Another Drive4show 'Anything goes' thread

[ralphjohn69]

First topic message reminder :

It's not logic. Most pot 4 teams are no worse than Rangers. If Rangers were the worst ever pot 4 team last year, what makes them any better now?

Because instead of playing another Pot 3 team they will be playing a Pot 4 team, who will probably be worse than a Pot 3 team so they have a better chance of getting 3rd, although it's obviously not guaranteed. You really don't help yourself when you post about football....

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

I think it's pretty clear that a reform of the health system, where we actually do pay a direct contribution whether that's as insurance or per visit is required.
It works in health systems around Europe and Australia which are better than our health systems and have less waiting and better outcomes.

The big problem with the NHS is that it's seen as some sort of national sacred cow which like a US Gun Law cannot be reformed, people are deluded that it's a great system and simply can't see we need to reform it. That, contrary to what they believe does not mean USA is the only other model.

The funny thing is, that when a Doctor or Nurse flounces off to Australia for more money  (deservedly) and you ask them if they want the Australian model in the UK then they refuse to have it.
The other funny thing is that the NHS has more staff in it than any other Health System in Europe. Germany has 16m more people in it's population, but has a better doctor/nurse/bed ration per patient than the UK, but does it with fewer staff, so it begs the question what exactly are all those employed in the NHS (50% are non clinical) actually doing?
Furthermore when "Head of Diversity" is paid double what "Head of Cyber Security" you know they have their priorities wrong.

I only sit from afar, but it is bonkers to me the way pay currently is in the NHS - why would anyone in their right mind work as a nurse, when they get paid what they do, when they could be a pen pusher and earn £5-10k more?

That would be the first piece of reform I'd look to implement - pay the actual skilled clinical staff what the current non-clinical staff seem to get! (sure some of it is needed, but not to the extent it currently is)

[super_realist]

I think it's pretty clear that a reform of the health system, where we actually do pay a direct contribution whether that's as insurance or per visit is required.
It works in health systems around Europe and Australia which are better than our health systems and have less waiting and better outcomes.

The big problem with the NHS is that it's seen as some sort of national sacred cow which like a US Gun Law cannot be reformed, people are deluded that it's a great system and simply can't see we need to reform it. That, contrary to what they believe does not mean USA is the only other model.

The funny thing is, that when a Doctor or Nurse flounces off to Australia for more money  (deservedly) and you ask them if they want the Australian model in the UK then they refuse to have it.
The other funny thing is that the NHS has more staff in it than any other Health System in Europe. Germany has 16m more people in it's population, but has a better doctor/nurse/bed ration per patient than the UK, but does it with fewer staff, so it begs the question what exactly are all those employed in the NHS (50% are non clinical) actually doing?
Furthermore when "Head of Diversity" is paid double what "Head of Cyber Security" you know they have their priorities wrong.

I only sit from afar, but it is bonkers to me the way pay currently is in the NHS - why would anyone in their right mind work as a nurse, when they get paid what they do, when they could be a pen pusher and earn £5-10k more?

That would be the first piece of reform I'd look to implement - pay the actual skilled clinical staff what the current non-clinical staff seem to get! (sure some of it is needed, but not to the extent it currently is)

Trouble is that the mad lefties will not allow any reform of the NHS, they think you just have to continue to pile money in despite it currently receiving more money than it's ever had, it just keeps getting worse.

[Pal Joey]

I think it's pretty clear that a reform of the health system, where we actually do pay a direct contribution whether that's as insurance or per visit is required.
It works in health systems around Europe and Australia which are better than our health systems and have less waiting and better outcomes.

The big problem with the NHS is that it's seen as some sort of national sacred cow which like a US Gun Law cannot be reformed, people are deluded that it's a great system and simply can't see we need to reform it. That, contrary to what they believe does not mean USA is the only other model.

