[Closed] introducing the Ed Milibandatron 5000

digga - Member

Well done for mastering your Ladybird book of Socialist retorts and missing my point about net tax take entirely.

Sorry, I must doff my cap to the one person who still thinks trickle-down actually works, and supposes that the reason we're in this mess is down to the Keynesian model we haven't tried.

Are we going to have instruction on Laffer curves next?

Mr Woppit - Member

"Fairness", eh?

Do you mean that everybody should be more "equal"?

"Communism will never work because people like to own stuff."

yes, because taxation equality = communism.

Mr Woppit - Member
"Fairness", eh?

Do you mean that everybody should be more "equal"?

"Communism will never work because people like to own stuff."

I guess the difference between Socialism and Communism passed you by, a fan of the Tea Party by any chance?

Reading some of this stuff - a litany of the economics of envy and beggar-thy-neighbour - it won't surprise me when a halfwit like Balls is back in charge of the Treasury.

[i]a fan of the Tea Party by any chance? [/i]

He's Troll Party through and through, is MrWoppit. Motto 'No bridge too far'. 😉

a litany of the economics of envy

Wanting a reasonably balanced and fair society with decent public services rather than living in an oligarchy = being a normal, unselfish person. I has literally nothing to do with envy.

grum - Member
a litany of the economics of envy
Wanting a reasonably balanced and fair society with decent public services rather than living in an oligarchy = being a normal, unselfish person. I has literally nothing to do with envy.

Furthermore, the dangerous extension of all of that is people being inculcated with the belief that the unaffordable is not only affordable, but their birthright.

I would disagree. I think there is a lot of "envy". I also don't think that many people would not want a fairer society with decent public services - it's just that when push comes to shove no one really wants to pay for it. 65" LCD TVs + additional consumerist trinkets seem to trump social welfare for most. And in general the richer people already pay more tax than the poor people as the tax system here is progressive. The more you earn, the more you pay. I also accept that there are a large number of wealthy people who actively minimise the tax they pay through the various legal instruments to do so. It has been said that if everyone paid the correct amount of tax at the current rates then we would have enough to fund the decent public services that everyone apparently craves. However I cannot vouch for the authenticity or validity of that remark.

digga - Member
It does not, but it is latched onto and hi-jacked by those who would rather, if they can't keep up with the Joneses, to see them dragged down to their own level.

A cynical view that makes you sound like Thatcher.

digga - Member
Furthermore, the dangerous extension of all of that is people being inculcated with the belief that the unaffordable is not only affordable, but their birthright.

That's what the Tories were saying in 1946 about the NHS when the country was virtually bankrupt. Guess what? It turns out that we could afford it and I hope those now born in the UK do recognise it as their birthright thanks to social progression.

It does not, but it is latched onto and hi-jacked by those who would rather, if they can't keep up with the Joneses, to see them dragged down to their own level.

Furthermore, the dangerous extension of all of that is people being inculcated with the belief that the unaffordable is not only affordable, but their birthright.

[img] [/img]

Socialism: a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

According to Marx, an imperfect form of social ownership on the way to Communism after the death of Capitalism.

Also wouldn't work. There'd be so much arguing that nothing would get built, made and sold to anybody. A bit like pre-Thatcher Britain...

if they can't keep up with the Joneses, to see them dragged down to their own level.

TBH it speaks volumes of the system that you cannot defend it you can only attack those who suggest we distribute things a little more evenly
No parent teaches there child to do anything other than share fairly, we dont tell them off for being envious when they want fairness nor accuse them of trying to drag others down either.
Why not explain why your own view is the correct one rather than name call and incorrectly explain others views

"Yes, heaven forfend that the wealthy pay a tiny bit more tax in order to provide essential public services."

The top 1% earners pay a third of all income tax, and the top 10% (those earning more than £42K a year) now pay 58% of all income tax. The contribution from the top 1% increased from 22.2% in 2000 to 27.7% in 2012.

So in the spirit of "we're all in this together" how about everyone earning less than £42K paying a bit more to the essential public services that we all agree need more money - especially those who can buy a decent sized house without even meeting the stamp duty threshold?

There was a recent survey on whether people would rather pay more tax or see nhs services streamlined. The majority said streamline the nhs, not raise taxes. Interesting.

Having cross party control of the nhs so it didn't get reorganised every 5-10 years with each new government 'improving' it would be a huge start.

Best description of Ed Milliband by Bill Bailey

He's like a plastic bag stuck up a tree, no one knows how it got there and no one is arsed to get it down.

there was a recent survey that said that when people claimed there was a recent survey they should cite the survey.

cite the survey as it passed me by completely

DTI 😉

So poor old eds got his work cut out now. No doubt there will be a protest sweaty vote, conversely the English will expect a robust response, his obviously going to piss off business and wealth creators, so that leaves......oops

On top of that the economy is doing better than expected. Good for him if he pulls this one off. Polls show it's his to lose and he has made a good start there.

