Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2015 21:36:32 GMT
One advantage of fixed-term Parliaments is that makes direct comparisons possible between today's polls and those conducted exactly five years ago (this stage of the previous Parliament), for what they're worth.
At the equivalent stage during the last Parliament - mid October 2010, the VI figures from ComRes and the Daily Mirror were Con 40, Lab 34, LD 14, others 12 (UKIP weren't even given a specific mention at that stage).
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Oct 18, 2015 0:38:58 GMT
Between a quarter and a third prefer Corbyn/McDonnell on handling the economy. There are that many stupid people in Britain?
|
|
|
Post by thirdchill on Oct 18, 2015 8:57:06 GMT
Between a quarter and a third prefer Corbyn/McDonnell on handling the economy. There are that many stupid people in Britain? You are always going to have a mixture of labour loyalists and anti-tories (some crossover but by no means the same thing) who will always vote for preferring labour no matter what the policy is. That will account for somewhere between 20 - 25 percent. A similar number will always prefer conservative policy.
|
|
|
Post by johnsmith on Oct 18, 2015 9:41:09 GMT
Yawn. Still in the traditional government honeymoon period which may be the most significant factor for the time being. Whether that honeymoon will last much beyond the tax credit shit actually hitting the fan in terms of concrete impacts upon pockets, is doubtful. Going after those who for whatever reason are not working - and who are comparatively easily, if in many cases wholly unfairly, tarred with the brush of feckless scrounger - is one thing. But hitting the working poor, numbers of whom have been foolish enough to vote Tory, is quite another matter. This might just prove to be Osborne's biggest mistake.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,400
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Oct 18, 2015 9:49:42 GMT
Its a ComedyResults poll, anyway. No other pollster is showing their inflated Tory leads now.
|
|
|
Post by johnsmith on Oct 18, 2015 12:25:33 GMT
Whether that honeymoon will last much beyond the tax credit shit actually hitting the fan in terms of concrete impacts upon pockets, is doubtful. Going after those who for whatever reason are not working - and who are comparatively easily, if in many cases wholly unfairly, tarred with the brush of feckless scrounger - is one thing. But hitting the working poor, numbers of whom have been foolish enough to vote Tory, is quite another matter. This might just prove to be Osborne's biggest mistake. Are you one of those people who think that 'false conciousness' is the only reason why working class people might vote for a party to the right of Labour? The the conflict between Labour and parties to its right is simply an expression of the 'class struggle'? No. I merely believe that voting for a party that regularly shafts people on low incomes is rather a foolish thing to if you are on a low income. And I was saying the it may well be a political mistake for the Tories to now shaft quite so many hard-working poor people quite so spectacularly. Since they may well then be less likely to be so foolish as to vote Tory again in 2020.
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Oct 18, 2015 12:58:58 GMT
The problem is, and this is something the left of the Labour Party needs to grapple with seriously, that people on a low income probably know deep down that a Conservative government isn't going to govern in their interests and if there is any space in the economy a Conservative government will aim for tax cuts that benefit the higher earners and rich. They know that, but many still think a Conservative government would be better for the economy overall, and that's why the Question Time woman voted Conservative.
For Labour to win those votes, going on about how Labour is on the side of the low paid and the in-work poor isn't going to work. The electorate has to be persuaded that a Labour government would improve the economy generally and make Britain more productive. The present Leader and Shadow Chancellor are among the last people who are likely to be able to do that.
