# Labour leadership



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Not long to go now until the new leader is elected (announced 12 September I believe).

Who would you like to see as the next leader of the labour party? - doesn't matter whether you are a supporter or not - still entitled to have an opinion.

The candidates in case anyone wants to read up about them

http://www.labour.org.uk/leadership/

If I were voting I would choose Jeremy Corbyn - not my style of politics and I don't agree with many of his ideas but I do admire passionate politicians who are prepared to stand up for what they believe in. It will also be refreshing to see a proper divide between the left and right instead of the wishy washy grey middle ground.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

I joined up to vote for Corbyn.
And I hope others on the political left who also said he should be Labour leader have done the same.


----------



## Muze (Nov 30, 2011)

I'd like to see Corbyn get it to provide some real opposition ..... BUT.... I don't think they will let him, somehow they will stop him, or stop him having any influence at least.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

corbyn seems like the best choice, but i dont think he has a chance of winning a general election even if he wins the labour leadership race... cos i think the vast majority of people are too stupid to see past the smear campaigns, and too selfish to support the things he _claims to be_ for. "Claims to be" being the operative phrase.. i'm not so naive as to think that any politician is capable of telling the truth, and if he ever did get into power i would fully expect him to be as greedy corrupt and self serving as every single other PM has been. Would be nice to be proved wrong, but im long past getting my hopes up for anything like that.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Got to be Corbyn the others are just clones


----------



## Arnie83 (Dec 6, 2014)

I think most people want the centre ground, where the economy is run prudently, and where people get to keep the rewards of their labour rather than giving too much of it to the government.

The right of centre, at the moment, seems to be targeting those who are on benefits, and now those who are on low pay.

I'd like to see an opposition which champions the principles of the first sentence, but who protect and support those mentioned in the second.

A Corbyn opposition would, I think do the latter, but not the former. He would move the party away from the centre, to the extent that people would not vote for them. And the Tories know that full well. It would not be any sort of alternative government, and not, therefore, a real Opposition. And the ones who will suffer as a result are the very ones Corbyn seeks to champion, since they will remain targeted for the next decade or more.

For that reason, although I am unsure who I do want as leader, it isn't Corbyn.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

I agree that if Corbyn wins it will be almost impossible for him to get fair coverage in the media and thus will face all sorts of onslaughts to put people off of voting for him.
But at this point in time, I can't see any of the other three candidates winning a general election either.

So what do you do? 
Go for the guy you agree with and hope he will stay true to his beliefs when he wins?
Or go for someone who has tried so hard to make their campaign fit everyone and not offend anyone that they have become basically a non-entity with no real political stance? And who won't win the GE anyway....

May as well think at least in terms of an effective opposition.


----------



## saffysmum (Feb 11, 2015)

If I'm honest, I would quite like to see Corbyn win it. Purely because it would be a poke in the eye to all the has-beens that are warning people NOT to vote for him.! I haven't had faith in politicians of any colour for many years, because they haven't had the strength of their convictions to stand up for what they believe in. I had little time for Maggie, because she had little time for the likes of me, but at least if she said she'd do something...heavens she did it. She had the strength of character to stand up for what she believed in.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

porps said:


> corbyn seems like the best choice, but i dont think he has a chance of winning a general election even if he wins the labour leadership race... cos i think the vast majority of people are too stupid to see past the smear campaigns, and too selfish to support the things he _claims to be_ for.


Agree with that.


porps said:


> "Claims to be" being the operative phrase.. i'm not so naive as to think that any politician is capable of telling the truth, and if he ever did get into power i would fully expect him to be as greedy corrupt and self serving as every single other PM has been. Would be nice to be proved wrong, but im long past getting my hopes up for anything like that.


Feel your cynicism on that, but really do hope he is given the chance and proves you wrong.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)




----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

He answers questions - no matter how asinine - without prevarication or obfuscation. He obviously doesn't stand a chance in our corrupt and self-serving political system - but my word! I'd like to see him give them a run for their money!


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

It's ironic really - the electorate could not have given Labour a more explicit sign that they were fed up with their watered down Tory policies in the last general election, and in Corbyn they have the breath of fresh air that the party needs. And yet the people who oppose him within the party are the people who want the party to remain the same washed out party that has no chance of winning.

I think he will win the Labur leadership and I truly hope the press will get behind him for - sadly - such is politics in our country these days that whether or not he will succesfully lead the Labour party to victory in the next elecion will depend entirely upon whether the press are behind him or against him.

For myself, I'm glad that at last there is a chance of a more left-wing, socialist party instead of Tory, New Tory (aka Labuor) and the also-rans like UKIP and the LibDems. I like Corbyn's policies and think that if the press give him a chance and get behind him, he could very well lead the Labour party to a massive victory. I mean, what' s not to like about the following:

Growth not austerity - with a national investment bank to help create tomorrow's jobs and reduce the deficit fairly. Fair taxes for all.
A lower welfare bill through investment and growth
Action on climate change
Public ownership of railways and in the energy sector
Decent homes for all in public and private sectors by 2025 through a big house-building programme and controlling rents.
A foreign policy that prioritises justice and assistance.
Fully-funded NHS, integrated with social care, with an end to privatisation in health.
Protection at work including an end to zero hours contracts
Equality for all
A life-long national education service for decent skills and opportunities, universal childcare, the abolition of student fees, restoring grants, and funding adult skills training.


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

porps said:


> corbyn seems like the best choice, but i dont think he has a chance of winning a general election even if he wins the labour leadership race... cos_ i think the vast majority of people are too stupid to see past the smear campaigns,_ and too selfish to support the things he _claims to be_ for. "Claims to be" being the operative phrase.. _i'm not so naive as to think that any politician is capable of telling the truth, and if he ever did get into power i would fully expect him to be as greedy corrupt and self serving as every single other PM has been._ Would be nice to be proved wrong, but im long past getting my hopes up for anything like that.


Contradiction?


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

I follow some comedy writers on twitter, one who was very pro labour before the election, he has wanted Jeremy before his campaign even took off, is really campaigning for him everyday on twitter, he has had his membership rejected so he cannot now vote, seems they are having a purge of the members who have signed up to vote for JC, even if they are true supporters.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

emmaviolet said:


> I follow some comedy writers on twitter, one who was very pro labour before the election, he has wanted Jeremy before his campaign even took off, is really campaigning for him everyday on twitter, he has had his membership rejected so he cannot now vote, seems they are having a purge of the members who have signed up to vote for JC, even if they are true supporters.


In one way, I understand this, as there were quite a few openly-Tory writers saying they would sign up and vote for Jeremy in the hope of ending any election chances for Labour.
But I think rejecting people on this basis was very short-sighted. As @Spellweaver said, there is a lot to like in Corbyn's campaign and, given the chance, many who didn't vote the last time around may well go and vote for a party they could actually believe in.
My problem with that is that they may not get the chance to make up their minds because the media onslaught against Corbyn will be so bad and so influential on those who actually listen to the media (and sadly that means an awful lot of people)..

Of course, I could also align with the conspiracy theorists who say that people were rejected because they were actual Corbyn supporters. And I do think there was an element of this too.
I also wonder how many were purged because they signed up for the £3 registration, rather than full membership (which I went for). either way, it was wrong to purge them.
I was accepted, so I'm happy


----------



## Arnie83 (Dec 6, 2014)

Spellweaver said:


> ... what' s not to like about the following:
> 
> Growth not austerity - with a national investment bank to help create tomorrow's jobs and reduce the deficit fairly. Fair taxes for all.
> A lower welfare bill through investment and growth
> ...


The price?


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

Arnie83 said:


> The price?


I remember a post made by @porps a while ago, with a link showing how money is 'created' within the global finance system.
It seems to me that money can be 'created' by western governments when it suits their purposes (or more precisely their backers' purposes), so I am beginning to believe that 'price' is relevant when it goes against certain aims, but irrelevant when it fits an assigned purpose.

But in normal terms....
I believe that inflicting austerity measures and restricting growth is not a great solution to any country's problems.
If you look at the German post-war system, they were stuck with imposed austerity measures, but they concentrated on the growth of home industries and dragged their country back to its feet and out of austerity.
Today that is harder as industry has changed so much, but to give up and become a country whose main industry is the service sector and whose workers are predominantly low paid with no incentives is not the way to prosperity for anyone but the super-rich.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> Growth not austerity - with a national investment bank to help create tomorrow's jobs and reduce the deficit fairly. Fair taxes for all.
> A lower welfare bill through investment and growth
> Action on climate change
> Public ownership of railways and in the energy sector
> ...


Easy to promise dreams in election campaigns.. different actually implementing them. Devil is in the details. Fair taxes for all? Fair taxes normally means stealing from those who have more to appease those who don't have as much even though they pay less. Danger is taking away money from all those who earn stupid amounts, causing them to leave the UK along with all their money as has happened before with the effect of actually losing more money than the taxes raise. Define equality? Should a doctor be paid the same as a dustman? House building is great.. where are all these houses going to be built, what about the infrastructure and things like jobs, especially where jobs do not exist at the moment. How efficient/green are these houses going to be for long term sustainability to fulfill the action on climate change heading? Foriegn policy that prioritises justice and assistance.. where does that place ISIS or even defence in general? How does that affect the relationship with America and Russia when talking about justice? Immigration obviously is a difficult issue at the moment and will be for some time.

How is he going to accomplish all this in only 1-2 terms unless he can actually produce positive results across all levels of society and actually encourage a cultural change (change from the attitude of me me me) which to me is of the most dangerous and self destructive current trait which we are all guilty of to some degree.



silvi said:


> If you look at the German post-war system, they were stuck with imposed austerity measures, but they concentrated on the growth of home industries and dragged their country back to its feet and out of austerity.


Lots of reasons for that, the major one being a general culture difference. Not simply a German/British cultural difference either although that existed and still does. World has also changed with technology, not raw industry being important. What about the EU.. leave and you lose foriegn industry investment, stay and you could find yourself restricted. Never understood why we always hear of restrictive rules being forced upon the UK when countries such as Germany don't seem to have the same problems.


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

I would like to see Corbyn win for once very simple reason - he didn't go to any of the public schools or posh universities but has worked his way up through life. Doing it the hard way like most of the working class and the leassons he has learned in life is what he has to offer. The rest of them put together do not have the knowledge of life that Corbyn has. Whether he'd be a good PM or not remains to be seen (if he gets that far) but, just for once, it would be good to see someone in politics for the right reasons, who bring fire and passion and compassion with him. Someone the public can finally believe in because he has lived the same struggles as everyone else.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

Goblin said:


> How is he going to accomplish all this in only 1-2 terms unless he can actually produce positive results across all levels of society and actually encourage a cultural change* (change from the attitude of me me me) which to me is of the most dangerous and self destructive current trait which we are all guilty of to some degree.*


Yes it is and yes we are.
And this self-destructive trait seems to have grown and been encouraged to blossom for many years.
What is good is that so many people are now realising that enough is enough and that this greed is precisely what has led us to electing the governments we have. And that those same governments have colluded to produce a society where greed, acceptance of poverty and the blaming of those worse off than ourselves is seen as acceptable.
But what, I think, is enabling this change is that more and more people are realising that this affects them too and they don't like it. In other words, turning 'me, me, me' on its head.
This will not be an immediate change, but it can occur over time.


Goblin said:


> Lots of reasons for that, the major one being a general culture difference. Not simply a German/British cultural difference either although that existed and still does. World has also changed with technology, not raw industry being important. What about the EU.. leave and you lose foriegn industry investment, stay and you could find yourself restricted. Never understood why we always hear of restrictive rules being forced upon the UK when countries such as Germany don't seem to have the same problems.


Yes, I did say that industry had changed.
I was just proposing that there are other ways to look at growth rather than the one we are being offered.


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

Goblin said:


> Define equality?


Dragging everyone down to the LCD.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

MoggyBaby said:


> I would like to see Corbyn win for once very simple reason - he didn't go to any of the public schools or posh universities but has worked his way up through life. Doing it the hard way like most of the working class and the leassons he has learned in life is what he has to offer. The rest of them put together do not have the knowledge of life that Corbyn has. Whether he'd be a good PM or not remains to be seen (if he gets that far) but, just for once, it would be good to see someone in politics for the right reasons, who bring fire and passion and compassion with him. Someone the public can finally believe in because he has lived the same struggles as everyone else.


Just want to say that some people do go to private school but still have to work their way up through life and have experience of being poor. My OH was sent to private school and left at 16 with just O'levels to his name the same as me from state school. He worked in several low paid jobs for several years (salesman, hospital porter, etc) before going to tech college aged 24 to study for the equivalent of A'levels to get on to a degree course at a polytechnic. His father believed in giving him a good start but then hands off make your own way, sink or swim. When we met he had not a bean to his name and lived off me (on a student nurse's wage) whilst studying for his degree. He was nearly 30 before he qualified.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34008878

other candidates talking of possible split in the party if Corbyn wins.


----------



## grumpy goby (Jan 18, 2012)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Just want to say that some people do go to private school but still have to work their way up through life and have experience of being poor. My OH was sent to private school and left at 16 with just O'levels to his name the same as me from state school. He worked in several low paid jobs for several years (salesman, hospital porter, etc) before going to tech college aged 24 to study for the equivalent of A'levels to get on to a degree course at a polytechnic. His father believed in giving him a good start but then hands off make your own way, sink or swim. When we met he had not a bean to his name and lived off me (on a student nurse's wage) whilst studying for his degree. He was nearly 30 before he qualified.


Agreed

My friend sends her daughter to a private school, she and her husband both work INCREDIBLY hard to do so (the wife is a colleague, the husband works all the hours under the sun and the barely see him mon-fri). They arent well off, they work incredibly hard to pay the school fees - they just felt that the school she goes to would put her in the best stead for life... I have never known a kid to be so involved in extra curricula activities to be honest... she works hard and spends her whole life doing "something". Having recently attended an women in engineering event as an ambassador as a similar school (but all girls) I can totally see why they do this - the difference in the kids and the facilities, is amazing.

She hasnt be handed anything on a plate, and likely wont be when she leaves school.. she is grounded and well rounded, and works for her good grades - her parents have taught a good ethic.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Goblin said:


> Easy to promise dreams in election campaigns.. different actually implementing them. Devil is in the details. Fair taxes for all? Fair taxes normally means stealing from those who have more to appease those who don't have as much even though they pay less.


No, fair taxes for all means those who earn most shoulder the largest burden rather than those who earn least shouldering it.



Goblin said:


> Danger is taking away money from all those who earn stupid amounts, causing them to leave the UK along with all their money as has happened before with the effect of actually losing more money than the taxes raise.


I don't actually think this will happen to any great extent; although there will always be those greedy, "me me me" people you mention further down who won't want to pay their fair share of tax.. Tax dodging happens with every style of government. Look at all the rich tax dodgers (both individuals and companies) that have come to light in the last year. As for people leaving the UK rather than pay taxes, iIf they are not paying tax on the money they have earned/made in the UK in the first place, then what's the difference if they leave the UK and take thier money with them?



Goblin said:


> Define equality? Should a doctor be paid the same as a dustman?


Equality does not mean being exactly the same as everyone else. It means being treated exactly the same as everyone else. There are many applications that could be put to Corbyn's statement of equality for lall - for example, education to degree level free for all irrespective of wealth, health care free for all irrespective of wealth to name but two. There are many. many more.



Goblin said:


> House building is great.. where are all these houses going to be built, what about the infrastructure and things like jobs, especially where jobs do not exist at the moment.


They could be built on the waste land where factories used to stand or on the vast areas of derelict housing all over the UK. As for the infrastructure, it will be an upwards spiral. Building houses initially creates jobs for builders and associated trades. More white gods will be needed, which means more will be needed to be made, which in turn creates jobs in these industries. All these jobs created means more people with more spending power buying all sorts of things, which in turn means all sorts of things need to be made, which in turn means more jobs needed to make them. More jobs means more people earning more money and spending more monery, buying things which need to be made which leads to more jobs and so on and so forth until you end up not only with enough housing, but you have also gone a good way towards tackling unemployment, which in turn means less needs to be spent on social care - and well, what do you know, the economy is turned around; the country is on its feet once more - and all without penalising the poor, the needy, the sick, or the old.



Goblin said:


> How efficient/green are these houses going to be for long term sustainability to fulfill the action on climate change heading?


It wuld be hoped that, given the man is promising action on climate change, any housing built will be "green" and efficient users of energy.



Goblin said:


> Foriegn policy that prioritises justice and assistance.. where does that place ISIS or even defence in general? How does that affect the relationship with America and Russia when talking about justice? Immigration obviously is a difficult issue at the moment and will be for some time.


I unerstand his plan is to scrap trident and use the money saved for defence. As for relationships wuth other countries, I would hope that his approach would be a lot more helpful and honest than that of the present government.



Goblin said:


> How is he going to accomplish all this in only 1-2 terms unless he can actually produce positive results across all levels of society and actually encourage a cultural change (change from the attitude of me me me) which to me is of the most dangerous and self destructive current trait which we are all guilty of to some degree.


Thatcher engineered the cultiral change *to* "me me me" during the eighties - perhaps a leader with an approach that is infininitely more egalitaian actually *can* affect a cultural change in the opposite direction. Wouldn't that be good? And if that happens, who says he will only have one or two terms in office?



MoggyBaby said:


> I would like to see Corbyn win for once very simple reason - he didn't go to any of the public schools or posh universities but has worked his way up through life. Doing it the hard way like most of the working class and the leassons he has learned in life is what he has to offer. The rest of them put together do not have the knowledge of life that Corbyn has. Whether he'd be a good PM or not remains to be seen (if he gets that far) but, just for once, it would be good to see someone in politics for the right reasons, who bring fire and passion and compassion with him. Someone the public can finally believe in because he has lived the same struggles as everyone else.


Well said!

Uh-oh - MB and SW are agreeing on politics again! Surely that is a sign that the world is going to change? Can this mean Corbyn is going to be succesful? (Goes out to look for portents such as comets and total eclipses)


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34008878
> 
> other candidates talking of possible split in the party if Corbyn wins.


I can't get my head around their thinking processes. Surely in the last general election, the electorate gave the Labour party a clear enough sign that they wanted them to change? And what do we get - three candidates who are merely promising the same old same old, and the party theatening to split if things do change. And given the contempt which the electorate showed to the administrations of Blair and Brown (albeit somewhat media-fuelled) - why do they think that they should heed warnings about change from them?


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34008878
> 
> other candidates talking of possible split in the party if Corbyn wins.


Until recently, I admired Yvette Cooper's stance (if not her right-of-centre politics), because she was standing up and saying that Labour got it right by spending more on health and welfare, rather than apologising for their 'mistakes with economic thinking' that seemed to be the standard for the GE campaign. But then she abstained on the welfare bill and now she is leading an attack on Corbyn and talking of 'opposing groups' ffs!

Do you know, it's very hard to sort out a list of 4 and put them in order, when only one of them is showing any credibility...


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34008878
> 
> other candidates talking of possible split in the party if Corbyn wins.


This kind of message from the other candidates really p1sses me off. It's s political party. She's a member of it. if she had an ounce of decency she would put the party before her own power cravings. If the membership of the party shifts left and appoints a leader consistent with their views then people like her should either get with the programme and help in whatever way they can or leave quietly with no hard feeling. The worst thing that could possibly happen is for the party to be inwardly focussed on tearing itself apart.


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

Spellweaver said:


> More white gods will be needed....


The last thing we need is more religions regardless of the ethnicity of their deities.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34008878
> 
> other candidates talking of possible split in the party if Corbyn wins.


Good, let them split.. There is literally no point in the labour party existing anymore, if all they are is red tories.. which they are. They're just proving what most people have known for years... There is NO choice in this country politics.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Satori said:


> The last thing we need is more religions regardless of the ethnicity of their deities.


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

I'm a bit worried that I saw a photo of a bloke with beard, and thought...ooh interesting :Shamefullyembarrased and then I realise it was Ed Milliband :Bag


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Just want to say that some people do go to private school but still have to work their way up through life and have experience of being poor. My OH was sent to private school and left at 16 with just O'levels to his name the same as me from state school. He worked in several low paid jobs for several years (salesman, hospital porter, etc) before going to tech college aged 24 to study for the equivalent of A'levels to get on to a degree course at a polytechnic. His father believed in giving him a good start but then hands off make your own way, sink or swim. When we met he had not a bean to his name and lived off me (on a student nurse's wage) whilst studying for his degree. He was nearly 30 before he qualified.





grumpy goby said:


> Agreed
> 
> My friend sends her daughter to a private school, she and her husband both work INCREDIBLY hard to do so (the wife is a colleague, the husband works all the hours under the sun and the barely see him mon-fri). They arent well off, they work incredibly hard to pay the school fees - they just felt that the school she goes to would put her in the best stead for life... I have never known a kid to be so involved in extra curricula activities to be honest... she works hard and spends her whole life doing "something". Having recently attended an women in engineering event as an ambassador as a similar school (but all girls) I can totally see why they do this - the difference in the kids and the facilities, is amazing.
> 
> She hasnt be handed anything on a plate, and likely wont be when she leaves school.. she is grounded and well rounded, and works for her good grades - her parents have taught a good ethic.


To clarify - I was not having a go at 'public schools'. I've been there and done that. I'm a product of both and I most certaintly didn't have any kind of silver spoon to feed off.

The point I was trying to make is that Corbyn is not one PPE Old Boys Network. His education was ordinary. His upbringing was ordinary. He knows what life is like as an ordinary man on the street.

The Labour party has stopped caring about the ordinary people. To the Tories we are encumbants. Good enough to pay tax but god forbid we ask for anything back in return for those payments! Labour currently are too close to the Tory policies. We NEED Corbyn to bring politics back to the working man. He's already stirring the pot and I suspect he'll be a clear winner in the first round.

What happens after that....?? We'll find out in the next few weeks.

But, after being dead in the water for so many years, politics in the UK has finally gotten a wee bit sexy again.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> No, fair taxes for all means those who earn most shoulder the largest burden rather than those who earn least shouldering it.


They already do. That's what tax bands are for. What you mean is take even more.. Definately close tax loopholes, they need closing but simply declaring take from the rich isn't the answer.



> As for people leaving the UK rather than pay taxes, iIf they are not paying tax on the money they have earned/made in the UK in the first place, then what's the difference if they leave the UK and take thier money with them?


About 6 billion lost per year when labour last raised taxes for the rich so the last lot left.



> Equality does not mean being exactly the same as everyone else. It means being treated exactly the same as everyone else. There are many applications that could be put to Corbyn's statement of equality for lall - for example, education to degree level free for all irrespective of wealth, health care free for all irrespective of wealth to name but two. There are many. many more.


Wonderful wish.. will not happen, those who pay will always be able to get "more". Rather than push for "equal" when it comes to things why not push for a high minimum level which is obtainable? The reason is simple.. "equal" is campaign speak to appeal to the lowest common denominator.



> They could be built on the waste land where factories used to stand or on the vast areas of derelict housing all over the UK. As for the infrastructure, it will be an upwards spiral. Building houses initially creates jobs for builders and associated trades. More white gods will be needed, which means more will be needed to be made, which in turn creates jobs in these industries. All these jobs created means more people with more spending power buying all sorts of things, which in turn means all sorts of things need to be made, which in turn means more jobs needed to make them. More jobs means more people earning more money and spending more monery, buying things which need to be made which leads to more jobs and so on and so forth until you end up not only with enough housing, but you have also gone a good way towards tackling unemployment, which in turn means less needs to be spent on social care - and well, what do you know, the economy is turned around; the country is on its feet once more - and all without penalising the poor, the needy, the sick, or the old.


So low cost housing on old waste land or areas which nobody currently wants or uses, I would guess using grants (from high taxes on the rich presumably) which will only serve to create areas divided according to "social status". You create an economy based on building which grows until suddenly, they are not needed anymore and the economy tanks with loads of workers whose skills are no longer needed.. You've also taxed and persecuted those people prepared to invest in this out of the country to begin with.



> It wuld be hoped that, given the man is promising action on climate change, any housing built will be "green" and efficient users of energy.


Hope... not details. How will this be enforced?



> I unerstand his plan is to scrap trident and use the money saved for defence. As for relationships wuth other countries, I would hope that his approach would be a lot more helpful and honest than that of the present government.


Once again.. no details simply great campaign promises. Reality stinks when using words like justice and fair unless everyone else is implementing policies based on the same.



> Thatcher engineered the cultiral change *to* "me me me" during the eighties - perhaps a leader with an approach that is infininitely more egalitaian actually *can* affect a cultural change in the opposite direction. Wouldn't that be good? And if that happens, who says he will only have one or two terms in office?


When he can't deliver what is promised due to reality, what do you expect to happen? People continue to vote for him?

Thatcher didn't create the "me me me" culture. You only need to look at the rise of "me me me" it in other countries unrelated to Thatcher. Capitalism/greed and jealousy is the cause but then that's human kind for you isn't it? We had a period after the WWII where difficulties forced people to work together. Before that tell me you didn't have those that had and those that didn't? Media is also a driving force telling us we need the latest iphone, nike shoes or whatever. Is a egalitarian leader actually going to dismantle and replace capitalism and restrict media?


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

I'm all for Jeremy Corbyn getting leadership as the rest don't seem to have any "presence" for want of a better word. I'm not going to accept promises which aren't based in reality however. Can't help but think of Obama and how he has been blocked on health, gun control and several other issues

I'm also afraid of a see-saw effect as first one party gets in, then the other, each spending years trying to counter the previous party's policies and wasting money which could be used constructively. Then again, doesn't affect me directky anyway. If necessary I can always pull family out here so long as the UK stays in the EU


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

If anyone missed the Newsnight interview with Pete Sinclair and Ben Bradshaw that was just aired, it's worth watching on catch-up. Bradshaw, the squirming little weasel, is lying so blatantly that he can't even look Sinclair in the eye. The labour executive is doing everything they can to rig this election against Corbyn. I hope Corbyn wins and fires the lot of them.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Goblin said:


> they need closing but simply declaring take from the rich isn't the answer.


Neither Corbyn nor anyone else has proposed over-taxing the rich. Corbyn has proposed fair taxation for all. Thinking that means "take from the rich" is merely your take on it.



Goblin said:


> About 6 billion lost per year when labour last raised taxes for the rich so the last lot left.


But when that's compared to savings of over 22 billion a year in tax avoidance, the equation is a no-brainer.



Goblin said:


> Wonderful wish.. will not happen, those who pay will always be able to get "more". Rather than push for "equal" when it comes to things why not push for a high minimum level which is obtainable? The reason is simple.. "equal" is campaign speak to appeal to the lowest common denominator.


Again, merely your take on it. (except for the LCD bit which Sartori said first) Equality for all is indeed a wonderful wish, and any politician purporting it is worthy of support, not ridicule.



Goblin said:


> So low cost housing on old waste land or areas which nobody currently wants or uses, I would guess using grants (from high taxes on the rich presumably) which will only serve to create areas divided according to "social status".


Again, merely your take on it. Why would it be that way? Look at Docklands - a prime example of using old waste land to build housing and boost the economy. That doesn't seem to fit into the doom and glom you envisage, does it?



Goblin said:


> You create an economy based on building which grows until suddenly, they are not needed anymore and the economy tanks with loads of workers whose skills are no longer needed..


But the economy will have spiralled so that there will be other jobs. History has proved this with Roosevelt's New Deal, which revived the american economy with something very similar, except roads were built to start it all off rather than housing.



Goblin said:


> You've also taxed and persecuted those people prepared to invest in this out of the country to begin with.


Not if everyone is taxed fairly. (Remember, "taxing fairly" equalling "overtaxing the rich" is merely a figment of your imagination.)



Goblin said:


> Thatcher didn't create the "me me me" culture. You only need to look at the rise of "me me me" it in other countries unrelated to Thatcher. Capitalism/greed and jealousy is the cause but then that's human kind for you isn't it?


And who has been the biggest proponent of capitalism and greed in the world? Yep, Thatcher. Her "me me me" culture is the worst thing to have happened to our country since the second world war.



Goblin said:


> We had a period after the WWII where difficulties forced people to work together. Before that tell me you didn't have those that had and those that didn't?


There have always been those twho have and those who have not. The difference is the way the former treat the latter. Since Thatcher, "those who have not" have become second and even third class citizens until now they are not even looked upon as people by the present government, but merely as statistics - and inconvenient statistics at that.



Goblin said:


> Media is also a driving force telling us we need the latest iphone, nike shoes or whatever. Is a egalitarian leader actually going to dismantle and replace capitalism and restrict media?


Would that they could. I'm all for freedom of speech, but there must be some line able to be drawn between prevenitng the media telling lies about something and allowing the media to reporti things truthfully and honestly.


----------



## Jobeth (May 23, 2010)

MoggyBaby said:


> I would like to see Corbyn win for once very simple reason - he didn't go to any of the public schools or posh universities but has worked his way up through life..


I would imagine he didn't go to a 'posh' university because he left his grammar school with two A levels at grade E. His brother though got a First at Imperial College London and went on to study astrophysics. Therefore, I don't think his upbringing is anything to do with it.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> Neither Corbyn nor anyone else has proposed over-taxing the rich. Corbyn has proposed fair taxation for all. Thinking that means "take from the rich" is merely your take on it.


So define it and provide details then rather than simply meaningless feel good words. The most common call is we need to tax the rich after all. How will all the money be raised, be "fair" and spent in the amount of time it takes for someone to be reelected and manage to achieve things positive so people do not resent a heavier tax burden?



> But when that's compared to savings of over 22 billion a year in tax avoidance, the equation is a no-brainer.


6 billion direct tax on people, how much investment? How much economy generated? Taxing the rich past a certain point doesn't work. Oh that's right, nobody when they say "fair tax" means the rich.



> Again, merely your take on it. (except for the LCD bit which Sartori said first) Equality for all is indeed a wonderful wish, and any politician purporting it is worthy of support, not ridicule.


Not ridulculing it, just the word means little without definition, although it is great for marketing and campaigning. I've seen Star Trek.



> Again, merely your take on it. Why would it be that way? Look at Docklands - a prime example of using old waste land to build housing and boost the economy. That doesn't seem to fit into the doom and glom you envisage, does it?


Prime riverside property, affordable by all "classes", I see your point, an excellent example.



> But the economy will have spiralled so that there will be other jobs. History has proved this with Roosevelt's New Deal, which revived the american economy with something very similar, except roads were built to start it all off rather than housing.


Perhaps the more recent example of the Ireland property boom is more relevent with the world markets and situation rather than history where the world market was totally different.



> Not if everyone is taxed fairly. (Remember, "taxing fairly" equalling "overtaxing the rich" is merely a figment of your imagination.)


So define that key phrase "fairly". It can be done, Norway etc has a high standard of living but at the same time, high taxes. Be let's not live in fantasy land, anyone who raises taxes will not stay in power long enough to achieve anything worthwhile. So the alternative to raising taxes is to spend what doesn't exist. We then get a major see-saw effect between the different parties being in power and nothing is achieved in the long term.



> And who has been the biggest proponent of capitalism and greed in the world? Yep, Thatcher. Her "me me me" culture is the worst thing to have happened to our country since the second world war.


That's your take not necessarily reality.



> There have always been those twho have and those who have not. The difference is the way the former treat the latter. Since Thatcher, "those who have not" have become second and even third class citizens until now they are not even looked upon as people by the present government, but merely as statistics - and inconvenient statistics at that.


Erm.. maybe you really should look at history and how the "rich" treated the poor. It's not right but again fantasy to say you can simply wave a wand and make it go away.


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

It's a rigged election, isn't it? Lots of stories doing the rounds about Corbyn's backers being denied the chance to vote despite being lifelong Labour supporters. Seems to be much easier if you plan to vote for one of the other three.



rottiepointerhouse said:


> Just want to say that some people do go to private school but still have to work their way up through life and have experience of being poor.


Another here. I had a state primary and private secondary education. The private education was a scholarship and my parents didn't pay. They wouldn't have been able to; we had no money growing up.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

I voted for Jeremy in the poll. Honest, compassionate people are increasingly rare in the world of politics. Because he refuses to compromise his principles he has defied the party whip hundreds of times. But this is why I don't think the establishment will allow him to win, they are pulling out all the stops to ensure one of the right wingers win. The media propaganda machine rolled into action against him just as it did against the 'yes' campaign for Scottish independence & as it did against Miliband in the election. And now new labour are purging the party of potential Corbyn voters:Wideyed. If the establishment gets away with this as well, I know for certain, democracy is well & truly dead.

These sum up why I would vote Jezza if I had a vote - he cares about the environmental issues & animals too, hes an all round good guy.


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

Jobeth said:


> I would imagine he didn't go to a 'posh' university because he left his grammar school with two A levels at grade E. His brother though got a First at Imperial College London and went on to study astrophysics. Therefore, I don't think his upbringing is anything to do with it.


I didn't say anything about his upbringing - I said he'd worked his way up.

I always have more respect for managers who have started at the bottom and worked through the ranks to reach their elevated position. They lead with experience and knowledge. Unlike the managers who get the job because they have a bit of paper which states they know HOW to do the job, not that they CAN do the job. And this is why our politics are a crock of sh!t at the moment - the majority of todays MP's are products of Maggie's big push towards further education and university degrees. They have all sat in their lecture halls learning the same stuff and this has narrowed their minds - not expanded them. There are not enough MP's who by-passed further education and went out into the big bad world and worked their way through the ranks. We need more of their sort in the House to ensure the country doesn't lose out because those who 'think' they know best actually know jack sh!t!!!


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

MoggyBaby said:


> I didn't say anything about his upbringing - I said he'd worked his way up.
> 
> I always have more respect for managers who have started at the bottom and worked through the ranks to reach their elevated position. They lead with experience and knowledge. Unlike the managers who get the job because they have a bit of paper which states they know HOW to do the job, not that they CAN do the job. And this is why our politics are a crock of sh!t at the moment - the majority of todays MP's are products of Maggie's big push towards further education and university degrees. They have all sat in their lecture halls learning the same stuff and this has narrowed their minds - not expanded them. There are not enough MP's who by-passed further education and went out into the big bad world and worked their way through the ranks. We need more of their sort in the House to ensure the country doesn't lose out because those who 'think' they know best actually know jack sh!t!!!


Interested in how you think he has "worked his way up MoggyBaby"? What real, get your hands dirty job has he done - a union rep?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33624145


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

DoodlesRule said:


> Interested in how you think he has "worked his way up MoggyBaby"? What real, get your hands dirty job has he done - a union rep?
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33624145


I'd rather that than some bloke who wanders out of uni, finds a cushty wee desk job and has zero input with ordinary people. He gets a few 'directorships' and then someone suggests he should consider becomming an MP 'as it would look good on your cv'!

Gimme someone who is an MP because they have a desire & passion to be one and to make changes that benefit all, not because it gives them a power kick and another leg up the corporate ladder, any day of the week!


----------



## Jobeth (May 23, 2010)

He didn't 'by pass' further education though by choice. Later on he tried to go to a polytechnic and also didn't manage to continue. His brother attended the same grammar school (he didn't even go to a comprehensive) and did go to an extremely good university.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Jobeth said:


> He didn't 'by pass' further education though by choice. Later on he tried to go to a polytechnic and also didn't manage to continue. His brother attended the same grammar school (he didn't even go to a comprehensive) and did go to an extremely good university.


 So basically he was too thick so went into politics instead !?


----------



## Jobeth (May 23, 2010)

I believe in the view there are different types of intelligences. He just doesn't have academic ability and that wouldn't be my main reason for choosing a candidate. If universities were about churning out the masses to think the same they did a terrible job with his brother!!


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

DoodlesRule said:


> So basically he was too thick so went into politics instead !?


There are many reasons why people do not do that well going the standard academic route. Being 'thick' is often last on the list.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

Shoshannah said:


> It's a rigged election, isn't it? Lots of stories doing the rounds about Corbyn's backers being denied the chance to vote despite being lifelong Labour supporters. Seems to be much easier if you plan to vote for one of the other three.


I am now getting very suspicious....
This morning we have Burnham saying that 'there is something wrong' with the voting system and last night on social media there were hundreds of labour supporters saying they had been rejected.
So we are getting complaints from both sides....

One could say "Why doesn't Burnham keep quiet? Surely this helps him?" But I really don't think it's that simple or that Burnham is being that generous....
If this voting system is proved not to be as robust as first thought, then it can be challenged, and it could lead to the whole election result being overruled.... 
Is the way being made open for this to happen if there is a Corbyn victory?

And the media is taking up the whole 'rigging?' campaign with relish.....

There's something fishy going on here...hope Corbyn gets a big enough victory to beat this.


----------



## CRL (Jan 3, 2012)

http://www.channel4.com/news/labour-supporters-purged-from-leadership-vote


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

silvi said:


> I am now getting very suspicious....
> This morning we have Burnham saying that 'there is something wrong' with the voting system and last night on social media there were hundreds of labour supporters saying they had been rejected.
> So we are getting complaints from both sides....
> 
> ...


I've heard interviews from a few people now who have supported labour all of their adult lives but are being rejected. Not because they are members of the Tory party, or of any party for that matter, but because they stated a doorstep intention to vote Green in the GE this year.

These people are obviously aligned with the broad aims of the Labour Party. They are as far from right wing subversives as one might meet. They just felt that the party was drifting towards the Tories and considered voting Green or did actually vote Green this year.

They are the people that Labour should welcome with open arms but logically people who considered Green are likely to support Corbyn so they have been rejected for that reason. To my conscience that's just cheating.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33849773

An attempt to explain their vetting procedure.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Jobeth said:


> I believe in the view there are different types of intelligences.


Exactly. We live in a society that rewards the ability to remember and repeat, parrot fashion - the ability to pass tests- but not the ability to actually think.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

Satori said:


> I've heard interviews from a few people now who have supported labour all of their adult lives but are being rejected. Not because they are members of the Tory party, or of any party for that matter, but because they stated a doorstep intention to vote Green in the GE this year.
> 
> These people are obviously aligned with the broad aims of the Labour Party. They are as far from right wing subversives as one might meet. They just felt that the party was drifting towards the Tories and considered voting Green or did actually vote Green this year.
> 
> They are the people that Labour should welcome with open arms but logically people who considered Green are likely to support Corbyn so they have been rejected for that reason. To my conscience that's just cheating.


Sadly, it appears that the broad aims of the Labour party appear to be interpreted differently by those doing the vetting than by a vast number of Labour supporters.

I have just found out that one of my colleagues was rejected because he actually voted Green last time around. The first time ever, as he had always been a staunch Labour supporter but felt that the greens actually had more 'Labour ideas' in their manifesto than Labour did. He wants to help Labour get back to power, but is being seen as not having views aligned with the Labour Party.

This is not doing the Labour Party any good at all, especially if Corbyn loses due to a lack of Corbyn supporters being able to vote.


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

I voted for Corbyn, he is the only one that talks common sense, he seems to know what most people really want. 

He is, what you see is what you get.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

When I began to hear that people were being rejected after they had cast their votes, I was hoping that was wrong, but it appears that isn't the case and that they will have a team checking all voters right up until the actual count.
Now I'm wondering if my votes will be rejected even though they are above board.... 
Don't want to say that the system stinks, otherwise that's putting the ball into the court of those who want to stop the election and bring in new rules to prevent Corbyn standing or getting enough votes.
But I guess we will see.....


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

silvi said:


> I have just found out that one of my colleagues was rejected because he actually voted Green last time around. The first time ever, as he had always been a staunch Labour supporter but felt that the greens actually had more 'Labour ideas' in their manifesto than Labour did. He wants to help Labour get back to power, but is being seen as not having views aligned with the Labour Party.


So, let me get this straight: Labour are responding to their own paid up supporters NOT voting for them in a General Election by banning them from taking part in the internal leadership election where they could vote for someone they WOULD back in a General Election.

Yes, I can see how that makes _PERFECT_ sense... 

(and here endeth the sarcasm)


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Here is the list of members banned from voting in the purge lol


----------



## Arnie83 (Dec 6, 2014)

The problem I have with Corbyn is that at the moment he is a bit like UKIP - or a mirror image of them, perhaps - in that he is offering things that seem very good on the surface but ignoring the reality which stops them being implemented.

E.g. the NHS being a completely publicly funded organisation including care in old age. It sounds great, but even now it isn't feasible. and with an ever-increasing age profile of the population it becomes even less feasible with every passing year.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Arnie83 said:


> The problem I have with Corbyn is that at the moment he is a bit like UKIP - or a mirror image of them, perhaps - in that he is offering things that seem very good on the surface but ignoring the reality which stops them being implemented.
> 
> E.g. the NHS being a completely publicly funded organisation including care in old age. It sounds great, *but even now it isn't feasible. and with an ever-increasing age profile of the population it becomes even less feasible with every passing year*.


It is perfectly feasible if tackled properly. We all have to bite the bullet and realise that if we want an NHS, then we have to fund it. And if we have to fund it, then we have to pay more tax or national insurance. And that tax or national insurance HAS to go towards the NHS, and not into giving the wealthiest people in the nation another tax cut as the present government is wont to do. Perhaps this is part of what Corbyn means by fair taxes for all?


----------



## Arnie83 (Dec 6, 2014)

Spellweaver said:


> It is perfectly feasible if tackled properly. We all have to bite the bullet and realise that if we want an NHS, then we have to fund it. And if we have to fund it, then we have to pay more tax or national insurance. And that tax or national insurance HAS to go towards the NHS, and not into giving the wealthiest people in the nation another tax cut as the present government is wont to do. Perhaps this is part of what Corbyn means by fair taxes for all?


I just wonder how much taxes would need to rise to cover the social care that Corbyn wants to include in the fully funded NHS. No doubt the Tories and right wing press would exaggerate the figure, but it is expensive now - which is partly why the £72,000 cap has been postponed to 2020 - and will only increase in cost as the population ages. I would like to see it happen, but I'm not as sure as you that it is 'perfectly feasible'.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Arnie83 said:


> I just wonder how much taxes would need to rise to cover the social care that Corbyn wants to include in the fully funded NHS. No doubt the Tories and right wing press would exaggerate the figure, but it is expensive now - which is partly why the £72,000 cap has been postponed to 2020 - and will only increase in cost as the population ages. I would like to see it happen, but I'm not as sure as you that it is 'perfectly feasible'.


Despite all the hype from the Tories, this country is not poor. Where the money is spent is all a matter of the priorities of the governement of he day. For example, in the last budget Osborne announced a 6.5 billion tax cut for big businesses. A Corbyn government might have chosen instead to spend that on the NHS. To put that into perspective, that would have paid for an extra 282,609 nurses instead of lining the pockets of rich businessmen. Another example - this government allows businesses and the rich to get away with 22 billion a year in tax avoidance. A Corbyn government might close all the loopholes and that would go a hell of a way to pay for decent social care. That's just two examples of how things can be paid for - and that's before even considering increasing taxes.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Trouble with increasing taxes is its a big disincentive to work. We've paid high rate tax for years but as we've got older we resent it more and more so now we do everything in our power to avoid earning enough to put us in that bracket. We have a 2nd home (a bungalow for us to retire to) which we had intended to let but the rental would have put us back in higher rate tax so we don't, we have kept it for our own use for occasional weekends and holidays. We work very long hours running our own business and have struggled during the recession same as everyone else. We do need rich businessmen and women and business in general to want to work here otherwise we won't have the taxes to pay the nurses. Also how do we know he (Corbyn) would have spent that extra money on nurses and not gone over board on building loads of new hospitals we can't afford or paying for yet more managers to implement yet more targets?


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Also how do we know he (Corbyn) would have spent that extra money on nurses and not gone over board on building loads of new hospitals we can't afford or paying for yet more managers to implement yet more targets?


Because he actually talks to health workers about the NHS, rather than relying on reports made by others?


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Trouble with increasing taxes is its a big disincentive to work. We've paid high rate tax for years but as we've got older we resent it more and more so now we do everything in our power to avoid earning enough to put us in that bracket. We have a 2nd home (a bungalow for us to retire to) which we had intended to let but the rental would have put us back in higher rate tax so we don't, we have kept it for our own use for occasional weekends and holidays. We work very long hours running our own business and have struggled during the recession same as everyone else. We do need rich businessmen and women and business in general to want to work here otherwise we won't have the taxes to pay the nurses. Also how do we know he (Corbyn) would have spent that extra money on nurses and not gone over board on building loads of new hospitals we can't afford or paying for yet more managers to implement yet more targets?


Never been in the position of paying higher rate tax, but I agree with you. When people complain that tax cuts for the rich are unfair, they fail to grasp the concept that the rich are taxed at a higher rate, so proportionally pay a higher percentage of their earnings. That is what is unfair.

If someone earns 10 x more salary than someone else (after tax free allowance) and they pay 10 x more tax, they are already putting 10 x more into the "pot" - and probably taking out less as they will often have private health and dental treatment.

To keep the maths simple use close but wrong figures ( just for ease of quick maths), say first £10K is tax free, up to £40k is then 25%, 40% tax after that ( leaving out National insurance, just income tax). Someone who earns £10,000 would pay zero tax, someone who earns £20K would pay 25% of £10k, i.e. £2,500, and someone earning £100K would pay 25% of £30k (i.e.£7,500) plus 40% of £60K (i.e. £24,000).

So £10k earner pays £0
£20K earner pays £2,500
£100K earner pays £31,500

Comparing the £20k and £100k earners, earning 5 x more salary results in paying 12.6 x more tax!

Now someone explain how cutting the higher earner's tax bill to be in line (percentagewise) with the lower earner's is unfair? If the £100k earner paid 25% tax on everything over £10k, they would still be paying £22,500 in tax, or 9 x more tax than the person on £20k. It is still weighted against the higher earner ( 5 x more salary paying 9 X more tax).


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

silvi said:


> Because he actually talks to health workers about the NHS, rather than relying on reports made by others?


I'm sure he does now Silvi when he has no power but what makes you all so sure if he became PM he would still have the time or the inclination to go around listening to the long list of wants that NHS staff have?


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> I'm sure he does now Silvi when he has no power but what makes you all so sure if he became PM he would still have the time or the inclination to go around listening to the long list of wants that NHS staff have?


I understand your skepticism, having seen Cameron and Osborne doing the 'trip around the factory to talk to the workers' media spot.
But as Corbyn has already listened and continues to listen, I would say he is some way there already, plus, he is proposing a new way of government where people are listened to (after all, isn't that one of the reasons he is so successful?) and his proposals are already well-structured, so it's not as if he and his government would be coming in with no plans. 
I am certainly willing to give him the chance. After all, what's the alternative?


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

'Why Corbyn is so popular' I think this is a brilliant analysis by Frank Cottrell Boyce.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

imagine how much extra money there would be if we stopped wasting it on a perpetually failing war on drugs and instead legalised them and started taxing them... but no, theres no way to find any more money from anywhere for the nhs is there? well, not without sacrificing personal profits for the filthy corrupt scum that runs the country and keeps the cartels in business anyway


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

porps said:


> imagine how much extra money there would be if we stopped wasting it on a perpetually failing war on drugs and instead legalised them and started taxing them... but no, theres no way to find any more money from anywhere for the nhs is there? well, not without sacrificing personal profits for the filthy corrupt scum that runs the country anyway


The NHS couldn't afford to have any more drug addicts falling into their care. You'd have to tax at such a high rate for legal, taxed drugs, to cover the costs to both the addict and society, that drugs related crime now would look like nothing! Do you honestly think encouraging more drug addiction is the answer to the NHS's problems? Or maybe a better idea is to just provide as many drugs as people want for free, in a fully secure area, and let natural selection do it's thing. Only a drug user would suggest stopping the war on drugs was a sensible route to go down. Maybe we could save money spent on prisons by not having police or a prosecution service? That might work!


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Catharinem said:


> The NHS couldn't afford to have any more drug addicts falling into their care. You'd have to tax at such a high rate for legal, taxed drugs, to cover the costs to both the addict and society, that drugs related crime now would look like nothing! Do you honestly think encouraging more drug addiction is the answer to the NHS's problems? Or maybe a better idea is to just provide as many drugs as people want for free, in a fully secure area, and let natural selection do it's thing. Only a drug user would suggest stopping the war on drugs was a sensible route to go down. Maybe we could save money spent on prisons by not having police or a prosecution service? That might work!


educate yourself


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

porps said:


> educate yourself


Come off drugs!


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)




----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

Catharinem said:


> The NHS couldn't afford to have any more drug addicts falling into their care. You'd have to tax at such a high rate for legal, taxed drugs, to cover the costs to both the addict and society, that drugs related crime now would look like nothing! Do you honestly think encouraging more drug addiction is the answer to the NHS's problems? Or maybe a better idea is to just provide as many drugs as people want for free, in a fully secure area, and let natural selection do it's thing. Only a drug user would suggest stopping the war on drugs was a sensible route to go down. Maybe we could save money spent on prisons by not having police or a prosecution service? That might work!


It doesn't take a drug user to see that the war on drugs isn't working.


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

silvi said:


> It doesn't take a drug user to see that the war on drugs isn't working.


Making drugs legal won't stop people putting them into their bodies, and then expecting the NHS to sort it out. We have enough problems with alcoholism, do we really want more of the same?


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

Catharinem said:


> Making drugs legal won't stop people putting them into their bodies, and then expecting the NHS to sort it out. We have enough problems with alcoholism, do we really want more of the same?


And accusing people of taking drugs just because they say that the war on drugs isn't working is hardly going to help us find the answer to the problem.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Catharinem said:


> *Making drugs legal won't stop people putting them into their bodies, *and then expecting the NHS to sort it out. We have enough problems with alcoholism, do we really want more of the same?


Again that wasn't what Porps was saying. I can't believe you are missing the point 

It won't stop people putting them in their bodies and the NHS is already picking up the tab, so if you tax drugs then at least the drug users are paying some toward their own care


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

silvi said:


> And accusing people of taking drugs just because they say that the war on drugs isn't working is hardly going to help us find the answer to the problem.


 I only know of Porps' drug taking from what he himself has posted - he's been quite proud of it in fact.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

PS. I don't take drugs and have never even tried cannabis


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

rona said:


> Again that wasn't what Porps was saying. I can't believe you are missing the point
> 
> It won't stop people putting them in their bodies and the NHS is already picking up the tab, so if you tax drugs then at least the drug users are paying some toward their own care


 If you voluntarily take drugs, then you should be paying _all _the costs of your own care, and with the cost so high, the price of drugs would have to rocket so much that the addicts would be hard pressed to find the money. You think drug related crime is a problem now, you've not seen anything yet.

By legalising drugs you are making drug taking acceptable. If even one extra person becomes a drug addict because they didn't know they were doing anything wrong when they started experimenting for the first time, then that is one too many.

Drug addicts are already so far enslaved that they don't care about the law, but hopefully law abiding citizens won't start drug taking as long as they are illegal.


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

rona said:


> PS. I don't take drugs and have never even tried cannabis


 Ditto,unless you count eating a funny tasting chocolate cupcake at uni! Tasted a bit weird, but put it down to students being bad cooks.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

Catharinem said:


> I only know of Porps' drug taking from what he himself has posted - he's been quite proud of it in fact.


But in your effort to answer Porp's quite relevant post, you managed to accuse anyone else who agrees with his suggestion, or at least considers it, of being a drug user.
I think he has a point. Does that make me a drug user too?


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Catharinem said:


> If you voluntarily take drugs, then you should be paying _all _the costs of your own care, and with the cost so high, the price of drugs would have to rocket so much that the addicts would be hard pressed to find the money. You think drug related crime is a problem now, you've not seen anything yet.
> 
> By legalising drugs you are making drug taking acceptable. If even one extra person becomes a drug addict because they didn't know they were doing anything wrong when they started experimenting for the first time, then that is one too many.
> 
> Drug addicts are already so far enslaved that they don't care about the law, but hopefully law abiding citizens won't start drug taking as long as they are illegal.


There's many drugs which are actually encouraged and we pick up the tab for those by the hundred thousand pound every single weekend.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

Catharinem said:


> Drug addicts are already so far enslaved that they don't care about the law, but hopefully law abiding citizens won't start drug taking as long as they are illegal.


What about some cancer sufferers, or those with MS, who say that cannabis helps them?


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

rona said:


> Again that wasn't what Porps was saying. I can't believe you are missing the point
> 
> It won't stop people putting them in their bodies and the NHS is already picking up the tab, so if you tax drugs then at least the drug users are paying some toward their own care


Not to mention the money saved on policing and incarceration... i mean theres examples of how this kinda thing would work or not work... portugal.. colarado (and many other US states now).. The evidence is out there. It's proven to be econimically profitable (not just less costly then a drug war - profitable). It's proven to reduce harm. It's proven to create jobs. addiction and death rates go down. related crime and organised crime is reduced. but those things are clearly not important to some people. Some people only want solutions which dont challenge their brainwashing and wont entail them educating themselves in any way.

and for those people - we have memes, to save ourselves from having to waste our lives trying to educate people who wish to remain ignorant.


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

silvi said:


> What about some cancer sufferers, or those with MS, who say that cannabis helps them?


 Drugs trials? Purification? Isolation of active ingredients? Disclosure on employment forms? Yes, I can hear the howls of protest, but non-disclosure of dizziness in a driving job has led to tragedy (crashed bin lorry). Disclosure of a medical condition/prescription ( if active ingredient approved for use in MS/certain cancers) should be no more problematic than disclosure of, say, epilepsy.

I really do think we should try and separate out those who have genuine medical conditions who would be willing to participate in peer reviewed drugs trials from those who want to get a quick "high" and sod the cost to themselves or society. Every time the war on drugs comes up, someone tries to claim cannabis is "medicinal". It's only 1 illegal drug amongst many, and I don't have a problem with proper, peer reviewed, scientific studies. However, even if it is proven to be effective for certain patients, that doesn't mean everybody should be rushing out to get it - most people would regard the mind altering "side effects" a bad thing.


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

porps said:


> _Not to mention the money saved on policing and incarceration..._ i mean theres examples of how this kinda thing would work or not work... portugal.. colarado (and many other US states now).. The evidence is out there. It's proven to be econimically profitable (not just less costly then a drug war - profitable). It's proven to reduce harm. It's proven to create jobs. but those things are clearly not important to some people. Some people only want solutions which dont challenge their brainwashing and wont entail them educating themselves in any way.
> 
> and for those people - we have memes, to save ourselves from having to waste our lives trying to educate people who wish to remain ignorant.


Yes, I covered saving prison costs by not having police or a prosecution service. The difference is that I was being ironic, and you really think that's a good idea.


----------



## Guest (Aug 22, 2015)

Catharinem said:


> By legalising drugs you are making drug taking acceptable. If even one extra person becomes a drug addict because they didn't know they were doing anything wrong when they started experimenting for the first time, then that is one too many.


Drug use is already acceptable, as long as it is a big pharmaceutical drug approved by government agencies 

There is a LOT of misinformation out there about drugs. 
Did you know that during the Vietnam war, a very large portion of the enlisted men were heavy heroin users. Most of them quit cold turkey when they returned, never to use again. This is well documented and flies in the face of the party line about heroin being so addictive. We're fed a lot of crap when it comes to drugs.

The truth is, most drug legalization or lack of legalization has nothing to do with how safe or addictive that drug is and much more to do with things like race, culture, and keeping people "in their place". Marijuana became illegal in the US when it was associated with Mexican immigrants. Heroin, same thing, only Chinese and other Asian immigrants. Cocaine used to be legal as well, and was a common remedy for tooth pain and in all sorts of tonics and cough syrups. There are all sorts of poisons and toxins floating around in our lives that are not regulated, but drugs like Marijuana that can actually help people, are shunned. Makes absolutely no sense.

Oh and before you go assuming, I don't use drugs, never have, I don't even drink alcohol, and this past year have also weaned myself off of coffee. Geez... at this rate I don't know why I bother getting up in the morning!


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Catharinem said:


> Yes, I covered saving prison costs by not having police or a prosecution service. The difference is that I was being ironic, and you really think that's a good idea.


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

There is such a world of difference between taking medicinal drugs to treat disease and recreational drugs to get high. I'm all for proper drug trials, never said I wasn't, but sometimes the side effects of drugs outweigh the benefits - it was you posting about the death of the lady credited with keeping thalidomide out of the US wasn't it Ouesi?


----------



## Guest (Aug 22, 2015)

Catharinem said:


> There is such a world of difference between taking medicinal drugs to treat disease and recreational drugs to get high. I'm all for proper drug trials, never said I wasn't, but sometimes the side effects of drugs outweigh the benefits - it was you posting about the death of the lady credited with keeping thalidomide out of the US wasn't it Ouesi?


Yes, that was me. I was crediting a woman who worked tirelessly against a whole government machine that really wanted to get thalidomide approved stateside despite what they already knew about what was happening in Europe. The same kind of big business/government machine that wanted to get thalidomide approved, are the people who think marijuana should be illegal. People like Frances Kelsey, who base their opinions on sound science and are not swayed by propaganda are not the issue here.

BTW, Thalidomide is still available as a prescription drug.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Trouble with increasing taxes is its a big disincentive to work.


Not sure this is strictly true. Without getting into my own opinions about tax, there are other countries where people are quite happy to pay a hell of a lot more tax then we pay in britain. but then, they know it isnt getting spent on nuclear subs...


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

ouesi said:


> Yes, that was me. I was crediting a woman who worked tirelessly against a whole government machine that really wanted to get thalidomide approved stateside despite what they already knew about what was happening in Europe. The same kind of big business/government machine that wanted to get thalidomide approved, are the people who think marijuana should be illegal. People like Frances Kelsey, who base their opinions on sound science and are not swayed by propaganda are not the issue here.
> 
> BTW, Thalidomide is still available as a prescription drug.


That's my point - sound science. "Because it feels nice at the time" is not sound science. I'm guessing thalidomide is no longer prescribed to pregnant women because we know the risks. Less people smoke because they are aware of the damage, but some drug users choose to ignore the danger because the pull is do strong. But instead of admitting to being addicts and getting help, they pretend their drug is "medicinal" and want no deterent for new users


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

ouesi said:


> Yes, that was me. I was crediting a woman who worked tirelessly against a whole government machine that really wanted to get thalidomide approved stateside despite what they already knew about what was happening in Europe. The same kind of big business/government machine that wanted to get thalidomide approved, are the people who think marijuana should be illegal. People like Frances Kelsey, who base their opinions on sound science and are not swayed by propaganda are not the issue here.
> 
> BTW, Thalidomide is still available as a prescription drug.


It isnt just big pharma who has a vested interest in keeping it illegal. There are a lot of industries which wouldnt survive if we were allowed to start making use of hemp instead. Many beleive that this is the real reason it was outlawed in the first place. Renaming it to marijuanna (a mexican plant) was a deivce used to turn people against it, but not the reason why they wanted people to be against it.


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

porps said:


> Not sure this is strictly true. Without getting into my own opinions about tax, there are other countries where people are quite happy to pay a hell of a lot more tax then we pay in britain. but then, they know it isnt getting spent on nuclear subs...


Not paying more tax that is the problem, but the discrepancy between for instance earning 5x more than someone else and paying out 12.6x more tax: see calculations in previous post.


----------



## Guest (Aug 22, 2015)

Catharinem said:


> There is such a world of difference between taking medicinal drugs to treat disease and recreational drugs to get high. I'm all for proper drug trials, never said I wasn't, but sometimes the side effects of drugs outweigh the benefits - it was you posting about the death of the lady credited with keeping thalidomide out of the US wasn't it Ouesi?


And just to add, while I'm a huge advocate of sound science and sound use of pharmaceuticals when needed, just because a drug is prescribed, doesn't mean it's treating disease.
I have struggled with thyroid disease my whole life and at one point was prescribed antidepressants. I did not need antidepressants, I needed my thyroid removed (which it eventually was). But because doctors are so pushed to prescribe certain drugs, that was what kept getting pushed on to me. I did take them, and OMG, never again. They made me feel like a zombie and getting off of them made me realize just how much they were screwing with my head - literally. The dizziness, buzzing, weirdness was horrible. 
I now take exactly one prescription drug - thyroid replacement hormone. I'm not against prescription drugs, I'm against prescribing unnecessary drugs, which happens all too often.

And I'm not sure what the difference is between a puff off a marijuana cigarette and a glass of wine with dinner, or a long relaxing walk with your dog for that matter. We all do what works for us to help us relax, to help us wake up and be more productive (coffee anyone?), to help us basically cope with what is fundamentally a sick society. Ideally we would all be self-aware, in-tune with our needs, and able to meet them. We are not, so we do whatever works for us. Who am I to judge the person who drinks a glass of wine over the person who uses marijuana? Who are you to do so?


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

porps said:


> It isnt just big pharma who has a vested interest in keeping it illegal. There are a lot of industries which wouldnt survive if we were allowed to start making use of hemp instead. Many beleive that this is the real reason it was outlawed in the first place. Renaming it to marijuanna (a mexican plant) was a deivce used to turn people against it, but not the reason why they wanted people to be against it.


I'm pretty sure we use hemp, Aubiose is hemp I think. Will have to check. Have to come out and repost, learning phone Internet and not sure multiple tabs


----------



## Guest (Aug 22, 2015)

porps said:


> It isnt just big pharma who has a vested interest in keeping it illegal. There are a lot of industries which wouldnt survive if we were allowed to start making use of hemp instead. Many beleive that this is the real reason it was outlawed in the first place. Renaming it to marijuanna (a mexican plant) was a deivce used to turn people against it, but not the reason why they wanted people to be against it.


Yes, I know it's a whole complicated machine  Too much to get in to in the space of a few forum posts, but the information is all out there for anyone who cares to educate themselves.


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

ouesi said:


> And just to add, while I'm a huge advocate of sound science and sound use of pharmaceuticals when needed, just because a drug is prescribed, doesn't mean it's treating disease.
> I have struggled with thyroid disease my whole life and at one point was prescribed antidepressants. I did not need antidepressants, I needed my thyroid removed (which it eventually was). But because doctors are so pushed to prescribe certain drugs, that was what kept getting pushed on to me. I did take them, and OMG, never again. They made me feel like a zombie and getting off of them made me realize just how much they were screwing with my head - literally. The dizziness, buzzing, weirdness was horrible.
> I now take exactly one prescription drug - thyroid replacement hormone. I'm not against prescription drugs, I'm against prescribing unnecessary drugs, which happens all too often.
> 
> And I'm not sure what the difference is between a puff off a marijuana cigarette and a glass of wine with dinner, or a long relaxing walk with your dog for that matter. We all do what works for us to help us relax, to help us wake up and be more productive (coffee anyone?), to help us basically cope with what is fundamentally a sick society. Ideally we would all be self-aware, in-tune with our needs, and able to meet them. We are not, so we do whatever works for us. Who am I to judge the person who drinks a glass of wine over the person who uses marijuana? Who are you to do so?


Because, at least at the moment, it's illegal, and I will not raise my children to ignore the law. Personally, if I found myself having to take anything to function or relax I would recognise a problem, be it coffee, wine or drugs.


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

Yes, Aubiose is indeed hemp. "100% natural, organically cultivated hemp", so that's one argument out the window.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

the vast majority of recreational drug users are not addicts. 
Use, addiction and harm are all reduced by decriminlisation

http://www.businessinsider.com/portugal-drug-policy-decriminalization-works-2012-7?IR=T
http://mic.com/articles/110344/14-y...riminalized-all-drugs-here-s-what-s-happening

But wait - we should not let evidence deter us from our preconceptions. We should not let compassion or facts ruin a perfectly good opportunity to judge and ostracise.


----------



## Guest (Aug 22, 2015)

Catharinem said:


> That's my point - sound science. "Because it feels nice at the time" is not sound science. I'm guessing thalidomide is no longer prescribed to pregnant women because we know the risks. Less people smoke because they are aware of the damage, but some drug users choose to ignore the danger because the pull is do strong. But instead of admitting to being addicts and getting help, they pretend their drug is "medicinal" and want no deterent for new users


What on earth is wrong with "it feels nice"? Good grief the world could sure use a lot more of "it feels nice" in it!
I massage my kids feet at bedtime because it feels nice to them.
I run and exercise because I like how I feel afterwards. Is it selfish of me to take that time for myself away from my kids so I can "feel nice"? 
People eat foods because they taste good, we snuggle our pets and loved ones because it feels good. And there is sound science out there that having positive, "nice" experiences is beneficial to one's health.



Catharinem said:


> they pretend their drug is "medicinal"


Cannabis IS medicinal.
Heroin and morphine are the same drug, they are medicinal and used in hospitals all the time.

And what about the legal medicinal drugs like oxycontin that people abuse as well?


----------



## Guest (Aug 22, 2015)

Catharinem said:


> I will not raise my children to ignore the law.


Pfft... I will. Good grief I most certainly will.
They were born in a country where segregation was a law, I would hope I raise them to be the type of person that would have challenged that sort of law and all the other ones still on the books that are unjust and detrimental.


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

Out of interest, what percentage of ( illegal) drug users need it for "medicinal " purposes? If they do find it helps symptoms , these would be ideal candidates for a drug trial. Yes, aware of opiates in pain relief, and their consequences. Yes, aware of prescription drug misuse. But isn't a reason to take drugs for just the "feelgood" factor, if anything is a warning about how addictions creep up until it's too late.


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

ouesi said:


> Pfft... I will. Good grief I most certainly will.
> They were born in a country where segregation was a law, I would hope I raise them to be the type of person that would have challenged that sort of law and all the other ones still on the books that are unjust and detrimental.


I'm not sure how stopping someone taking drugs is unjust and detrimental? Suppose my child wants to run across the road, am I being unjust in stopping him? Which is the greater evil, stopping someone becoming addicted, or saying go ahead?


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Catharinem said:


> Not paying more tax that is the problem, but the discrepancy between for instance earning 5x more than someone else and paying out 12.6x more tax: see calculations in previous post.


The poor pay proportionally more in taxes than the rich. Hence why the wealth of the richest has doubled under Tory rule whilst the poorest in society are struggling just to survive.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...re-from-poor-budget-2015-ifs?CMP=share_btn_tw

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/jun/16/british-public-wrong-rich-poor-tax-research



Catharinem said:


> Yes, I covered saving prison costs by not having police or a prosecution service. The difference is that I was being ironic, and you really think that's a good idea.


I wonder if this short video might change your mind Catherine?


----------



## Guest (Aug 22, 2015)

Catharinem said:


> I'm not sure how stopping someone taking drugs is unjust and detrimental? Suppose my child wants to run across the road, am I being unjust in stopping him? Which is the greater evil, stopping someone becoming addicted, or saying go ahead?


Using a drug doesn't make someone an addict. Really, read some of the non-propaganda literature available out there. We have learned a tremendous amount about addiction over the years, and much of what you think you know probably isn't accurate.

But let's take your addiction model for a minute. How just is it to punish/criminalize behavior that is due to addiction? Should we be criminalizing addicts or should we be helping them?


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

porps said:


> imagine how much extra money there would be if we stopped wasting it on a perpetually failing war on drugs and instead legalised them and started taxing them... but no, theres no way to find any more money from anywhere for the nhs is there? well, not without sacrificing personal profits for the filthy corrupt scum that runs the country and keeps the cartels in business anyway


Or stopped wasting it on perpetual wars even.

Or this lot.

Tax avoiders - £120bn
House of Lords - £100m
MP expenses - £100m
Bank bail outs - £1.2trn
Trident - £100bn

They could stop wasting it champagne, or on their portraits Theres plenty of money to spend on the NHS - IF they wanted to. But if its something that actually benefits society they simply play the austerity card.


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

Help addicts get clean, not encourage further usage. I've not suggested sending addicts to prison, I was drawing a comparison between legalising drugs and taxing them to save NHS costs, and stopping prosecutions ( in general) to save prison fees. Maybe a bad example to choose. I managed to get through some of the video, not really short, but Branson was drawing a distinction between decriminalisation of drug usage and making drugs legal. He also said strong drugs do harm and weak drugs do harm in excess, so not really saying they're harmless. If a drug user needs help to get off the drug that is something we should offer, but don't legalise drugs themselves.


----------



## Guest (Aug 22, 2015)

http://mic.com/articles/110344/14-y...riminalized-all-drugs-here-s-what-s-happening

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-...t-vietnam-taught-us-about-breaking-bad-habits


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

porps said:


> Not sure this is strictly true. Without getting into my own opinions about tax, there are other countries where people are quite happy to pay a hell of a lot more tax then we pay in britain. but then, they know it isnt getting spent on nuclear subs...


Well its certainly a disincentive for me. The time I had to write a cheque out to the inland revenue for £30,000 was the last time we paid high rate tax. Now make absolutely sure by keeping a running total that we don't go over the threshold and instead of employing a couple of part timers to help us out we just do everything ourselves.


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

noushka05 said:


> Or stopped wasting it on perpetual wars even.
> 
> Or this lot.
> 
> ...


Diana Abbott and Margaret Beckett, both Labour, had their portraits done at £11,750 each. Anyway, better leave thread at that, come way off who wanted for Labour leader, I only looked out of interest, then the whole NHS and tax thing started.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

noushka05 said:


> *Or stopped wasting it on perpetual wars even.*
> 
> Or this lot.
> 
> ...


Would that be the war Blair took us into that Corbyn says he will apologise for?


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

noushka05 said:


> The poor pay proportionally more in taxes than the rich.


Must be all the duty on beer and ****.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Catharinem said:


> That's my point - sound science. *"Because it feels nice at the time"* is not sound science. I'm guessing thalidomide is no longer prescribed to pregnant women because we know the risks. Less people smoke because they are aware of the damage, but some drug users choose to ignore the danger because the pull is do strong. But instead of admitting to being addicts and getting help, they pretend their drug is "medicinal" and want no deterent for new users


And yet we don't blink an eye at alcohol - which is a legal drug taken to "feel nice" - being legal and heavily taxed. If alcohol were only just invented, it would not even get a product licence - it is at least as addictive and damaging to the body as any controlled drug.

So alcohol is a legal and heavily taxed drug - and the argument could just as well be made for that other legal, heavily taxed drug, tobacco.

Seems to me that Porps' argument about making drugs legal and taxing them actually does work!


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Would that be the war Blair took us into that Corbyn says he will apologise for?


That's how I understood it.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Catharinem said:


> Diana Abbott and Margaret Beckett, both Labour, had their portraits done at £11,750 each. Anyway, better leave thread at that, come way off who wanted for Labour leader, I only looked out of interest, then the whole NHS and tax thing started.


Yes & they are a disgrace. Did it verify what has been said about the NHS & tax though? They are dismantling the NHS for privatisation & according to the IFS the poor are paying more than their share of taxes.



rottiepointerhouse said:


> Would that be the war Blair took us into that Corbyn says he will apologise for?


Yes definitely plus all the on going conflicts. Blair is a neoliberal & the greedy neoliberal economy depends upon wars. My point was though, that even with Osbornes ideological austerity policy, unlike the NHS, welfare state & public services, wars will still always be affordable.



Satori said:


> Must be all the duty on beer and ****.


Trust you!


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

noushka05 said:


> ?.according to the IFS the poor are paying more than their share of taxes.


That would be very interesting to see. Do you have a link to anywhere that the IFS has said this?


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

^
@noushka05

Thought not.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

Satori said:


> That would be very interesting to see. Do you have a link to anywhere that the IFS has said this?


Only just seen this, so haven't found a link yet (and no time - have to go out).
But I do remember a report on the TV about this a short while ago, and that does seem to have been said by the IFS.


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> The poor pay *proportionally* more in taxes than the rich.





Satori said:


> That would be very interesting to see. Do you have a link to anywhere that the IFS has said this?





Satori said:


> ^
> @noushka05
> 
> Thought not.


I cannot find the quote you posted Satori but have found the one above from Noushka and the operative word is 'proportionally'... £20 vat on a £100 food bill is a LOT more money to someone earning £150 a week than to someone earning £1500 a week. The low paid pay a greater portion of their earnings towards various taxes than those in a higher wage bracket.

It doesn't take a genius to work that one out.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Satori said:


> That would be very interesting to see. Do you have a link to anywhere that the IFS has said this?





Satori said:


> ^
> @noushka05
> 
> Thought not.


LOL I wasn't avoiding answering, i haven't been back to this thread until today. As MB says its VAT. Tax cuts for the rich VAT hike for the poorest. Cameron knows exactly what hes doing ...



Some links here.

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/jun/16/british-public-wrong-rich-poor-tax-research

https://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/cs-true-cost-austerity-inequality-uk-120913-en.pdf

http://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/publications/budgets/Budgets 2015/Summer/opening_remarks.pdf


----------