The funny thing is, that when a Doctor or Nurse flounces off to Australia for more money  (deservedly) and you ask them if they want the Australian model in the UK then they refuse to have it.
The other funny thing is that the NHS has more staff in it than any other Health System in Europe. Germany has 16m more people in it's population, but has a better doctor/nurse/bed ration per patient than the UK, but does it with fewer staff, so it begs the question what exactly are all those employed in the NHS (50% are non clinical) actually doing?
Furthermore when "Head of Diversity" is paid double what "Head of Cyber Security" you know they have their priorities wrong.

I only sit from afar, but it is bonkers to me the way pay currently is in the NHS - why would anyone in their right mind work as a nurse, when they get paid what they do, when they could be a pen pusher and earn £5-10k more?

That would be the first piece of reform I'd look to implement - pay the actual skilled clinical staff what the current non-clinical staff seem to get! (sure some of it is needed, but not to the extent it currently is)

Trouble is that the mad lefties will not allow any reform of the NHS, they think you just have to continue to pile money in despite it currently receiving more money than it's ever had, it just keeps getting worse.

And don't forget the huge increases in immigration in both the UK and Australia. That adds an even greater burden on the system. Here 756,000 arrived and 217,000 left making 539,000 new arrivals. We've just ticked over to 27 million in February, so Australia now has about 2/5 of the UK population of 68 million.

I see you've had 1.2 million immigrants and 508,000 emigrants... making 672,000 new arrivals in year ending June 2023. So probably even more last year? Both countries are suffocating themselves and clogging up the health system and no doubt every other critical essential service. No wonder there's so much anger and frustration about wherever you go...

It the same scenario re housing, more people coming in, need more of them to have appropriate building skills. It's like we're creating bigger and bigger problems for ourselves and we're still falling hopelessly short in housing supply due to this self-inflicted surge in demand.

There is no way we can build at least 80-100,000 new dwellings every year, when there are currently only half that number in dwelling completions. Solution? Bring even more unskilled labourers into the country to build them. It's a disastrous Ponzi scheme really and we'll probably have to start housing people in tents or large construction camps like they did in the 50s during the post-war immigration surge.

Here they keep expanding existing hospitals and build only a handful of newer and larger ones... but by the time they are finished, they are also under more pressure and unable to cope with the ever-increasing demand. There is also the issue of ambulance ramping, where patients are kept in the back of the van in the hospital car park until a bed (or corridor space) becomes free. Also cases of long delays in ambulance response times after dialing 000... resulting in unnecessary deaths.

It's not easy to run a completely flawless heath system but you can also see some massive improvements. The nurses got a bit of a pay rise but still there's also a lot of non-clinical staff imported from all over the world. It's a bit of a lottery really if you end up in hospital. Some are great; others are on a very steep learning curve and have communication issues but I guess that's always been the case in such countries with a huge diversity of people from all corners.

[navyblueshorts]

...And don't forget the huge increases in immigration in both the UK and Australia....

But, but, but...the UK is the 6th largest by GDP, isn't it? We're wealthy as a Nation, aren't we? OK, so where's the ****ing money, then? Why is it that all the national infrastructure is FUBAR?

Interesting that, despite the noise (usually from the Daily Heil etc), we're actually not that highly taxed cf. other 'western' or OECD nations (see here, for example). Aside from whether taxes are spent efficiently, it's almost as if some sections of society/industry don't pay enough...

[super_realist]

...And don't forget the huge increases in immigration in both the UK and Australia....

But, but, but...the UK is the 6th largest by GDP, isn't it? We're wealthy as a Nation, aren't we? OK, so where's the ****ing money, then? Why is it that all the national infrastructure is FUBAR?

Interesting that, despite the noise (usually from the Daily Heil etc), we're actually not that highly taxed cf. other 'western' or OECD nations (see here, for example). Aside from whether taxes are spent efficiently, it's almost as if some sections of society/industry don't pay enough...

It's been shown that the type of immigration we have been having doesn't actually do anything material for the economy.
We don't need hundreds of thousands of people coming here just because they want a better life, we need people who can bring skills and experience and we need infrastructure which grows at the rate of immigration.

As for "certain sectors of society" not contributing enough for society, well it's the top 10% of earners that pay 60% of income tax, so it appears they do pay enough, and unless you are earning 40k+ you aren't paying enough NI to even cover your state pension anyway , so the majority of people aren't paying their way.

[Pal Joey]

...And don't forget the huge increases in immigration in both the UK and Australia....

But, but, but...the UK is the 6th largest by GDP, isn't it? We're wealthy as a Nation, aren't we? OK, so where's the ****ing money, then? Why is it that all the national infrastructure is FUBAR?

Interesting that, despite the noise (usually from the Daily Heil etc), we're actually not that highly taxed cf. other 'western' or OECD nations (see here, for example). Aside from whether taxes are spent efficiently, it's almost as if some sections of society/industry don't pay enough...

Yeah, it's the same here re tax. Not necessarily high personal tax rates at the lower end of the scale and they're trying to fiddle with the middle tax brackets (and get rid of a whole tax rung); the top end carries the major portion of the tax burden still - about 80%... it could be even higher?
Multi-national corporations are as slippery as ever of course but there are some meek efforts to try and force them to pay a larger chunk or create new taxes especially for them. So far not much success. The government talks big about it but are struggling to enforce it.

And when it comes to spending: we're 2 years into a new ALP government who seem to have the knack of throwing billions at the wrong industries or foreign organisations. The PM''s "captain's picks" as we call them. No accountability, no tendering processes... just announce that billions will be given to some lucky organisation (usually with links to current and former pollies) on any given day. That's not democratic! No doubt they will also need to keep pouring our tax money into these flawed ventures to keep them running at huge losses.

In addition, they undo some of the previous government's policies saying "we have a better plan or a better way" So lots of money wasted there too. Then the new policies cost a bomb and are more ideologically driven (to 'look good' to the rest of the world) and have next to no chance of succeeding. Here they think they can compete with China manufacturing solar panels when that industry barely exists here. But it's always the previous government's fault... "they left things in such a mess or didn't do enough... in this space" FFS!

Probably has something to do with the new government being in opposition for such a long period of time - always on the back foot. Then when they get in; very few (if any?) have the business skills or capability to come up with the right plans. They are practically damaged goods. All the 'transparency'  promised to the electorate goes out the window. A new arrogance and hubris comes to the fore. And the country gets into a deeper and deeper mess.

It's like a flaming vortex of self-destruction (fuelled by the continual failings mentioned above), re health, providing adequate housing, easing cost of living, rates of immigration, powder keg demonstrations for a particular 'cause', crime and domestic violence on the rise. Poor policy decision making flows through the economy and society with drastic affects... as we all can see.

I mean, if you were tasked with "How to Ruin a Country's Prosperity and Create As Many Problems for As Many People as Possible" - this is exactly what you would do!

It' going to be very interesting these next few years - and I think they'll be more unnecessary headaches for everyone, I'm afraid.
US Elections - we just have to accept either way will be another 4 year nightmare. There's nothing we can do but hang on for the (unnecessary) ride.
UK Elections - have a feeling Starmer will sort of bumble along. Hope I'm wrong. But he doesn't come across as a strong leader and I hope he doesn't equivocate and talk fluffy nonsense and instead faces any dire situations with knowledge, conviction and a strong sense of purpose.
These horrible wars  - history lessons not learnt by some. One huge challenge is to keep the lid on the country as social tensions reach bursting point.

Things generally aren't looking so good in the western world right now, are they? We really do need our politicians showing better leadership and avoid playing into the malevolent hands of both rotten individuals and corrupt 'nations'  -  and make some tough decisions. Not sure we have the right ones at present so it could get even worse for everyone, which is pretty unfortunate.

[navyblueshorts]

...And don't forget the huge increases in immigration in both the UK and Australia....

But, but, but...the UK is the 6th largest by GDP, isn't it? We're wealthy as a Nation, aren't we? OK, so where's the ****ing money, then? Why is it that all the national infrastructure is FUBAR?

Interesting that, despite the noise (usually from the Daily Heil etc), we're actually not that highly taxed cf. other 'western' or OECD nations (see here, for example). Aside from whether taxes are spent efficiently, it's almost as if some sections of society/industry don't pay enough...

It's been shown that the type of immigration we have been having doesn't actually do anything material for the economy.
We don't need hundreds of thousands of people coming here just because they want a better life, we need people who can bring skills and experience and we need infrastructure which grows at the rate of immigration.

As for "certain sectors of society" not contributing enough for society, well it's the top 10% of earners that pay 60% of income tax, so it appears they do pay enough, and unless you are earning 40k+ you aren't paying enough NI to even cover your state pension anyway , so the majority of people aren't paying their way.

Could you point me to where "it's been shown" that the 'type' of immigration we have essentially does nothing? I assume the immigration we have covers all stratas of the labour/skills market.

Are you suggesting we have the relevant labour force already here in the UK? If so, how does the country get it into the labour market in the areas needed? Clearly, it appears unable to do so to-date. Totally agree we need planned infrastructure investment alongside any net increase in population; something that seems to have been ignored by all political Parties.

Regardless of who pays the taxes to the Exchequer, it's clear we aren't paying enough for what we're apparently expecting. Add to that the assumptions of too many re. us still being Great Britain (i.e. we're an Empire. Aren't we?) and we are where we are. There needs to be a root and branch review of what we want/need, how much it costs and who should pay what towards it. It's a mess now and something's clearly wrong. I'd pay more if it could be guaranteed (that's the kicker, because I don't trust any of them as far as I can throw them anymore) it would go towards improving services/infrastructure that we all need, improvements in which would also presumably lead to improvements in the economy.
If I were to take a punt, I'd speculate that it's mainly corporate/business taxes that are seriously awry, and need to be addressed.

[super_realist]

Immigration only brings in a paltry 3.3bn net  which isn't remotely close to the finance required for our dilapidated infrastructure, transport, roads, hospitals, schools, housing etc and has not kept pace with increases in UK population.  

I think our personal taxation is most likely high enough already for UK salaries but I'd like to see anyone on a minimum wage salary taken out of income tax altogether (but not from  NI payment) but tend to agree the corporate tax collection is seriously flawed and unfair, to give an example of this windfall taxes on oil companies are ridiculous when they already pay so much tax.
Tesco made many times more profit than Harbour Energy, but  Harbour Energy pays 55% tax minimum on profit, and Tesco pays 20%
That isn't right.

Another example would be Republic of Ireland, their GDP per capita is among the top countries in Europe, but that's not down to individual earners, that's down to all the corporations based there and their profit due to exceptionally low corporation tax rates. The average income of Ireland is only €38000, so our GDP being sixth in the world is not a great measure of how "generous" we should be to letting migrants in in such numbers GDP doesn't represent our healthy our society is to accept such immigration levels.

Here in Norway I pay 39% tax on my whole salary, this would be about 30% across all income in UK by comparison. Norway works. We don't have potholes, don't have housing issues, don't have transport troubles, don't have health care issues, don't have school overcrowding, don't have desolate high streets.
That's what you need to pay to run a decent society, but Britain would never accept that tax rate. The thing is I get paid more here, and as a result cost of living is higher. No way UK corporation's would bump up salaries to accommodate this tax rise required to turn round Britain, no way workers would accept a 39% tax band across all earnings either.

As for employment in the UK, we have something like 9m adults economically inactive. The idea that all of them are incapable of work, especially in this time of "working from home" is very naive. We also have 53% of households in the UK in receipt of some point of benefit and something like one third of UK income tax goes on paying benefit. That needs to be solved.

[navyblueshorts]

Don't disagree w/ a lot of this. With a birth rate of ~1.5, we clearly need immigration long term.

Here in Norway I pay 39% tax on my whole salary, this would be about 30% across all income in UK by comparison. Norway works. We don't have potholes, don't have housing issues, don't have transport troubles, don't have health care issues, don't have school overcrowding, don't have desolate high streets.
That's what you need to pay to run a decent society, but Britain would never accept that tax rate. The thing is I get paid more here, and as a result cost of living is higher. No way UK corporation's would bump up salaries to accommodate this tax rise required to turn round Britain, no way workers would accept a 39% tax band across all earnings either.

We'd better put up, or shut up, then; we can't have it both ways. I presume Norway doesn't any 'tax credits' etc either. The fact that so many in the UK in full-time employment are perceived to (and do, in fact) need state top ups just for a basic standard of living says it all. God knows what proportion of our tax is going to subsidise employers who refuse to pay a decent wage to their employees, allowing them to give the dividends etc. Like the fraud of tipping expectation in restaurants etc, but on a larger scale. It's a joke.

There's no way why a high pay, high tax model wouldn't work in the UK, apart that is, from how selfish and dumb we appear to be. In addition, it's an indictment of our politicians that they can't/won't either consider this, or propose it to the population.

[super_realist]

That's the thing Navy, Brits unrealistically want Scandinavian standards of living with UK income tax. It just doesn't work, they also want European healthcare without any private elements or insurance payments. It's a system designed for at time of a lower population and far simpler (and less expensive) treatment. Britain currently pays more than enough tax for the level and standard of services it currently provides, it wastes a staggering amount of money and before raising taxes, they ought to make things a lot more efficient. ie water companies lose  billions of litres of water a day in leakage.

Britain needs a complete attitude change and for many reasons neither the left nor the right would ever allow it.

When I was in Scotland and paying massive amounts of additional  tax over the rest of the UK I was getting absolutely nothing for it, the roads were a mess, the street lights were always out, public transport was constantly cut back, rubbish moved to fortnightly collection, education and NHS terrible, crime up, high obesity etc etc etc.  
Most middle class people would happily pay more if they genuinely improved the things that matter, but they wouldn't improve it, they'd just spend it on worthless virtue signalling things like "Diversity managers"

Britain, compared to Europe is like a third world country and even if we'd have stayed in Europe I think it would be exactly the same. Population growth and crucially population density has simply exceeded the provision of services and infrastructure. Just raising taxes, like just giving the NHS more money doesn't help if it just gets wasted as it currently would Efficiency first, tax rise second.

[navyblueshorts]

That's the thing Navy, Brits unrealistically want Scandinavian standards of living with UK income tax. It just doesn't work, they also want European healthcare without any private elements or insurance payments. It's a system designed for at time of a lower population and far simpler (and less expensive) treatment. Britain currently pays more than enough tax for the level and standard of services it currently provides, it wastes a staggering amount of money and before raising taxes, they ought to make things a lot more efficient. ie water companies lose  billions of litres of water a day in leakage.

Britain needs a complete attitude change and for many reasons neither the left nor the right would ever allow it.

When I was in Scotland and paying massive amounts of additional  tax over the rest of the UK I was getting absolutely nothing for it, the roads were a mess, the street lights were always out, public transport was constantly cut back, rubbish moved to fortnightly collection, education and NHS terrible, crime up, high obesity etc etc etc.  
Most middle class people would happily pay more if they genuinely improved the things that matter, but they wouldn't improve it, they'd just spend it on worthless virtue signalling things like "Diversity managers"

Britain, compared to Europe is like a third world country and even if we'd have stayed in Europe I think it would be exactly the same. Population growth and crucially population density has simply exceeded the provision of services and infrastructure. Just raising taxes, like just giving the NHS more money doesn't help if it just gets wasted as it currently would Efficiency first, tax rise second.

