RogerS
Established Member
You're forgetting. Never let accuracy and facts get in the way of Jacob's posts
Just to stir the pot, has anyone noticed...
- Thread starter Jester129
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
- Status
sploo
Somewhat extinguished member
Blair wasn't exactly economically left wing. At least, not in terms of what I suspect would be considered left wing.
If I recall correctly, Ed Miliband was characterised by some of the press as being a "lefty" (a reason given by many for not voting for him after the 2015 election). In general, his actual policies were more economically right wing than the majority view of polled UK citizens (e.g. we generally always get a "yes" to the question of renationalising the railways). I rather suspect our concept of left and right wing (in terms of economics) in the UK is skewed by less than honest reporting from the tabloid press.
If I recall correctly, Ed Miliband was characterised by some of the press as being a "lefty" (a reason given by many for not voting for him after the 2015 election). In general, his actual policies were more economically right wing than the majority view of polled UK citizens (e.g. we generally always get a "yes" to the question of renationalising the railways). I rather suspect our concept of left and right wing (in terms of economics) in the UK is skewed by less than honest reporting from the tabloid press.
x
and what we have is a poor Labour Party.
sploo
Somewhat extinguished member
Definitely. It's a deeply uninspiring bunch at the moment.
The only thing I can say is that I'd struggle to believe that it would be possible to put together a government of more inept, cruel, and clueless individuals than what's passed through the Tory front benches over the last few years. So if Ivan the Terrible wants to form a party with Pol Pot, Aileen Wuornos, and Bungle from Rainbow; they'd get my vote - as a much more capable and caring bunch of leaders.
I suspect most people would purely because they believe (quite correctly, I think) that they would be much better run as a single entity, rather that quibble over who actually owns them. Also many people pro renationalisation don't remember British Rail.
Mikebart
Established Member
Renationalise all public services and that includes the NHS.
And buy your overpriced white goods only from the electricity board, wait a year for a phone to be installed ...
sploo
Somewhat extinguished member
Yup. It was poorly run when public, and poorly run when now private.
I guess you could say that when public, at least profits weren't being siphoned off into shareholders' pockets; but then I'm sure the money was still wasted/mismanaged or corruptly "moved" in other ways.
Mikebart
Established Member
Imported overpriced white goods and underpaid foreign phone installers
Terry - Somerset
Established Member
At their extremes politics could be characterised as follows:
Both Tory and Labour tend towards centrist policies in a space inhabited mainly by a moderate electorate. To do otherwise in a democracy would guarantee electoral failure.
Overall tax take in the UK (income tax, NI, VAT etc) has varied between 35% and 45% over the last 70 years ignoring post war peaks and pandemic years. The peak in 2009/10 was 46% declining to 40% in 2019/20 pre covid.
Comparison of public spending in OECD economies - France 59%, Italy 54%, Germany 51%, UK 48%, US 45%, Japan 44%, Australia 41%, Switzerland 36%. UK is pretty much middle of the pack.
Current debates reinforce the centrist nature of the dialogue:
- LEFT - state ownership and control, from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs, equality of opportunity and outcomes. Has not worked anywhere AFAIK
- RIGHT - free enterprise, very low taxation, personal responsibility for health, education, welfare state an anathema. Wholly uncaring and destructive IMHO
Both Tory and Labour tend towards centrist policies in a space inhabited mainly by a moderate electorate. To do otherwise in a democracy would guarantee electoral failure.
Overall tax take in the UK (income tax, NI, VAT etc) has varied between 35% and 45% over the last 70 years ignoring post war peaks and pandemic years. The peak in 2009/10 was 46% declining to 40% in 2019/20 pre covid.
Comparison of public spending in OECD economies - France 59%, Italy 54%, Germany 51%, UK 48%, US 45%, Japan 44%, Australia 41%, Switzerland 36%. UK is pretty much middle of the pack.
Current debates reinforce the centrist nature of the dialogue:
- nationalisation of rail and water is in the margins - energy, steel, banking, communications, cars etc etc don't get to the starting line
- private education - small minded policies to remove tax break, not ban
- private healthcare - no plans AFAIK.