Good for him if he pulls this one off. Polls show it's his to lose and he has made a good start there.

Labour's problem is who will replace him? He's likely to do a Kinnock

Andy Burnham was supposed to be positioning himself for the leadership but after his car crash interview on R4 tonight he's got two hope's (despite having a reasonably good idea in merging health and social care to talk about)

[quote=big_n_daft said] his car crash interview on R4 tonight

Whadda happened ?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04hvy0n

starts at 13:30

Qu 1. are the US air strikes in Syria legal?

Funnily enough Milliband stood up against Cameron in the commons and smacked down Cameron's bomb Assad and aid the rebels plan last august

Today Cameron stands up and says the rebels are evil, want to kill us and we need to bomb them.....

I had to...

Funnily enough Milliband stood up against Cameron in the commons and smacked down Cameron's bomb Assad and aid the rebels plan last august

Today Cameron stands up and says the rebels are evil, want to kill us and we need to bomb them.....

and Miliband fully supports the bombing

there was a recent survey that said that when people claimed there was a recent survey they should cite the survey.

Linky please.

Corporations are the problem, they need to pay a higher percentage of the overall tax income.

all the burden is on personal tax and NI.

its a joke the corporations are completely running rings around governments

Did anyone else hear Eddie Mair on R4 PM run rings around Andy Burnham?

kimbers - Member
Funnily enough Milliband stood up against Cameron in the commons and smacked down Cameron's bomb Assad and aid the rebels plan last august

Today Cameron stands up and says the rebels are evil, want to kill us and we need to bomb them.....

You know the situation is not that simple.

big_n_daft - Member
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04hvy0n

starts at 13:30

Qu 1. are the US air strikes in Syria legal?

Unfortunately the briefings have not been the best today.

granted it is complicated but the fact remains CMD wanted to bomb Assad and now he wants to bomb those Assad is fighting- it some reversal of position however you wish to spin it.

Burnham was right ...... he is not an expert 😉

he got a kicking there overall
Is their personal animosity between these two?
Will there be now?

Is their personal animosity between these two?

I don't know, it's a shame that the same quality of questioning wasn't used in the referendum

I wouldnt say its a reversal, i reckon they still want to bomb assad and IS.
they just need to sort IS first as they are more visual in their killing.

You can spin it how you like but I think most folk will consider changing which side you bomb in a civil war as a reversal of policy

Of course having 'bombed IS into submission' there's no reason why the US won't continue and bomb Assad until their plan for the region is forfilled.

As for Miliband; I wonder if elements in his party aren't considering a short, sharp coup shortly after the conference is over?

Does the 6000 series have a better memory bank ?

[i]Corporations are the problem, they need to pay a higher percentage of the overall tax income.
[b]all the burden is on personal tax and NI.[/b]
its a joke the corporations are completely running rings around governments [/i]
Priceless ! I'd ask if anyone else sees the irony in this remark, but most probably wouldn't admit it, even if they have.
😆

[i]Did anyone else hear Eddie Mair on R4 PM run rings around Andy Burnham? [/i]
Aye, I listened as it was aired, quite revealing. He didn't have a clue, much like Labour really.
Burnham brought his humilitaion, upon himself, with his attempt at conveying indigantion when asked questions that he really didn't have sensible answers for.
Perhaps someone should have suggested to Mr Burnham that if he's going to be interviewed on R4, claiming that he can't possibly know how things will workout in 5 years time, after hearing his leader's plan for the next 10 years. That he's going to look like a door handle.

[i]You can spin it how you like but I think most folk will consider changing which side you bomb in a civil war as a reversal of policy[/i]
Crude attempt to divert the discussion/thread. However, that's no crisis either. These threads always go the same way. The lefties, full of envy and a fundamentally misplaced sense of [i]fairness[/i] and of how society [b]should[/b] be, bleeting. Only leads to posting of leftist diatribe until all parties are distracted by another thread.
You lot should get out on your bikes more and find the driver of Dez's white BMW.
And while you're doing this. Perhaps you can take time to contemplate the true reason for Ed's failure to include the budget deficit and immigration, for comment in his speech....
Personally ? Ed is undermined from within his own party and his speech was one written for the core vote. The core left have no further regard for the economy than to spend everything they can, inflate the public sector, after which someone can leave a post-it note joking about how there's no money left in the treasury. In this respect, Ed's speech was spot on, being remembered for not mentioning the two headline issues for a lot of UK voters, the Budget deficit and immigration.

[b]GO ED ![/b]
😀

I'm off too, now.
😀

Ed's speech was spot on, being remembered for not mentioning the two headline issues for a lot of UK voters, the Budget deficit and immigration.

GO ED !

I'm off too, now.

Quite dire I agree, I really wish we'd chosen the other brother. I get emails and tweets from the party & they really are abysmal - as shallow as condensation.

