - it has to be worth a try.
    Well they do pay taxes, just not as high a rate as you would like, but even at the low rate, they still pay as much tax as maybe 10,000 average income workers and pay a lot in indirect taxes, whilst buying things that keep the economy going, e.g. when they buy a superyacht made at Devonport. They often also keep people here employed, like the guy who owns Tata. And these particular folk only put houses out of reach of your children, if your children were aiming for £350m homes in Kensington Palace Gardens and Regent's Park. As an aside, it's often criminal money laundering that puts London property prices out of reach. Empty properties rented from overseas.

    But those same people would complain when their taxes went up to compensate.

    Or more businesses might just use the Ireland loophole, or set up somewhere else. This is the problem and why the solution lies beyond the reach of national government. It's not a problem you can fix without controlling tax everywhere on the planet.

  25. #55
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    278
    Oh he can't be accused of quitting whilst he's ahead.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017...jeremy-corbyn/

    Britain has not fought a just conflict since the Second World War, Jeremy Corbyn has said
    Err.... Korea, Desert Storm, Falklands.....

    Can't count. Doesn't know history. Not two great traits in a national leader.

  26. #56
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Cambridge, Duxfordshire
    Posts
    2,885
    Korea, 'desert storm" (yee-haw) and even the Falklands have legitimate questions as to their 'justness', as you well know. Not saying they were unjust (I personally believe the defence of the Falklands was entirely legitimate) but it does not show ignorance of history to make this kind of judgement. It actually shows an awareness of subtext and counter-narrative beyond the received versions.

    The worrying ignorance of history comes from BJ, who seems to believe we have never had a left-principled Prime Minister (where on earth does he think the NHS came from)?
    Last edited by Beermat; 13th May 2017 at 17:53.

  27. #57
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Cambridge, Duxfordshire
    Posts
    2,885
    And no, my children might possibly be aiming to buy a normal terraced in Cambridge, which is after all where they were born. Maybe half a million is not out of your reach - and maybe that explains a lot. That and you getting all of your 'information' about the opposition to the Tories from their house newsletter.
    Last edited by Beermat; 13th May 2017 at 17:34.

  28. #58
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    278
    Korea, 'desert storm" (yee-haw) and even the Falklands have legitimate questions as to their 'justness', as you well know. Not saying they were unjust (I personally believe the defence of the Falklands was entirely legitimate) but it does not show ignorance of history to make this kind of judgement. It actually shows an awareness of subtext and counter-narrative beyond the received versions.

    The worrying ignorance of history comes from BJ, who seems to believe we have never had a left-principled Prime Minister (where on earth does he think the NHS came from)?
    Do they? Really!?

    Korea - Communist dictatorship backed by the USSR and China invades South Korea. China then joins them and invades again. In hindsight, looking at things now, the only mistake they made was not using a tactical nuke or two against the Chinese army. Would have seemed terrible at the time but 65 years on, things turned out for the worse and we are left with a potentially even more dangerous situation.

    Falklands - Dictatorship invades Falklands depriving its people of their right to self-determination.
    http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Professional...ages/CCPR.aspx

    Desert Storm - Lunatic invades Kuwait (after gassing a fair sum of his own people).

    Well yes, NHS and Welfare state. But was using money from the Marshall Plan to nationalise the railways a good use of it in hindsight?

    Maybe it's wise to take opinions about Corbyn even from within the Labour Party. Technically he didn't even have enough support to continue as party leader. I've seen how bad even a centrist Labour party is at managing money in the 1997-2008 period, people even killed themselves over it they were that bad (the working class they were supposed to be protecting), so I'm not prepared to take my chances with someone who even Labour MPs don't support because of his fairly extreme leftist views.

  29. #59
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    9,272
    Taxing the super-rich and taking a portion of profit for hospitals, schools and universities before it becomes free money for shareholders...
    It is NOT 'free money' for shareholders! Businesses raise money by issuing shares and shareholders 'lend' (and risk) their money buying shares; isn't it right and proper that shareholders should get some reward (not guaranteed) for investing in a company? Or the company could borrow money from a bank (and pay interest). And most 'shareholders' are pensioners, through pension funds, not the 'super-rich'...

    ...but then we've been over this before haven't we!

    (Bring back the 'reply with quote' function!)
    WA$.

  30. #60
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Cambridge, Duxfordshire
    Posts
    2,885
    Fine. Fortunately you don't have to vote for him, so no need to be brave. But on what grounds does he technically not have enough support to continue as party leader?

    And the working class killing themselves over Labour's bad money management? Go on, what's the latest from the Ministry of Truth? I am all ears.

    CD, we have. I take your point - with the reminder of my bit about shares making free money for the holder or they wouldn't happen. They certainly wouldn't form pension plans! It's a reward, but only for having the capital to invest, not effort. Some of us have to work for money. We would be better rewarded for the work if shareholders didn't expect their 'reward' for.. um.. already having money.
    Last edited by Beermat; 13th May 2017 at 22:04.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 5 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 5 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES