RugbyRebels

Yes, but if some don't want to pay higher taxes for fear of government waste others will vs the citizenry spending money on cancer beds, getting pissed, an eighth pair of shoes made in a child labour sweatshop, and so on is all

Agreed. Again, it’s not a blanket statement. It’s not black and white. Some are reticent to pay more tax as they don’t think it’s used efficiently whilst some others accept that there will always be inefficiencies and nobody has actually found a better or more equitable way of pooling risk. We seem to be getting into discussions that if I say one thing I automatically believe it to be a blanket truth or that all alternatives are the opposite.
This all started out because WT almost bemoaned the fact that a party should have to set out their rationale for a tax rise. What it’s turned into is, because I put the case that it’s quite normal for people to want to know where their money is spent and that it is spent prudently, a discussion about privatisation of state controlled services and a large portion of the country who will happily hand over more taxes in the belief our politicians and civil service will spend it wisely, when at no point did I mention privatisation or try and argue that there aren’t lot of people who will just happily pay more tax.
Unless we want every post to become dissertation length responses covering every conceivably related issue then we need to stop the whataboutery (mostly be because I hate the word as it lacks imagination).
As an aside, given the amount of abuse politicians and civil servants rightly receive on here at the moment, I’m suprised anyone would think it’s a good idea to hand over more taxes to those two sets of people without actually worrying whether they will spend it wisely or wanting to know what their priorities are.
As for my thoughts on tax. I’m instinctively a high wage, low tax supporter. However, I would happily move towards a Scandinavian model if the state stopped subsidising wages (with the obvious caveat that wages will rise commensurately and further) and if the quality of public sector provision can be rationally and critically discussed - as is impossible with the NHS and as evidenced by canta_brian’s reaction when I pointed out that the public sector can be incredibly inefficient at times.

Mellsblue wrote: This all started out because WT almost bemoaned the fact that a party should have to set out their rationale for a tax rise.

Actually, I did no such thing - this all started out because you misinterpretted what I said.

Which Tyler wrote:[
I's always been a case of how you frame the argument. Typically if you ask people "we'd like to do XXX (feed the homeless, have an NHS, recycle more plastic, whatever), and it's going to cost £Y.YY per person per year" that question gets a lot of positive responses; if you just ask "we'd like to raise taxes, for stuff" it gets a negative.
The right generally have an upper hand in this, as they just have the same argument for each case; whilst to get approval, the left typically needs to make the case for individual projects, AND find the one that resonates, AND push it to resonate greater than the "but that'll cost £££" counter.

Sounds very much like a moan about having to justify tax rises to me.

Mellsblue wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:[
I's always been a case of how you frame the argument. Typically if you ask people "we'd like to do XXX (feed the homeless, have an NHS, recycle more plastic, whatever), and it's going to cost £Y.YY per person per year" that question gets a lot of positive responses; if you just ask "we'd like to raise taxes, for stuff" it gets a negative.
The right generally have an upper hand in this, as they just have the same argument for each case; whilst to get approval, the left typically needs to make the case for individual projects, AND find the one that resonates, AND push it to resonate greater than the "but that'll cost £££" counter.

Sounds very much like a moan about having to justify tax rises to me.

I thought it was more about the electoral advantage of actually justifying them rather than just going "Yo, make with the money dawgs".

Peat wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:[
I's always been a case of how you frame the argument. Typically if you ask people "we'd like to do XXX (feed the homeless, have an NHS, recycle more plastic, whatever), and it's going to cost £Y.YY per person per year" that question gets a lot of positive responses; if you just ask "we'd like to raise taxes, for stuff" it gets a negative.
The right generally have an upper hand in this, as they just have the same argument for each case; whilst to get approval, the left typically needs to make the case for individual projects, AND find the one that resonates, AND push it to resonate greater than the "but that'll cost £££" counter.

Sounds very much like a moan about having to justify tax rises to me.

I thought it was more about the electoral advantage of actually justifying them rather than just going "Yo, make with the money dawgs".

The first para I agree. The second definitely sounds like a moan about having to do it.

Mellsblue wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:[
I's always been a case of how you frame the argument. Typically if you ask people "we'd like to do XXX (feed the homeless, have an NHS, recycle more plastic, whatever), and it's going to cost £Y.YY per person per year" that question gets a lot of positive responses; if you just ask "we'd like to raise taxes, for stuff" it gets a negative.
The right generally have an upper hand in this, as they just have the same argument for each case; whilst to get approval, the left typically needs to make the case for individual projects, AND find the one that resonates, AND push it to resonate greater than the "but that'll cost £££" counter.

Sounds very much like a moan about having to justify tax rises to me.

not even slightly (by intent at least - though we all know that intent can go out of he window in written communication)

Which Tyler wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:[
I's always been a case of how you frame the argument. Typically if you ask people "we'd like to do XXX (feed the homeless, have an NHS, recycle more plastic, whatever), and it's going to cost £Y.YY per person per year" that question gets a lot of positive responses; if you just ask "we'd like to raise taxes, for stuff" it gets a negative.
The right generally have an upper hand in this, as they just have the same argument for each case; whilst to get approval, the left typically needs to make the case for individual projects, AND find the one that resonates, AND push it to resonate greater than the "but that'll cost £££" counter.

Sounds very much like a moan about having to justify tax rises to me.

not even slightly (by intent at least - though we all know that intent can go out of he window in written communication)

Fair enough. The mis-interpretation did lead to some lively debate and a £10 profit for me, so not all bad.

I have not won £10, so clearly the fantasy world of Corbynomics isn't working for all of us

Quite a few articles from respected institutions on the impact that Labours tax policy would have had on the UK; the majority regard it as dangerous. Raising corporation tax will make corporations think twice, in a world where we are about to leave the EU and there is huge uncertainty, this is beyond insanity.

There is also considerable evidence that raising tax on individuals doesn’t necessarily mean an increase in revenue, or at least not a proportionate increase. It’s maxing how creative people can be in getting income or perks in other ways.

Labours tax policy was a sop to its class warfare elements. Atnhe best of times it’s dibious, even if Corbyn et al kept to the limits they imposed, but during Brexit it’s pure stupidity.

Sandydragon wrote:Quite a few articles from respected institutions on the impact that Labours tax policy would have had on the UK; the majority regard it as dangerous. Raising corporation tax will make corporations think twice, in a world where we are about to leave the EU and there is huge uncertainty, this is beyond insanity.

There is also considerable evidence that raising tax on individuals doesn’t necessarily mean an increase in revenue, or at least not a proportionate increase. It’s maxing how creative people can be in getting income or perks in other ways.

Labours tax policy was a sop to its class warfare elements. Atnhe best of times it’s dibious, even if Corbyn et al kept to the limits they imposed, but during Brexit it’s pure stupidity.

At the risk of coming across all Michael Gove, which institutions and what're their biases? I'm dubious about the neutrality of the likes of the CBI on whether their members should see any increase in tax, even a very slight one.

Plus, does anyone know what Labour's tax policy currently is during Brexit? I believe it's with the rest of their policy currently, which is filed under, "Laugh at the Tories and avoid giving any specifics at all in the hope that everything's clearer by the time the next election comes." Bit weird to be criticising their 2017 manifesto on the fact that it wouldn't be suitable for the horlicks that the government's made of Brexit in 2018.

On another note, really irked about yet another anti-Semitism story. Yes, the Mail have taken something drastically out of context (given that he was referring to a group of people who specifically identified as Zionist, rather than referring to all Jews), but you get the feeling that this is far from the bottom of the Mail's big bag of embarrassing stories. Stepping down could mean someone like Thornberry stepping up, who I think could carry a lot of the Corbyn fans while not having the hefty baggage (and being much better at speaking and debating). However, it could just as easily lead to the PLP asserting themselves and getting Umunna in, which would be far from ideal.

Say what you will about hin, Corbyn has shifted the Overton window of politics in the UK in a direction that it desperately needed to go. I'm concerned that the imminent recession combined with Labour lurching to the right would leave us in a very parlous position.

Puja

Adam Smith Institute and IFS.

And I do agree that at the moment , Labour doesn’t seem to have a policy on anything other than to shoot itself in the foot at every opportunity.

To be fair, the labour manifesto of 2017 was after the referendum so it was obvious that we would be leaving the EU. I accept that the situation didn’t look quite as bad then, but the same principle of raising taxes by a significant amount when leaving the EU and dealing with that uncertainty holds true.

Sandydragon wrote:Adam Smith Institute and IFS.

And I do agree that at the moment , Labour doesn’t seem to have a policy on anything other than to shoot itself in the foot at every opportunity.

To be fair, the labour manifesto of 2017 was after the referendum so it was obvious that we would be leaving the EU. I accept that the situation didn’t look quite as bad then, but the same principle of raising taxes by a significant amount when leaving the EU and dealing with that uncertainty holds true.

Okay, fair enough - those are credible. They're both low tax/free market advocates though which, while it doesn't preclude them being right, does mean that they will always have their biases which affect their analyses and predictions. Both of those declared austerity was the best way out of the financial crisis, which has turned out to manifestly not be the case.