- Tories have had 32 of the last 45 years in office to dismantle the NHS. That more needs spending is a reasonable debate but closure would be a guaranteed election loser - only 13% of adults have private health care vs Tory vote share in 2019 of 43%
sploo
Somewhat extinguished member
On that subject (the unpopularity of harming the NHS) I would point to privatisation by "stealth"; slowly breaking the NHS with underfunding, selling off services to private companies etc. It's a rot that's been going on for years.
I wouldn't have a problem with genuine hardline economic right wingers putting forward a case for their model; it definitely results in some winners so it's a valid political position. The issue is when such people deliberately mislead the public into voting for them with the deception that they're "on your side" (e.g. see the popularity of promising lower taxes).
Jacob
New Luddism. Awake and resist!
Saves taxing the rich. That's the whole idea. In fact the only idea.
The left's big problem is the wreckage they'd have to deal with. It'll take loadsa dosh and years to get NHS back up to speed, let alone the potholes.
Last edited:
Jacob
New Luddism. Awake and resist!
Bit of a dogmatic view of the left.
Yes to state ownership and control where necessary, which is what all modern states have anyway. There is no alternative and works everywhere, for better or worse.
"from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs, " sounds like a fair target? a bit idealistic perhaps.
"Equality of outcomes"
- impossible to imagine, did you make that up yourself?Would we all end up equally able to play the banjo for instance?
Wikipedia is interesting on this. Equality of outcome - Wikipedia.
Overall tax take is bound to rise as we have so much more to spend our money on, such as top class health care. I've had the benefit of new hip and new lens both free of charge. These were simply unavailable not so long a go and there have been similar improvements in many areas. Doesn't come free.
The bigger issue than overall rates is affordability of top rates. These could be much higher as there has been a very steep rise in upwards wealth distribution. It is inevitable as there is no mechanism to redistribute wealth other than tax, unless you are into theft, revolution etc.
Last edited:
There's no money left. A government minister said that once. Remember?
sploo
Somewhat extinguished member
There certainly isn't when billions have been spent on dodgy contracts for friends, and billions more get syphoned off in legal (but immoral) tax avoidance schemes.
It's not that the money isn't there, it's that it gets whisked away into nice warm tax havens.
Jacob
New Luddism. Awake and resist!
Actually it was not true and was said as a (stupid) joke. Irony doesn't always work with the simple minded, even worse if they can weaponise it!
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ter-there-is-no-money-labour-general-election
100% on the first point but it's not immoral to avoid taxes, it's perfectly good business. If they should be paying more change the tax laws.
mark w
Established Member
Yes but it was a joke, taken by the right wing press and turned into the "truth"
Last edited:
sploo
Somewhat extinguished member
Pretty much any and every business needs to move goods or services as part of their operations; requiring a functional road network (funded by taxpayers).
Staff need to travel to the business' premises (or out to customers); also requiring a functional road network (funded by taxpayers).
Factories and offices are protected from looting and damage by the police force (funded by taxpayers).
Fires will be dealt with by the fire brigade (funded by taxpayers).
Staff that become ill will be treated by the NHS (funded by taxpayers).
Many, if not most, staff will have received at least basic education in the country where they're working (funded by taxpayers).
Essentially, the very existence of a business as an entity that can function is heavily reliant on services provided by the state. When a business then abuses financial mechanisms that allow it to legally pay miniscule (or in some cases, zero) tax to the state in which they're making huge profits I absolutely, unequivocally consider that to be immoral.
It's like enjoying a meal with a group of other people, then hiding in the toilets when it comes time to split the bill. The bill still needs to be paid, so now you're forcing others to pick up a larger share of the tab - while you ate for free.
If (and I accept it's probably difficult) those legalised tax avoidance mechanisms could be closed, it would not only make for a more level playing field (because generally these mechanisms appear to only be feasible for large multinationals, not smaller local companies) it would also put - literally - billions of £ back into the tax system.
- Status