No vision, just further bloating of the public sector.

Crude attempt to divert the discussion/thread.

As for envy - it is just a cheap slur and a right wing diatribe to distract ...oh the irony..TBH What it shows is that even the supporters of the system know they can put forward as credible defence of the iniquitous system that gives us starving citizens eating from foodbanks and tax avoiding billionaires. Despite this you still attack folk who want fairness as if this is a bad thing....it says so much about the "morals " of anyone who attacks a quest for fairness as "envy".

The politics of envy - Like the private sector and right wing press villifying pensions and benefits seen in the public sector?
Regardless Ed should've brought in the parts of his speech about the deficit and immigration, still go ves us something exiting to look forward too today 😉

a deficit of £75 billion

Labour will balance the books in the next parliament.

[i]Ed Balls[/i]

1% cap on child benefit increase: £0.1bn pa
Mansion tax: £2.0bn pa *
50p Income tax rate restored: £0.1 - 2.0bn pa *
Means tested winter fuel allowance: £0.1bn pa

£4.2bn pa out of £75bn.

Only another 94% to go. Good game, good game.

* estimates

CMD has changed which side he wants to bomb in Syria.

That's right. There's a REASON for that.

A bit like saying, in 1939, that we should deal with Hitler first and leave Mussolini 'til later.

Not difficult, really.

Osbourne made similar claims Stoner. How's he doing?

Which collection of failures and future failures do you favour guys?

Sorry, I seem a little cynical this morning.

Most of the deficit will be eliminated by economic growth. Overall spending envelope has already been broadly set out by Ed Balls in his announcements on the zero based budget and in his speech on Monday.

Labour has also offered for the OBR to examine its financial plans to see if

Wage growth has been appallingly low in this country over the last few years Portugal, Greece and Cyprus are the only European countries how have seen their wages erode more than the UK. If working people are not paid enough then they fall into indebtedness and can't spend in the economy. If consumers can't consume in a consumer driven economy it isn't great for economic growth.

Bang on frosty! The increasingly disproportionate amount of national income taken by those at the top is incredibly bad for the economy. They don't spend it, they squirrel it out of the country into tax havens. Or they invest it by buying property portfolios in London, driving prices through the roof, and yet further increasing inequality.

People at the bottom spend every penny they earn. They have too. So it all goes back into the local economy

Millibean pledging to increase the minimum wage to £8 an hour by 2020 just shows how timid the labour party is. That represents an annual increase of 2.2%. Hardly revolutionary distribution of wealth is it? But with weary predictability the usual suspects cry and wail that the sky is about to fall in, and the nation about to be bankrupted! When in reality it may signal that the government isn't prepared to subsidise their profits any more, while they won't pay their staff a living wage.

Interestingly, if the minimum wage had kept pace with average FTSE 100 boardroom pay increases (the people presently wailing about the proposed increase) since its introduction, then it would presently stand at £20 an hour. Its £6.15.

"Bang on frosty! The increasingly disproportionate amount of national income taken by those at the top is incredibly bad for the economy. They don't spend it, they squirrel it out of the country into tax havens. Or they invest it by buying property portfolios in London, driving prices through the roof, and yet further increasing inequality."

The data on income tax quite clearly shows the rich are paying significantly more under the current government than under the last one.

Statements like this also obfuscate a rather relevant fact which is that the "super rich" i.e. oligarchs and such like aren't British but are just residing here - so if they move the wealth gap suddenly closes again.

When the wealth gap" increases it's largely just because a few more billionaires have chosen to domicile themselves here here rather than proving something more fundamental is at play - the upside of these people moving here is that they tend to waste enormous amounts of their money on goods and VATable services in the UK which generates jobs - by way of example a neighbour of ours is managing a £36m refurb for an oligarch in Hampstead that has several hundred tradesmen working on it, another example is the ridiculous number of Jags and Range Rovers in the congestion charge zone - which support jobs and pour in millions through VAT on sales.

Now the UK has a reasonably competitive rate of Corporation Tax these same Oligarchs also quite often headquarter their businesses here as well - as can be seen by the number of mining and raw material companies now listed in London. These firms pay corporation tax on their significant global profits despite the misconception that all companies avoid tax.

are you suggesting it is one rule for them and one rule for us

Terribly envious demand for fairness there binbins

Stoner as noted Balls gave enough details for you to get excited ...were you disappointed there was no Spreadsheet 😉

PS did GO hit his forecasts at any time ?

its not the forecasts Im particularly worried about.

It's that either Balls is either a as timid as a church mouse OR he willfully ignores the size of the deficit OR he willfully doesnt care about the size of the deficit.

I dont necessarily think we need to be reducing the national debt dramatically, but even allowing for GDP and price growth, at some point in the cycle the gap needs filling with something other than our children's future economic activity.

And moar spreadsheets would be welcome.