"A significant amount" is a very misleading phrase anyway - they weren't talking about hoiking it up to never before seen levels, but bringing the headline rate from 22% to 26%, which is still lower than it was in 2010, and lower than Germany, France, Belgium, Netherlands, Italy, or Spain.

It's all moot anyway, as that manifesto was combined with the idea of a soft Brexit, which has now been thoroughly shat upon, and so the whole thing's a hypothetical based upon something that no longer exists.

Puja

Rather than simply talk of raising or lowering taxation levels I'd prefer they map out who controls/owns the given level of wealth and then comment as to whether they want to change that, if yes by how much, and using what methods. I also think manifestos should be making clearer what shift if any is being sought between public and private sector

Puja wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:Adam Smith Institute and IFS.

And I do agree that at the moment , Labour doesn’t seem to have a policy on anything other than to shoot itself in the foot at every opportunity.

To be fair, the labour manifesto of 2017 was after the referendum so it was obvious that we would be leaving the EU. I accept that the situation didn’t look quite as bad then, but the same principle of raising taxes by a significant amount when leaving the EU and dealing with that uncertainty holds true.

Okay, fair enough - those are credible. They're both low tax/free market advocates though which, while it doesn't preclude them being right, does mean that they will always have their biases which affect their analyses and predictions. Both of those declared austerity was the best way out of the financial crisis, which has turned out to manifestly not be the case.

"A significant amount" is a very misleading phrase anyway - they weren't talking about hoiking it up to never before seen levels, but bringing the headline rate from 22% to 26%, which is still lower than it was in 2010, and lower than Germany, France, Belgium, Netherlands, Italy, or Spain.

It's all moot anyway, as that manifesto was combined with the idea of a soft Brexit, which has now been thoroughly shat upon, and so the whole thing's a hypothetical based upon something that no longer exists.

Puja

I think it’s fair to say significant. We would go from the lowest corporation tax in the EU to mid range ish, but at a time when we would lose any benefit of EU membership. Not very attractive to big businesss until the dust settled and any longer term benefits from Brexit (I’ll be kind and suggest some might exist) are realised.

Digby wrote:Rather than simply talk of raising or lowering taxation levels I'd prefer they map out who controls/owns the given level of wealth and then comment as to whether they want to change that, if yes by how much, and using what methods. I also think manifestos should be making clearer what shift if any is being sought between public and private sector

I’d love to see a manifesto that actually tries to look more than a few years ahead and paint a picture of how this country could look in 20 years in a holistic sense, rather than just knee jerk reactions to individual issues.

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:Rather than simply talk of raising or lowering taxation levels I'd prefer they map out who controls/owns the given level of wealth and then comment as to whether they want to change that, if yes by how much, and using what methods. I also think manifestos should be making clearer what shift if any is being sought between public and private sector

I’d love to see a manifesto that actually tries to look more than a few years ahead and paint a picture of how this country could look in 20 years in a holistic sense, rather than just knee jerk reactions to individual issues.

Thats the last thing either side want to do

remainers/eu simply dont have the optimism to see the eu surviving that long
leavers dont have the certainty to make that kind of declaration

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:Rather than simply talk of raising or lowering taxation levels I'd prefer they map out who controls/owns the given level of wealth and then comment as to whether they want to change that, if yes by how much, and using what methods. I also think manifestos should be making clearer what shift if any is being sought between public and private sector

I’d love to see a manifesto that actually tries to look more than a few years ahead and paint a picture of how this country could look in 20 years in a holistic sense, rather than just knee jerk reactions to individual issues.

That would be the dream, but not a single politician in the modern age has the character to do things that won't immediately benefit and support them. Mind, even if there were, they wouldn't get voted for anyway.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:Rather than simply talk of raising or lowering taxation levels I'd prefer they map out who controls/owns the given level of wealth and then comment as to whether they want to change that, if yes by how much, and using what methods. I also think manifestos should be making clearer what shift if any is being sought between public and private sector

I’d love to see a manifesto that actually tries to look more than a few years ahead and paint a picture of how this country could look in 20 years in a holistic sense, rather than just knee jerk reactions to individual issues.

That would be the dream, but not a single politician in the modern age has the character to do things that won't immediately benefit and support them. Mind, even if there were, they wouldn't get voted for anyway.

Puja

It's the kind of thing the Lib Dems should try. Not as if things can get much worse for them...

Puja wrote: On another note, really irked about yet another anti-Semitism story. Yes, the Mail have taken something drastically out of context (given that he was referring to a group of people who specifically identified as Zionist, rather than referring to all Jews), but you get the feeling that this is far from the bottom of the Mail's big bag of embarrassing stories. Stepping down could mean someone like Thornberry stepping up, who I think could carry a lot of the Corbyn fans while not having the hefty baggage (and being much better at speaking and debating). However, it could just as easily lead to the PLP asserting themselves and getting Umunna in, which would be far from ideal.

Say what you will about hin, Corbyn has shifted the Overton window of politics in the UK in a direction that it desperately needed to go. I'm concerned that the imminent recession combined with Labour lurching to the right would leave us in a very parlous position.

Puja

The PLP has less power than the selectorate here (assuming there's enough MPs to get a Corbynite candidate on the card). Given the massive lurch to the left in the selectorate due to both entryism and exitism, the likelihood of getting Umuna is virtually nil. There's a strong chance you get someone more soft left than hard left, like Starmer, but people like Kendall and Umuna are done for a long time.

Not that it matters because he has no interest in stepping down (particularly since he can't guarantee getting his choice of successor).


However, I think you're severely underestimate the offensiveness of his remarks. Leaving aside the blurred lines between Zionist and Jew - both in the sense 90% of Jews in this country identify with Israel's right to exist, and that its not uncommon to racists to use the terms interchangeably, as he himself acknowledges - the comments are bad enough in the kindest context. No one would dare to suggest British francophiles aren't properly British. It should be the same for British zionists.


I am going to indulge in conspiracy for a moment. The Mail has clearly really stepped up their attacks on Corbyn this capacity this summer. There's all sorts of potential answers for why - but one is that they have a new editor, who is a Remainer. If the UK is to remain, Labour has to be overtly pro-EU and seek to force either a General Election (and run on a pro-EU platform) or a second vote. But Corbyn doesn't want to do it. However, the more pressure he's under, the more likely he's to follow the party's will and go there. Ergo, the Mail need to put pressure on Corbyn.

I'm probably wrong mind. But its a fun conspiracy.

Stom wrote:

Puja wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: I’d love to see a manifesto that actually tries to look more than a few years ahead and paint a picture of how this country could look in 20 years in a holistic sense, rather than just knee jerk reactions to individual issues.

That would be the dream, but not a single politician in the modern age has the character to do things that won't immediately benefit and support them. Mind, even if there were, they wouldn't get voted for anyway.

Puja

It's the kind of thing the Lib Dems should try. Not as if things can get much worse for them...

I read today that Vince’s days are numbered and there might be a change to make he party more of a movement, with potentially a leader who isn’t an MP.

They would get a huge shot in the arm if disaffected labour and centralist tories move to join them.

Peat wrote:

Puja wrote: On another note, really irked about yet another anti-Semitism story. Yes, the Mail have taken something drastically out of context (given that he was referring to a group of people who specifically identified as Zionist, rather than referring to all Jews), but you get the feeling that this is far from the bottom of the Mail's big bag of embarrassing stories. Stepping down could mean someone like Thornberry stepping up, who I think could carry a lot of the Corbyn fans while not having the hefty baggage (and being much better at speaking and debating). However, it could just as easily lead to the PLP asserting themselves and getting Umunna in, which would be far from ideal.

Say what you will about hin, Corbyn has shifted the Overton window of politics in the UK in a direction that it desperately needed to go. I'm concerned that the imminent recession combined with Labour lurching to the right would leave us in a very parlous position.

Puja

The PLP has less power than the selectorate here (assuming there's enough MPs to get a Corbynite candidate on the card). Given the massive lurch to the left in the selectorate due to both entryism and exitism, the likelihood of getting Umuna is virtually nil. There's a strong chance you get someone more soft left than hard left, like Starmer, but people like Kendall and Umuna are done for a long time.

Not that it matters because he has no interest in stepping down (particularly since he can't guarantee getting his choice of successor).


However, I think you're severely underestimate the offensiveness of his remarks. Leaving aside the blurred lines between Zionist and Jew - both in the sense 90% of Jews in this country identify with Israel's right to exist, and that its not uncommon to racists to use the terms interchangeably, as he himself acknowledges - the comments are bad enough in the kindest context. No one would dare to suggest British francophiles aren't properly British. It should be the same for British zionists.


I am going to indulge in conspiracy for a moment. The Mail has clearly really stepped up their attacks on Corbyn this capacity this summer. There's all sorts of potential answers for why - but one is that they have a new editor, who is a Remainer. If the UK is to remain, Labour has to be overtly pro-EU and seek to force either a General Election (and run on a pro-EU platform) or a second vote. But Corbyn doesn't want to do it. However, the more pressure he's under, the more likely he's to follow the party's will and go there. Ergo, the Mail need to put pressure on Corbyn.

I'm probably wrong mind. But its a fun conspiracy.

