"Labour voters just want free stuff" is incredibly condescending. Sure, that free tutition pledge was inviting (not that I'll benefit personally) but it was incredibly far down my list of reasons for voting Corbyn behind:
-restoring some dignity into the nhs -getting extra police out on our streets -getting the richest to pay a fair share -renationalising industries so the profit comes back to the taxpayer -retentition of the triple lock
I'm sure there's more but that's off the top of my head.
Genuine question,
At what level do you place 'the richest' and what do you feel is a fair share?
I think what Labour set out was about right. 80k and above.
By no means am I lumping those people in with the very richest, that's reserved for the top 1% or fewer who have got away with it for years.
I don't think it was unreasonable to ask those on 80k and above to pay a couple hundred quid a year more in tax so we don't have a food bank crisis and we don't have little kids sleeping on chairs as a makeshift beds in the NHS.
It's lucky that a chunk of these people use some of their income towards private healthcare thus relieving the pressure on the NHS isn't it?
I would imagine that is a completely insignificant amount when compared to the nation as a whole.
Not in the context of the 5% it's not.
Look at £80k+ jobs in London, and you'll see private healthcare offered with quite a surprising amount of them. Although this wont be paid directly by the individual, it will be taxed as a Benefit In Kind for National Insurance purposes, and it obviously reduces strain on the NHS at the same time.
Everyone in my agency has BUPA health cover, which I replicate for the family.
"Labour voters just want free stuff" is incredibly condescending. Sure, that free tutition pledge was inviting (not that I'll benefit personally) but it was incredibly far down my list of reasons for voting Corbyn behind:
-restoring some dignity into the nhs -getting extra police out on our streets -getting the richest to pay a fair share -renationalising industries so the profit comes back to the taxpayer -retentition of the triple lock
I'm sure there's more but that's off the top of my head.
Genuine question,
At what level do you place 'the richest' and what do you feel is a fair share?
I think what Labour set out was about right. 80k and above.
By no means am I lumping those people in with the very richest, that's reserved for the top 1% or fewer who have got away with it for years.
I don't think it was unreasonable to ask those on 80k and above to pay a couple hundred quid a year more in tax so we don't have a food bank crisis and we don't have little kids sleeping on chairs as a makeshift beds in the NHS.
It's lucky that a chunk of these people use some of their income towards private healthcare thus relieving the pressure on the NHS isn't it?
I would imagine that is a completely insignificant amount when compared to the nation as a whole.
Not in the context of the 5% it's not.
Look at £80k+ jobs in London, and you'll see private healthcare offered with quite a surprising amount of them. Although this wont be paid directly by the individual, it will be taxed as a Benefit In Kind for National Insurance purposes, and it obviously reduces strain on the NHS at the same time.
But in the context of the wider public, if it's only a small amount of 5% of the population, you can see why I might feel it's insignificant.
The amount of people in those upper tax brackets who would give up their private insurance because of paying a little bit more tax is surely no more than say 5% of the 5%, that's assuming that everyone in the top 5% has private cover in the first place... meaning the NHS might have one extra customer for every 400 or so they already have. Insignificant IMO.
Will freely admit I'm neither educated nor particularly intelligent, so looking to take on board the views of others.
Where it comes to socialism, and the strapline 'for the many not the few' (which I think people massively bought into), isn't the fact that unemployment is at the lowest levels since 1975 not the best possible aspect of providing a platform and opportunities for all?
The Labour party needs to get some centrist players into the fold.
Agree.
How labour move forward from this is massive. No infighting and the centrist power players uniting under corbyn could see real force.
Unfortunately, the centrists turned their backs on corbyn during the repeated lynchings and I think this will not go unpunished.
But Corbyn is far left and that is what rising numbers of people are apparently voting for, so why should they change?
What's all this 'far left' bit, please? How about a reaction to the utter shit that we have endured for decades? Let's call it 'Socialism' and explore its benefits. Why couch Corbyn and Co. in negatives? Accentuate the positives; they are numerous. Don't bleat 'What are they, then?' The path, and the 'answers' are obvious.