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Oct 18, 2015 13:39:59 GMT
Are you one of those people who think that 'false conciousness' is the only reason why working class people might vote for a party to the right of Labour? The the conflict between Labour and parties to its right is simply an expression of the 'class struggle'? No. I merely believe that voting for a party that regularly shafts people on low incomes is rather a foolish thing to if you are on a low income. And I was saying the it may well be a political mistake for the Tories to now shaft quite so many hard-working poor people quite so spectacularly. Since they may well then be less likely to be so foolish as to vote Tory again in 2020. It is entirely wrong to contend that the Conservative Party 'regularly shafts people on low incomes' because it does no such thing and has never done so in its history. It has initiated especially low tax bands to aid that sector, been more active than Labour in increasing the bar before tax is paid at all. It is the party that helps to protect the incomes of the poor from tax. However, it does less of the outright bribery with other peoples' money to encourage the poor to vote for it than Labour does. Failing to give as large bribes of other peoples' money to the poor is not 'shafting them' it is fiscal prudence and common sense. The only people 'shafted' under the British tax regime are the hard working middle classes, and higher earning blue collar and the well off. That is entirely why the Conservatives are in power now and why Labour usually has short terms in power. The restructure of tax credits is overdue. The whole idea is duff and we must get away from the idea that rents and incomes can be subsidized by other citizens who have to pay their rents and live within their incomes as well as having to fund these 'credits' as well as the massive costs of staffing the services that raise the taxes and pay out the credits. Employers must pay out more and landlords charge less.....but they have no incentive or compulsion to do so with tax credits and housing benefits are paid....and whilst mass immigration suppresses wages and adds to the housing demand. This is in effect a scam to import people to bolster the Labour vote, to subsidize the corporations wage bill, to keep rents artificially high (affecting those who also have to pay the taxes to bring it about!) and to keep a raft of public sector employees in totally unnecessary jobs to administer it all. It is a system worthy of a latter day Stalinist. Yes. There will be initial pain on the withdrawal of these bribes. If they are to work as part of the austerity cuts there must be losers or why else do it? It is quite disingenuous of the Conservatives to say it will affect nobody! Of course it will. Man up and say so and say why. By 2020 it will not be forgotten but the party will be able to point to the economic improvements, the extra apprenticeships, higher real wages, higher minimum wage, more in employment, fewer unemployed, and people genuinely better off. Then enough will be convinced to elect them again. Short term. Take the flak. That is real politics. We can't live on 'all shall have prizes and no one must suffer'. That is childish and childlike. There may well be 70-seats where people losing under these cuts outnumber the Conservative majority. So what? There is no election until 2020. And not all of them vote and most that do vote don't vote Conservative. Tough this out and learn to succeed.
|
|
cibwr
Plaid Cymru
Posts: 3,588
|
Post by cibwr on Oct 18, 2015 14:05:46 GMT
One policy Carlton spectacularly shafted lower income people, the Poll Tax.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2015 14:08:59 GMT
Its a ComedyResults poll, anyway. No other pollster is showing their inflated Tory leads now. Thats much closer to the results we would get. If you think the tories would only win by 4 points if an election were held tomorrow you are a very very optimistic man. That said - yes with Comedyresults its probably a series of errors cancelling each other out.
|
|
cibwr
Plaid Cymru
Posts: 3,588
|
Post by cibwr on Oct 18, 2015 14:12:48 GMT
|
|
|
Post by johnsmith on Oct 18, 2015 14:14:05 GMT
No. I merely believe that voting for a party that regularly shafts people on low incomes is rather a foolish thing to if you are on a low income. And I was saying the it may well be a political mistake for the Tories to now shaft quite so many hard-working poor people quite so spectacularly. Since they may well then be less likely to be so foolish as to vote Tory again in 2020. It is entirely wrong to contend that the Conservative Party 'regularly shafts people on low incomes' because it does no such thing and has never done so in its history. It has initiated especially low tax bands to aid that sector, been more active than Labour in increasing the bar before tax is paid at all. It is the party that helps to protect the incomes of the poor from tax. However, it does less of the outright bribery with other peoples' money to encourage the poor to vote for it than Labour does. Failing to give as large bribes