I’ve heard worse theories.

Peat wrote:

Puja wrote: On another note, really irked about yet another anti-Semitism story. Yes, the Mail have taken something drastically out of context (given that he was referring to a group of people who specifically identified as Zionist, rather than referring to all Jews), but you get the feeling that this is far from the bottom of the Mail's big bag of embarrassing stories. Stepping down could mean someone like Thornberry stepping up, who I think could carry a lot of the Corbyn fans while not having the hefty baggage (and being much better at speaking and debating). However, it could just as easily lead to the PLP asserting themselves and getting Umunna in, which would be far from ideal.

Say what you will about hin, Corbyn has shifted the Overton window of politics in the UK in a direction that it desperately needed to go. I'm concerned that the imminent recession combined with Labour lurching to the right would leave us in a very parlous position.

Puja

The PLP has less power than the selectorate here (assuming there's enough MPs to get a Corbynite candidate on the card). Given the massive lurch to the left in the selectorate due to both entryism and exitism, the likelihood of getting Umuna is virtually nil. There's a strong chance you get someone more soft left than hard left, like Starmer, but people like Kendall and Umuna are done for a long time.

Not that it matters because he has no interest in stepping down (particularly since he can't guarantee getting his choice of successor).

I think you're underestimating the risk of someone like Umunna. There's still a large part of the Labour party that sees that their last electoral victory was when they sat firmly in the centre/slightly to the right and will go for that again (ignoring the fact that the centre itself has now shifted far to the right), especially if the argument is made that the left have had their chance and haven't got anywhere. Plus he's always been very staunchly anti-Brexit and has rebelled against Corbyn on that a lot, which gives him another unifying route. If he gets some momentum (no pun intended), he could get somewhere.

Peat wrote:However, I think you're severely underestimate the offensiveness of his remarks. Leaving aside the blurred lines between Zionist and Jew - both in the sense 90% of Jews in this country identify with Israel's right to exist, and that its not uncommon to racists to use the terms interchangeably, as he himself acknowledges - the comments are bad enough in the kindest context. No one would dare to suggest British francophiles aren't properly British. It should be the same for British zionists.

You make a fair point - acknowledged. Although I will note that he was referring to a particular group of British Zionists who had heckled a Palestinian speaker, not Zionists in general. It wasn't good any way you slice it, but context ameliorates very slightly.

Peat wrote:I am going to indulge in conspiracy for a moment. The Mail has clearly really stepped up their attacks on Corbyn this capacity this summer. There's all sorts of potential answers for why - but one is that they have a new editor, who is a Remainer. If the UK is to remain, Labour has to be overtly pro-EU and seek to force either a General Election (and run on a pro-EU platform) or a second vote. But Corbyn doesn't want to do it. However, the more pressure he's under, the more likely he's to follow the party's will and go there. Ergo, the Mail need to put pressure on Corbyn.

I'm probably wrong mind. But its a fun conspiracy.

That is the most generous interpretation to the motives of the Daily Mail that I've ever seen! I'd like it to be true (cause it is fun), but while the editor's in favour of remain, the ownership and the rest of the management are all still horrible cuntpuffins and I don't see a future where they back a socialist Labour party.

Puja

Does it really matter what the Mail's reasons are, and I'll also note that Brexit-supporting papers are behind some of the 'attack', the fact is that there is now such a weighty body of evidence that if it were a Conservative MP Corbyn would be on his highest of high horses demanding a resignation - and rightly so.

Mellsblue wrote:Does it really matter what the Mail's reasons are, and I'll also note that Brexit-supporting papers are behind some of the 'attack', the fact is that there is now such a weighty body of evidence that if it were a Conservative MP Corbyn would be on his highest of high horses demanding a resignation - and rightly so.

Not really, but I enjoy occasional speculations on the unknowable and pointless, which is why I like talking about politics.

Puja wrote: I think you're underestimating the risk of someone like Umunna. There's still a large part of the Labour party that sees that their last electoral victory was when they sat firmly in the centre/slightly to the right and will go for that again (ignoring the fact that the centre itself has now shifted far to the right), especially if the argument is made that the left have had their chance and haven't got anywhere. Plus he's always been very staunchly anti-Brexit and has rebelled against Corbyn on that a lot, which gives him another unifying route. If he gets some momentum (no pun intended), he could get somewhere.

Is there? I forget the exact numbers but we know a ton of people only saw fit to join Labour after they saw an opportunity to move Labour away from that point and a decent whack of people left after Corbyn took over. I again forget the numbers on Corbyn's victory over Owen Smith (soft left rather than Labour right) but, huge.

As such, I'm not seeing it.