You can term it how you like, far left or socialism. But It's not centre and it's not right so it's somewhere left!
I think we are in danger of getting away with ourselves especially if you are comparing this result to the last couple of decades. The actual election process has been really interesting, fantastic that the younger voters seem to be engaged and have turned out, a massive plus and probably were key to how the vote ended.
But we need to put results in perspective rather than just how they have improved or worsened since an election 2 years ago which was a disaster for Labour and the Lib Dems, fantastic for SNP and UKIP (in vote count if not in seats) and pretty good for Conservatives as it gave them an increase to take them to a majority.
So Labour has roughly the same number of seats as it had in 2010 which was cited a disaster at the time, yet this time around it's the second coming, a wave of change, a new movement etc etc. Still nearly 60 short of the Conservatives and still less than they had in 1992.
Conservatives have managed to screw up compared to where they were but still have more seats than they did in 2010 under the last coalition and more than any other election pre 2015 since 1992.
I think we are getting caught up in the moment of May royally screwing up and Corbyn doing considerably better than expected rather than the actual picture/political landscape.
Labour still have nearly 100 less seats than in 2005 when they were last in power. Corbyn has been a success compared to where he was and May a failure (from where she was), but Labour are still massively short of being anywhere near being an elected government and I don't think that will change under Corbyn, he's simply too far left (or socialist!).
So I'm sure Labour are patting themselves on the back of a job well done, and probably rightly so, but don't kid yourself that this is some kind of landmark moment that will change the next 20 years. Charlton finished 13th in the table when it looked for a long time it could be 19th or worse, does that make last season a roaring success because of an improvement at the end? Or did it simply end better than what many of us expected.......?
Your analysis is good. James O'Brien has been reminding us that May actually won, Andrew Neil asked John MacDonald why Làbour has lost three elections in a row, all valid stuff. However look at the phenomenology. Theresa May called the election seeking a strengthened mandate and completely blew it, she lost seats. Jeremy Corbyn had this spring upon him and won seats. I am a fantasist at the best of times, but for anybody to interpret any aspect of this as being somehow a win for the Tories is kidding themselves aren't they? The two winners are Jeremy Corbyn first, and trailing quite a way behind, but still a winner of sorts is Ruth Davison the Scottish Tory. I was searching for crumbs of comfort yesterday, the Tories are doing it today.
Couldn't agree more and I'm no way saying that this was a win for the conservatives in anything other than they got more seats than anyone else, as I say the conservatives royally screwed up. But that's from the point of where they were 2 weeks ago. Labour have still only succeeded in taking broadly their 2nd/3rd lowest seat count in probably the last 10 elections (I only went back 7 as Torie for a while before that).
I don't think any party has secured more than 50% since before we won the FA cup last!
To put it another way.
You were told you were going to win 6-0.
You thought at the outset it could be 4-0.
You were complacent, they played well & it finished 4-2.
You still won & they still lost.
You are dejected because you performed poorly and they are ecstatic, because they took the lead, went in level at half time and eventually lost a creditable 4-2.
Ultimately we need a government. If nothing more to see us through the next few months until we have another election once the Tories have decided on another leader.
This seems to be the only want anyone can form a government.
Why do the Conservatives prefer to give the DUP whatever they want instead of being a minority government? Minority government is very common in Europe.
Stormont won't open while the DUP can control it from Westminster.
The tories have essentially been quietly propped up by the DUP since the end of the coalition. There have been a few parliamentary votes where DUP have abstained or voted with the tories to ensure that the tory working majority has been maintained. The DUP's "loyalty" ensures they won't actively impair the business of Westminster government. With Sinn Fein's permanent absence from Westminster the next tory PM won't realistically have many problems doing what he/she likes. DUP's position on the welfare state in general and senior care in particular is at odds with the nasty party's which should keep the brakes on the tories viler ambitions, for a little while at least. But the DUP is unlikely to garner a long list of significant or troubling favours from tory central office. We are surely through the looking glass when Ian Paisley's political party serves as a moderating influence in Westminster. In case any were needed, this all further serves to highlight the depths of ineptitude and self-destruction to which the labour party has sunk in failing, even this time, to muster itself into a credible opposition.
I don't think people celebrating the result are celebrating for Labour necessarily, they're celebrating for the country.
I dread to think how much worse things would've got with five more Tory years - no Brexit deal, dementia tax for the old, housing crisis for the young, continual public spending cuts... The vote yesterday stopped the nasty party dead in their tracks.
We've got five more years of the Tories. They won, they are forming the new government.
They might be reined in slightly by the DUP and their small majority means so won't be able to push any old policy through but they won.
The tory manifesto was deliberately vague and covered so much ground ie fox hunting so the May would have a free hand for five years to do what she wanted. It didn't quite work and she won't be able to push fox hunting (as a example) through because only a few backbenchers can rebel but don't be in any doubt. The tories won.
Does this mean corbyn ain't in and my corporation tax is staying down
Yes. Enjoy the strong and stable economy that the Tories will deliver over the next few weeks or months until the next election.
It clearly won't be, but I suspect NLA will enjoy it more than having to offload some of his workforce
BUT for small businesses Labour were offering assistance for the rise in corporation tax by offsetting other taxes that the same company would pay, why dont people know this......?
Everything that labour proposed were of no benefit to me or many of those who i regularly meet who own small businesses
It's a complete load of nonsense and even when asked during the live debate he never even answered it himself all he said was some nonsense about everyone being better off when we spread and share if he had any plans to help counter that then why didn't he say it on the debate
The bloke that asked him the question was a multi millionaire. As a small business owner, I think a growing economy will benefit me very much, as will a soft Brexit as we deal a lot with Europe. We tried doing some business for materials with China but you get unfairly stung with tariffs and they seem to make up what you need to pay. Apart from the quality not being up to stcatch, the single market is crucial. Lots of reasons for a small forward thinking business to vote Labour.
I do think people have missed something about the engagement of young people - it isn't just about university fees as support is there from young people not at or going to university. It is about messages and how you get that message accross. What most people see of the Labour iceberg is the small bit on the surface, they just don't get what a slick machine it has become under the surface.
"Labour plans to increase the main rate of corporation tax, reaching 26 per cent by 2020-21, but to reintroduce the ‘small profits rate’ for small businesses. This would apply to companies with annual profits below £300k and would be set at 20%, rising to 21% in 2020-21."
I don't think people celebrating the result are celebrating for Labour necessarily, they're celebrating for the country.
I dread to think how much worse things would've got with five more Tory years - no Brexit deal, dementia tax for the old, housing crisis for the young, continual public spending cuts... The vote yesterday stopped the nasty party dead in their tracks.
We've got five more years of the Tories. They won, they are forming the new government.
They might be reined in slightly by the DUP and their small majority means so won't be able to push any old policy through but they won.
The tory manifesto was deliberately vague and covered so much ground ie fox hunting so the May would have a free hand for five years to do what she wanted. It didn't quite work and she won't be able to push fox hunting (as a example) through because only a few backbenchers can rebel but don't be in any doubt. The tories won.
Exactly why this was a victory for the country.
May at the outset wanted a 100+ majority to force through barbaric laws such as this one. She failed.
Will freely admit I'm neither educated nor particularly intelligent, so looking to take on board the views of others.
Where it comes to socialism, and the strapline 'for the many not the few' (which I think people massively bought into), isn't the fact that unemployment is at the lowest levels since 1975 not the best possible aspect of providing a platform and opportunities for all?
The Labour party needs to get some centrist players into the fold.
Agree.
How labour move forward from this is massive. No infighting and the centrist power players uniting under corbyn could see real force.
Unfortunately, the centrists turned their backs on corbyn during the repeated lynchings and I think this will not go unpunished.
But Corbyn is far left and that is what rising numbers of people are apparently voting for, so why should they change?
What's all this 'far left' bit, please? How about a reaction to the utter shit that we have endured for decades? Let's call it 'Socialism' and explore its benefits. Why couch Corbyn and Co. in negatives? Accentuate the positives; they are numerous. Don't bleat 'What are they, then?' The path, and the 'answers' are obvious.
You can term it how you like, far left or socialism. But It's not centre and it's not right so it's somewhere left!
I think we are in danger of getting away with ourselves especially if you are comparing this result to the last couple of decades. The actual election process has been really interesting, fantastic that the younger voters seem to be engaged and have turned out, a massive plus and probably were key to how the vote ended.
But we need to put results in perspective rather than just how they have improved or worsened since an election 2 years ago which was a disaster for Labour and the Lib Dems, fantastic for SNP and UKIP (in vote count if not in seats) and pretty good for Conservatives as it gave them an increase to take them to a majority.
So Labour has roughly the same number of seats as it had in 2010 which was cited a disaster at the time, yet this time around it's the second coming, a wave of change, a new movement etc etc. Still nearly 60 short of the Conservatives and still less than they had in 1992.
Conservatives have managed to screw up compared to where they were but still have more seats than they did in 2010 under the last coalition and more than any other election pre 2015 since 1992.
I think we are getting caught up in the moment of May royally screwing up and Corbyn doing considerably better than expected rather than the actual picture/political landscape.
Labour still have nearly 100 less seats than in 2005 when they were last in power. Corbyn has been a success compared to where he was and May a failure (from where she was), but Labour are still massively short of being anywhere near being an elected government and I don't think that will change under Corbyn, he's simply too far left (or socialist!).
So I'm sure Labour are patting themselves on the back of a job well done, and probably rightly so, but don't kid yourself that this is some kind of landmark moment that will change the next 20 years. Charlton finished 13th in the table when it looked for a long time it could be 19th or worse, does that make last season a roaring success because of an improvement at the end? Or did it simply end better than what many of us expected.......?
Your analysis is good. James O'Brien has been reminding us that May actually won, Andrew Neil asked John MacDonald why Làbour has lost three elections in a row, all valid stuff. However look at the phenomenology. Theresa May called the election seeking a strengthened mandate and completely blew it, she lost seats. Jeremy Corbyn had this spring upon him and won seats. I am a fantasist at the best of times, but for anybody to interpret any aspect of this as being somehow a win for the Tories is kidding themselves aren't they? The two winners are Jeremy Corbyn first, and trailing quite a way behind, but still a winner of sorts is Ruth Davison the Scottish Tory. I was searching for crumbs of comfort yesterday, the Tories are doing it today.
Couldn't agree more and I'm no way saying that this was a win for the conservatives in anything other than they got more seats than anyone else, as I say the conservatives royally screwed up. But that's from the point of where they were 2 weeks ago. Labour have still only succeeded in taking broadly their 2nd/3rd lowest seat count in probably the last 10 elections (I only went back 7 as Torie for a while before that).
I don't think any party has secured more than 50% since before we won the FA cup last!
To put it another way.
You were told you were going to win 6-0.
You thought at the outset it could be 4-0.
You were complacent, they played well & it finished 4-2.
You still won & they still lost.
You are dejected because you performed poorly and they are ecstatic, because they took the lead, went in level at half time and eventually lost a creditable 4-2.
Or...
You assumed you were going to win. You went 1-0 up. But conceded a last-minute equaliser. And now it's going to a replay. But you have a really difficult match in Europe first.
I am looking forward to finding out what terms get struck in the agreement between the Conservatives and the DUP. I am sure the Tories will get a really good deal, because their leader is really strong and stable and always turns up when there are important talks.
The argument that always pisses me off, which will doubtless be trotted out imminently by a second or third placed party, is "But 58% of the electorate dont want a conservative government". Might be true, but then so is it that 60% of the electorate don't want a labour government. Or in Scotland, where 63% don't want an SNP government. It's a stupid argument all round unless somebody gets >50% of the vote.
It's the losers argument.
Oh dear, the winners are the party that ended this election in a stronger position, vote wise, than ever before, and with integrity and honour. I think the losers are the ones that want to cozy up to a terrorist party (you know the same lot who lied about Corby'ns relationship with the IRA) just so they can gain (alleged) power.....how anyone can align themselves with that lot is totally beyond me....but I guess we are all allowed to vote for who we see (un)fit?
Just listened to May's speech, she is absolutely deluded. Acting as if last night didn't happen.
I think that is strategically her smartest move. It gives her the widest possible set of options, although I can't imagine how she can seriously carry on.
"Labour voters just want free stuff" is incredibly condescending. Sure, that free tutition pledge was inviting (not that I'll benefit personally) but it was incredibly far down my list of reasons for voting Corbyn behind:
-restoring some dignity into the nhs -getting extra police out on our streets -getting the richest to pay a fair share -renationalising industries so the profit comes back to the taxpayer -retentition of the triple lock
I'm sure there's more but that's off the top of my head.
Genuine question,
At what level do you place 'the richest' and what do you feel is a fair share?
I think what Labour set out was about right. 80k and above.
By no means am I lumping those people in with the very richest, that's reserved for the top 1% or fewer who have got away with it for years.
I don't think it was unreasonable to ask those on 80k and above to pay a couple hundred quid a year more in tax so we don't have a food bank crisis and we don't have little kids sleeping on chairs as a makeshift beds in the NHS.
£80k ok, but what about the level they should be paying, overall % on their earnings of?
It's a genuine question as I often find people don't necessarily realise quite the levels people (taking the 80k+) are currently paying and how much that has already increased since 2010.
if I can give an example, see if you are surprised (or not)
On my 2009/2010 tax return I paid in total 41.1% in Tax On my 2016/2017 tax return I paid in total 47.3% in Tax
only a small % of that increase is due to a salary change, the rest is simply tax hikes since 2010 by that party who increases tax on the poor and decreases on the rich .
Had Labour got in and implemented their taxation plans (and I had done nothing) the 47.3 would have gone to around 50% or roughly 9% extra tax on every penny I earn compared to 2010.
On the foodbank/makeshift beds, if someone on say £100k a year is being asked to pay another £1,000 a year for the greater good, do you also think it wouldn't be too much to ask someone on £50k a year to pay £400 or someone on £30k a year to pay £250 or someone on £15k a year £100, that's progressive taxation isn't it?
I give it minimum Autumn, maximum 18 months. During this time cost of living is going to rise, half of tory party is going to try to oust May. The soft Brexit will wind some Tories up etc...
Even with the DUP, her majority is wafer thin. Basically any contentious vote would require furious cross party whipping from both sides of the house. It will be exhausting and will quickly frustrate the business of the house.
May's refusal to admit she is not fit to run the country is going to cost us all dearly.
Exactly. I imagine pairing off and such are going to be off the table now. May is the coalition of chaos she warned us about. This country effectively has no government. I wonder what blood price the DUP have extracted for their subservience?
"Labour plans to increase the main rate of corporation tax, reaching 26 per cent by 2020-21, but to reintroduce the ‘small profits rate’ for small businesses. This would apply to companies with annual profits below £300k and would be set at 20%, rising to 21% in 2020-21."
And this would be ruinously counter productive. To take the UK's main rate of CT to 8 or 10 percent above most of our European neighbours would see the amazon/starbucks arrangement spread like wildfire across UK businesses and the tax take collapse as a result. Unpleasant it may be to accept but the best brains in business taxation, work for the corporations not HMRC. Post war, raising mainstream taxes has routinely been counter productive. That said, the tories' last desperate "plan" was to move too far too quickly the other way, but then Cameron and Osborne were only ever aiming for their own corporate futures.
"Labour voters just want free stuff" is incredibly condescending. Sure, that free tutition pledge was inviting (not that I'll benefit personally) but it was incredibly far down my list of reasons for voting Corbyn behind:
-restoring some dignity into the nhs -getting extra police out on our streets -getting the richest to pay a fair share -renationalising industries so the profit comes back to the taxpayer -retentition of the triple lock
I'm sure there's more but that's off the top of my head.
Genuine question,
At what level do you place 'the richest' and what do you feel is a fair share?
I think what Labour set out was about right. 80k and above.
By no means am I lumping those people in with the very richest, that's reserved for the top 1% or fewer who have got away with it for years.
I don't think it was unreasonable to ask those on 80k and above to pay a couple hundred quid a year more in tax so we don't have a food bank crisis and we don't have little kids sleeping on chairs as a makeshift beds in the NHS.
On my 2009/2010 tax return I paid in total 41.1% in Tax On my 2016/2017 tax return I paid in total 47.3% in Tax
Had Labour got in and implemented their taxation plans (and I had done nothing) the 47.3 would have gone to around 50%
So Labour were going to put your income tax up by less than the Tories have?
The Tory tax cuts were meant to make us all richer. They've quite clearly failed.
I'm sorry I usually agree with you but the personal allowance has more than doubled since 2010 the minimum wage has gone up more than in any other 7 year period.
Comments
The amount of people in those upper tax brackets who would give up their private insurance because of paying a little bit more tax is surely no more than say 5% of the 5%, that's assuming that everyone in the top 5% has private cover in the first place... meaning the NHS might have one extra customer for every 400 or so they already have. Insignificant IMO.
You were told you were going to win 6-0.
You thought at the outset it could be 4-0.
You were complacent, they played well & it finished 4-2.
You still won & they still lost.
You are dejected because you performed poorly and they are ecstatic, because they took the lead, went in level at half time and eventually lost a creditable 4-2.
We are surely through the looking glass when Ian Paisley's political party serves as a moderating influence in Westminster.
In case any were needed, this all further serves to highlight the depths of ineptitude and self-destruction to which the labour party has sunk in failing, even this time, to muster itself into a credible opposition.
They might be reined in slightly by the DUP and their small majority means so won't be able to push any old policy through but they won.
The tory manifesto was deliberately vague and covered so much ground ie fox hunting so the May would have a free hand for five years to do what she wanted. It didn't quite work and she won't be able to push fox hunting (as a example) through because only a few backbenchers can rebel but don't be in any doubt. The tories won.
I do think people have missed something about the engagement of young people - it isn't just about university fees as support is there from young people not at or going to university. It is about messages and how you get that message accross. What most people see of the Labour iceberg is the small bit on the surface, they just don't get what a slick machine it has become under the surface.
May at the outset wanted a 100+ majority to force through barbaric laws such as this one. She failed.
You assumed you were going to win. You went 1-0 up. But conceded a last-minute equaliser. And now it's going to a replay. But you have a really difficult match in Europe first.
As it is, we'll see how this coalition of chaos holds up. We might have a genuine chance at a Labour government within a year or two.
No point rubbing it in. Shows no class. Needs to get straight to work.
Jeremy Corbyn terrorist sympathiser
It's a genuine question as I often find people don't necessarily realise quite the levels people (taking the 80k+) are currently paying and how much that has already increased since 2010.
if I can give an example, see if you are surprised (or not)
On my 2009/2010 tax return I paid in total 41.1% in Tax
On my 2016/2017 tax return I paid in total 47.3% in Tax
only a small % of that increase is due to a salary change, the rest is simply tax hikes since 2010 by that party who increases tax on the poor and decreases on the rich
Had Labour got in and implemented their taxation plans (and I had done nothing) the 47.3 would have gone to around 50% or roughly 9% extra tax on every penny I earn compared to 2010.
On the foodbank/makeshift beds, if someone on say £100k a year is being asked to pay another £1,000 a year for the greater good, do you also think it wouldn't be too much to ask someone on £50k a year to pay £400 or someone on £30k a year to pay £250 or someone on £15k a year £100, that's progressive taxation isn't it?
May's refusal to admit she is not fit to run the country is going to cost us all dearly.