of other peoples' money to the poor is not 'shafting them' it is fiscal prudence and common sense. The only people 'shafted' under the British tax regime are the hard working middle classes, and higher earning blue collar and the well off. That is entirely why the Conservatives are in power now and why Labour usually has short terms in power. The restructure of tax credits is overdue. The whole idea is duff and we must get away from the idea that rents and incomes can be subsidized by other citizens who have to pay their rents and live within their incomes as well as having to fund these 'credits' as well as the massive costs of staffing the services that raise the taxes and pay out the credits. Employers must pay out more and landlords charge less.....but they have no incentive or compulsion to do so with tax credits and housing benefits are paid....and whilst mass immigration suppresses wages and adds to the housing demand. This is in effect a scam to import people to bolster the Labour vote, to subsidize the corporations wage bill, to keep rents artificially high (affecting those who also have to pay the taxes to bring it about!) and to keep a raft of public sector employees in totally unnecessary jobs to administer it all. It is a system worthy of a latter day Stalinist. Yes. There will be initial pain on the withdrawal of these bribes. If they are to work as part of the austerity cuts there must be losers or why else do it? It is quite disingenuous of the Conservatives to say it will affect nobody! Of course it will. Man up and say so and say why. By 2020 it will not be forgotten but the party will be able to point to the economic improvements, the extra apprenticeships, higher real wages, higher minimum wage, more in employment, fewer unemployed, and people genuinely better off. Then enough will be convinced to elect them again. Short term. Take the flak. That is real politics. We can't live on 'all shall have prizes and no one must suffer'. That is childish and childlike. There may well be 70-seats where people losing under these cuts outnumber the Conservative majority. So what? There is no election until 2020. And not all of them vote and most that do vote don't vote Conservative. Tough this out and learn to succeed. These so-called "bribes" were actually designed to compensate for very low pay and extortionate rents and things like that - in order to make work pay. If you want to remove "bribes", why not remove them from non-working well off pensioners who don't need them, rather than hard-working poor workers who do? As for the notion that the Tories have never shafted low paid workers, that is an absolute nonsense, indeed a lie, most likely borne either of pure ignorance, or malice. Traditionally, throughout the 80s and 90s, Tory givernments increased taxes upon the poor whilst cutting them for the better off, by hiking indirect taxes whilst cutting direct ones. They also failed to raise thresholds in line with inflation at times. They also greatly reduced the local tax burden upon high earners, whilst making low paid workers pay vastly more. The latest hoists in the basic rate threshold were largely foisted upon them by the Lib Dems. But the Tories have since seen that this is great cover for cutting spending on poorer workers, as well as being popular in itself, so have continued with it. But in large measure we have the Lib Dems to thank for that. As for the notion that it is those hard-pressed and suffering affluent middle classes and high earners who are the ones being shafted, rather than the poor - well that's just laughable. None of these are facing cuts in their incomes running into thousands. And I don't see any long suffering wealthy people having to resort to food banks! And inequality is now at 1930s levels, ie the wealthy have a greater slice of the economic cake than at any time in almost living memory! Meanwhile, taking both direct and indirect taxes into account, the wealthiest ten percentile actually pay a smaller proportion of their income in tax than the poorest quarter! They also tend to be the ones massively expanding their property portfolios, then letting them out at utterly extortionate rent levels, leeching productive income out of the economy, by taking an ever greater share of working people's wages, whilst sometimes doing nothing particularly productive themselves.
So you carry on living in your parallel universe. Anyone with an ounce of understanding of what is going on out there in the real world, who has any real idea what life is like for the many struggling millions on median pay or less, can see all too clearly who is being shafted and by whom. And pretty much it is invariably the millions of working poor being shafted by the propertied elites, whom you imagine to have such a grotesquely unfair deal. Whilst you weep for the long-suffering wealthy, struggling to survive, I'll reserve my tears for those driven to food banks, or homelessness, or destitution, or suicide!
|
|
|
Post by thirdchill on Oct 18, 2015 14:23:45 GMT
Will set up a new tax credits thread to stop this thread getting too dragged down on this discussion.