Agree w/ pretty much all of this, as long as 'efficiency' doesn't equate to simply laying staff off, because that's what 'efficiency' means to too many of the useless managers and politicians, these days. They appear to measure it purely in terms of money made/money spent, forgetting all the while that, actually, they need people to make it work. Too many managers, I think, do this sort of slash and burn, then move on to some other job while trumpeting that they made 'savings' etc at their previous employer. The latter actually now unable to function because of the 'savings' that the prior managers have made.

Re. our wonderful water companies. a) it's absurd to privatise strategic assets quoting 'competition' (when there is none; or even if there is i.e. steel manufacturing), b) it should be axiomatic that new owners would actually ensure their infrastructure is up to standard and c) we're so dumb, and politicians are so dogmatic and sh1t, that we apparently allow hedge funds and banks etc to rip £billions out of the system as 'profit' or dividends, while presiding over a massive SNAFU where they're in huge debt and the the service they provide is awful. Thames Water, for example, should be allowed to fail and is then re-nationalised for nothing, while investigations into whether its running by private concerns have broken any laws.

[super_realist]

By efficiency I largely mean improving efficiency of how the business is run, specifically not wasting money.
For instance the NHS is ruinously wasteful. Making wheelchairs and crutches as disposable items as example, but yes, if people need to be laid off because they aren't doing anything productive or useful then yes, they have to go.
The NHS has a far higher rate of middle and upper management than any other European health system, and it is less efficient, not to mention the insane procurement on display there and things like prescribing ibuprofen, dandruff shampoo etc.
Britain is full of such businesses, and yes, the NHS NEEDS to behave as if it is a business.

[JAS]

We need to get away from the mindset that taxation is evil and penal. Taxation is the very lifeblood of the provision of public services. What’s wrong with it now (and has been since the Thatcher/Reagan era) is that the collection system is extremely skewed towards helping those that don’t need it help themselves.

Taxing the very rich until the pips squeak is the way to go (and if they leave,Frak that’ll be one less selfish I am a twonk of the highest order telling the rest of us we’re not working hard enough to give them a passive income.

Does public sector procurement need a rocket up the arse? Abso bloody lutely and EVERY govt Dept not just health. Although Health did excel themselves in terms of utter lunacy (Michelle Mone) being an example.

You can read this and just think “yeah but JAS is just full of the “politics of envy”… an excellent distraction from understanding what’s really going on in the world. The poor are now skint and sinking and so the filthy rich are now turning their attention to the middle classes. Just ask yourself this….why are house prices still going up in a cost of living crisis?  Because the rich have a Poopie ton of money and are using it to buy up assets. When we were young how easy was it to get on the housing ladder? How easy is it now for your average earner is their mid 20s to get on the housing ladder? (Without the bank of mum and dad?) Does anyone think that’s going to get easier? No of course not it’s getting to the point now where even the bank of mum and dad ain’t enough because Hooray Henry’s parents will make sure he outbids.

We are heading for a new Dickensian era where there will be a powerful asset owning class that basically runs the show and dictates to governments what they want. The rest will have to suck it up because they couldn’t be arsed to to a bit of research and understand what’s unfolding. Obviously many do but reckon the damage is already done. There is only one way out and that is for governments the world over of whatever hue to bite the bullet and tax the rich hard, really really hard. We’ve spent 40 years subscribing to some lunatic notion that if you let the rich do what they want the economy will flourish and the benefits will trickle down to everyone. THE single biggest socio-economic lie thats ever been touted to the human race. Wealth does NOT trickle down, there’s now irrefutable evidence to say quite the opposite, yet nobody in any position of authority seems prepared to debunk that myth and steer a completely different course.