|
|
|
Post by johnsmith on Oct 18, 2015 14:29:33 GMT
The problem is, and this is something the left of the Labour Party needs to grapple with seriously, that people on a low income probably know deep down that a Conservative government isn't going to govern in their interests and if there is any space in the economy a Conservative government will aim for tax cuts that benefit the higher earners and rich. They know that, but many still think a Conservative government would be better for the economy overall, and that's why the Question Time woman voted Conservative. For Labour to win those votes, going on about how Labour is on the side of the low paid and the in-work poor isn't going to work. The electorate has to be persuaded that a Labour government would improve the economy generally and make Britain more productive. The present Leader and Shadow Chancellor are among the last people who are likely to be able to do that. I was basically with you on everything you said until the last couple of sentences. Yes, Labour needs to be credible on the economy too. But it shouldn't have to buy into Tory economics to do that. We need to break out of the straight jacket of essentially Tory economic thinking. We in Labour just have to try to win the economic argument with a more positive message. What we on the left of the party will definitely not do, however, is assume that economic credibility depends upon doing nothing very much about inequality, poverty, grotesque housing costs and insecurity, or helping the struggling working poor. Ideally, Labour needs a leadership that will recognise the need for both. But none of the other three contenders fitted the bill for that, because the long forgotten problems of the struggling working poor re housing and suchlike, never really seemed high on their agenda. So those of us who believe that these things are crucial were pretty much left with Corbyn. However, should his leadership prove unsuccesful - and your wing of the party need to give him a chance - then you'll need to come up with a candidate who recognises the need to address the real concerns of millions of struggling working poor, whilst also being credible on the economy. Find that person, and we can maybe all unite behind him or her. But that person is never going to be Liz Kendall or David Miliband! But in the meantime, we should unite behind the current leadership and do all we can to sell it's economic agenda, instead of publicly sniping from the sidelines. Because in doing that, you are only helping our opponents.
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Oct 18, 2015 20:11:39 GMT
It is entirely wrong to contend that the Conservative Party 'regularly shafts people on low incomes' because it does no such thing and has never done so in its history. It has initiated especially low tax bands to aid that sector, been more active than Labour in increasing the bar before tax is paid at all. It is the party that helps to protect the incomes of the poor from tax. However, it does less of the outright bribery with other peoples' money to encourage the poor to vote for it than Labour does. Failing to give as large bribes of other peoples' money to the poor is not 'shafting them' it is fiscal prudence and common sense. The only people 'shafted' under the British tax regime are the hard working middle classes, and higher earning blue collar and the well off. That is entirely why the Conservatives are in power now and why Labour usually has short terms in power. The restructure of tax credits is overdue. The whole idea is duff and we must get away from the idea that rents and incomes can be subsidized by other citizens who have to pay their rents and live within their incomes as well as having to fund these 'credits' as well as the massive costs of staffing the services that raise the taxes and pay out the credits. Employers must pay out more and landlords charge less.....but they have no incentive or compulsion to do so with tax credits and housing benefits are paid....and whilst mass immigration suppresses wages and adds to the housing demand. This is in effect a scam to import people to bolster the Labour vote, to subsidize the corporations wage bill, to keep rents artificially high (affecting those who also have to pay the taxes to bring it about!) and to keep a raft of public sector employees in totally unnecessary jobs to administer it all. It is a system worthy of a latter day Stalinist. Yes. There will be initial pain on the withdrawal of these bribes. If they are to work as part of the austerity cuts there must be losers or why else do it? It is quite disingenuous of the Conservatives to say it will affect nobody! Of course it will. Man up and say so and say why. By 2020 it will not be forgotten but the party will be able to point to the economic improvements, the extra apprenticeships, higher real wages, higher minimum wage, more in employment, fewer unemployed, and people genuinely better off. Then enough will be convinced to elect them again. Short term. Take the flak. That is real politics. We can't live on 'all shall have prizes and no one must suffer'. That is childish and childlike. There may well be 70-seats where people losing under these cuts outnumber the Conservative majority. So what? There is no election until 2020. And not all of them vote and most that do vote don't vote Conservative. Tough this out and learn to succeed. These so-called "bribes" were actually designed to compensate for very low pay and extortionate rents and things like that - in order to make work pay. If you want to remove "bribes", why not remove them from non-working well off pensioners who don't need them, rather than hard-working poor workers who do? As for the notion that the Tories have never shafted low paid workers, that is an absolute nonsense, indeed a lie, most likely borne either of pure ignorance, or malice. Traditionally, throughout the 80s and 90s, Tory givernments increased taxes upon the poor whilst cutting them for the better off, by hiking indirect taxes whilst cutting direct ones. They also failed to raise thresholds in line with inflation at times. They also greatly reduced the local tax burden upon high earners, whilst making low paid workers pay vastly more. The latest hoists in the basic rate threshold were largely foisted upon them by the Lib Dems. But the Tories have since seen that this is great cover for cutting spending on poorer workers, as well as being popular in itself, so have continued with it. But in large measure we have the Lib Dems to thank for that. As for the notion that it is those hard-pressed and suffering affluent middle classes and high earners who are the ones being shafted, rather than the poor - well that's just laughable. None of these are facing cuts in their incomes running into thousands. And I don't see any long suffering wealthy people having to resort to food banks! And inequality is now at 1930s levels, ie the wealthy have a greater slice of the economic cake than at any time in almost living memory! Meanwhile, taking both direct and indirect taxes into account, the wealthiest ten percentile actually pay a smaller proportion of their income in tax than the poorest quarter! They also tend to be the ones massively expanding their property portfolios, then letting them out at utterly extortionate rent levels, leeching productive income out of the economy, by taking an ever greater share of working people's wages, whilst sometimes doing nothing particularly productive themselves.
So you carry on living in your parallel universe. Anyone with an ounce of understanding of what is going on out there in the real world, who has any real idea what life is like for the many struggling millions on median pay or less, can see all too clearly who is being shafted and by whom. And pretty much it is invariably the millions of working poor being shafted by the propertied elites, whom you imagine to have such a grotesquely unfair deal. Whilst you weep for the long-suffering wealthy, struggling to survive, I'll reserve my tears for those driven to food banks, or homelessness, or destitution, or suicide! Hit a raw nerve did I in my parallel universe where the right actually won the GE and you with all those features in your favour did not?
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Oct 18, 2015 20:19:12 GMT
One policy Carlton spectacularly shafted lower income people, the Poll Tax. I disagree. I was and remain a complete supporter of it. It put local services on a parity with electricity, bread and train fares. If you want it and use you pay for it. In a fully right wing environment there would be far fewer services, far few civil servants, far less cost and thus much smaller taxes, duties and community charges. It is socialists who shaft the public by doing far too much and making us all pay for it.
|
|
|
Post by johnsmith on Oct 19, 2015 12:03:22 GMT
One policy Carlton spectacularly shafted lower income people, the Poll Tax. I disagree. I was and remain a complete supporter of it. It put local services on a parity with electricity, bread and train fares. But it wasn't electricity, bread, and train fares, which people could choose to pay for or not. It was often essential services funded by local government, which people were compelled to pay by law! Which made it a tax. And it has always been a fundamental principle of fairness in this country, that taxes bear some relation to income. Any tax where the CEO of some massive company pays the same in tax as his office cleaner is totally unfair to anyone other than ignorant fools who refuse to recognise that. It destroyed Thatcher herself. And the Tories had to ditch it posthaste, or else they'd have lost the 92 election to Kinnock. But keep selling the message, brother. Keep singing the praises of that grossly unfair tax. Because in doing that, you help Labour's cause in dissuading all working class voters from abandoning us in support of your lot. So sing it loud and sing it proud, brother. You are an asset to my party with opinions like that, lol.