[JAS]

There's no way why a high pay, high tax model wouldn't work in the UK, apart that is, from how selfish and dumb we appear to be. In addition, it's an indictment of our politicians that they can't/won't either consider this, or propose it to the population.

I’d actually venture the view that it’s an indictment of our foreign billionaire owned media. They control the Tax narrative. I still believe Corbyn would have wanted that radical shift in taxation policy. He did have presentational and charisma issues but boy did Murdoch’s infantry make sure that any attempted move away orthodox neoliberalism would be painted as naive economic lunacy. They’ll try and do the same with Starmer & Reeves, infact they already have got them in a fiscal straitjacket.

[super_realist]

We need to get away from the mindset that taxation is evil and penal. Taxation is the very lifeblood of the provision of public services. What’s wrong with it now (and has been since the Thatcher/Reagan era) is that the collection system is extremely skewed towards helping those that don’t need it help themselves.

Taxing the very rich until the pips squeak is the way to go (and if they leave,Frak that’ll be one less selfish I am a twonk of the highest order telling the rest of us we’re not working hard enough to give them a passive income.

Does public sector procurement need a rocket up the arse? Abso bloody lutely and EVERY govt Dept not just health. Although Health did excel themselves in terms of utter lunacy (Michelle Mone) being an example.

You can read this and just think “yeah but JAS is just full of the “politics of envy”… an excellent distraction from understanding what’s really going on in the world. The poor are now skint and sinking and so the filthy rich are now turning their attention to the middle classes. Just ask yourself this….why are house prices still going up in a cost of living crisis?  Because the rich have a Poopie ton of money and are using it to buy up assets. When we were young how easy was it to get on the housing ladder? How easy is it now for your average earner is their mid 20s to get on the housing ladder? (Without the bank of mum and dad?) Does anyone think that’s going to get easier? No of course not it’s getting to the point now where even the bank of mum and dad ain’t enough because Hooray Henry’s parents will make sure he outbids.

We are heading for a new Dickensian era where there will be a powerful asset owning class that basically runs the show and dictates to governments what they want. The rest will have to suck it up because they couldn’t be arsed to to a bit of research and understand what’s unfolding. Obviously many do but reckon the damage is already done. There is only one way out and that is for governments the world over of whatever hue to bite the bullet and tax the rich hard, really really hard. We’ve spent 40 years subscribing to some lunatic notion that if you let the rich do what they want the economy will flourish and the benefits will trickle down to everyone. THE single biggest socio-economic lie thats ever been touted to the human race. Wealth does NOT trickle down, there’s now irrefutable evidence to say quite the opposite, yet nobody in any position of authority seems prepared to debunk that myth and steer a completely different course.

That's all very well JAS, but people simply will not pay Scandinavian tax levels for the same level of service.
Tax rates are high in the UK considering the atrocious level of service. The NHS has never received more money, and it has never been worse.
Like I said in a preceeding post, before you can raise taxes, or even convince people as to why taxes need to increase, you first have to streamline our services so that we are actually getting value for money.
We do not get that in infrastructure, education, policing, law and order, health, water, BBC, local government, prisons, immigration utilities etc. We need to see considerable efficiency improvements here, otherwise you cannot convince an electorate they need to pay more.

Britain has to be the worst organised country in Europe, but I'll disagree it's all down to a wealthy elite. Do you think these don't exist in France, Germany, Italy ,Spain, Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Switzerland etc? You've lived abroad, you know this.

It's funny and ironic you bemoan the housing situation when you would appear to be from the very same bent of the left that would be happy to let every Tom, Dick and Abdul into the country, regardless of whether they bring anything to the country in terms of worth.
Net immigration was something like 650k last year, we can start by banning foreign students from bringing family members with them unless they are PhD level.
Our infrastructure simply can't support that sort of year on year growth.
Funny how those in favour of open borders have never joined the dots between housing, health or diminishing provision of services.