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Oct 19, 2015 15:48:42 GMT
I disagree. I was and remain a complete supporter of it. It put local services on a parity with electricity, bread and train fares. But it wasn't electricity, bread, and train fares, which people could choose to pay for or not. It was often essential services funded by local government, which people were compelled to pay by law! Which made it a tax. And it has always been a fundamental principle of fairness in this country, that taxes bear some relation to income. Any tax where the CEO of some massive company pays the same in tax as his office cleaner is totally unfair to anyone other than ignorant fools who refuse to recognise that. It destroyed Thatcher herself. And the Tories had to ditch it posthaste, or else they'd have lost the 92 election to Kinnock. But keep selling the message, brother. Keep singing the praises of that grossly unfair tax. Because in doing that, you help Labour's cause in dissuading all working class voters from abandoning us in support of your lot. So sing it loud and sing it proud, brother. You are an asset to my party with opinions like that, lol. Thank you. I shall consider using your endorsement on my next packet. The nature of that endorsement from you might well be a help. EDIT I just love your distinction between 'electricity and bread...which people could choose to pay for or not' and 'essential local services'. Much mirth in my household that there is a socialist out there thinking local authority services are 'essential' yet bread and electricity are not!!! That tells one all that is needed about socialism. Not so much cart before horse as stable buildings and outhouses before cart.
|
|
|
Post by johnsmith on Oct 19, 2015 16:10:24 GMT
But it wasn't electricity, bread, and train fares, which people could choose to pay for or not. It was often essential services funded by local government, which people were compelled to pay by law! Which made it a tax. And it has always been a fundamental principle of fairness in this country, that taxes bear some relation to income. Any tax where the CEO of some massive company pays the same in tax as his office cleaner is totally unfair to anyone other than ignorant fools who refuse to recognise that. It destroyed Thatcher herself. And the Tories had to ditch it posthaste, or else they'd have lost the 92 election to Kinnock. But keep selling the message, brother. Keep singing the praises of that grossly unfair tax. Because in doing that, you help Labour's cause in dissuading all working class voters from abandoning us in support of your lot. So sing it loud and sing it proud, brother. You are an asset to my party with opinions like that, lol. Thank you. I shall consider using your endorsement on my next packet. The nature of that endorsement from you might well be a help. EDIT I just love your distinction between 'electricity and bread...which people could choose to pay for or not' and 'essential local services'. Much mirth in my household that there is a socialist out there thinking local authority services are 'essential' yet bread and electricity are not!!! That tells one all that is needed about socialism. Not so much cart before horse as stable buildings and outhouses before cart. That you equate paying a tax - which is obligatory under law - with paying for goods and services - which is not - out of self-interested convenience, speaks volumes. But guess what? Most of us recognised it as bollocks at the time. Which is why Thatcher was ditched, followed in short order by the poll tax. No serious politician is going to be quite that stupid again - not even those amongst the right who have a strange concept of taxation fairness which - conveniently - takes no account of wealth levels or incomes.
|
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 15,613
|
Post by john07 on Oct 21, 2015 0:12:24 GMT
Thank you. I shall consider using your endorsement on my next packet. The nature of that endorsement from you might well be a help. EDIT I just love your distinction between 'electricity and bread...which people could choose to pay for or not' and 'essential local services'. Much mirth in my household that there is a socialist out there thinking local authority services are 'essential' yet bread and electricity are not!!! That tells one all that is needed about socialism. Not so much cart before horse as stable buildings and outhouses before cart. That you equate paying a tax - which is obligatory under law - with paying for goods and services - which is not - out of self-interested convenience, speaks volumes. But guess what? Most of us recognised it as bollocks at the time. Which is why Thatcher was ditched, followed in short order by the poll tax. No serious politician is going to be quite that stupid again - not even those amongst the right who have a strange concept of taxation fairness which - conveniently - takes no account of wealth levels or incomes. What sunk the poll tax and will sink any lunatic attempt to recreate anything similar was that it was not and was never going to be collectable. You can tax income, sales and property. You may be able to tax capital transfers and gains. You cannot tax people without an overbearing police state apparatus. This was pointed out by all the experts in local taxation before the poll tax was introduced but Thatcher, Forsyth et al refused to listen. The sensible majority in the cabinet were too craven to stand up to Thatcher. They eventually had to act and they did by removing Thatcher in time to save the 1992 election. By all accounts that nutter who just left Labour in the Lords was in favour of a NHS poll tax. Try collecting that one.
|
|