As for taxing the rich, as I've said before, it's not individuals you need to worry about, it's corporations. The top 10% of earners already pay 60% of our tax income, so that's not the problem, even if Labour rethink you can run a country on non dom tax and VAT on school fees. UK needs to do what Oirland has done and slash corporation tax. They went from peasants to skyrocketing GDP, and it had nothing to do with the Irish population suddenly paying more tax.

[navyblueshorts]

There's no way why a high pay, high tax model wouldn't work in the UK, apart that is, from how selfish and dumb we appear to be. In addition, it's an indictment of our politicians that they can't/won't either consider this, or propose it to the population.

I’d actually venture the view that it’s an indictment  of our foreign billionaire owned media. They control the Tax narrative. I still believe Corbyn would have wanted that radical shift in taxation policy. He did have presentational and charisma issues but boy did Murdoch’s infantry make sure that any attempted move away orthodox neoliberalism would be painted as naive economic lunacy. They’ll try and do the same with Starmer & Reeves, infact they already have got them in a fiscal  straitjacket.

Yeah. Corbyn missed his chance (which says a lot about the man, I think) and when he was on a high, he couldn't be bothered to appeal to the floating voter such as myself. He went all in on an extreme vision (cf. current and recent administrations), lost the floating voters and in addition, got pilloried for other stuff as well.

Completely agree re. the media. It's anything but unbiased 'news' in the main. If you've not already (reckon you might have, though), worth reading 'Manufacturing Consent' by Herman and Chomsky - US targeted, but absolutely applicable here.

[super_realist]

You need to stop this nonsense that Corbyn failed because of some right wing media conspiracy Jas.

Corbyn was inept, charmless, humourless, miserable, racist, terrorist sympathiser, Russophile etc and no media outlet needed to spend any effort in exposing him.
Much like Labour haven't needed to do anything but wait for Tories to hang themselves it's similar in the way that the media simply sat back and waited for Corbyn and his vile accolytes to stick their own feet in their collective mouths.

[navyblueshorts]

Corbyn was a lot of that (less sure on the 'racist' charge when once digs into it), but let's not pretend that the media (particularly that which might be described as 'right wing') are innocent of peddling lies and nonsense in order to smear someone to satisfy either political, or commercial, interests.

[super_realist]

Corbyn was a lot of that (less sure on the 'racist' charge when once digs into it), but let's not pretend that the media (particularly that which might be described as 'right wing') are innocent of peddling lies and nonsense in order to smear someone to satisfy either political, or commercial, interests.

Perish the thought of the newspapers reporting the news. What do you expect them to do? The left wing media are always all over anything the right does wrong but somehow the right wing media should just ignore it when the left do it.

Imagine if Biden was Trump and his senility was discussed more in left wing media. The media were all over Party gate and all that stuff, but less so on Starmer, less so on Ungellla Raaaaynur too.
Corbyn and McDonnel were such lunatics and such crazy Marxists that they didn't need media to expose them. They demonstrated that by being such an inept party that Labour, Milliband and Corbyn couldn't beat (and didn't even come close) the three worst post war PM's and weakest Tory party in living memory.
Corbyn was kicked out of the Parliamentary Labour party for racism as was Flabbot. I actually give Starmer credit for that.

[navyblueshorts]

Corbyn was a lot of that (less sure on the 'racist' charge when once digs into it), but let's not pretend that the media (particularly that which might be described as 'right wing') are innocent of peddling lies and nonsense in order to smear someone to satisfy either political, or commercial, interests.

Perish the thought of the newspapers reporting the news. What do you expect them to do? The left wing media are always all over anything the right does wrong but somehow the right wing media should just ignore it when the left do it.

Imagine if Biden was Trump and his senility was discussed more in left wing media. The media were all over Party gate and all that stuff, but less so on Starmer, less so on Ungellla Raaaaynur too.
Corbyn and McDonnel were such lunatics and such crazy Marxists that they didn't need media to expose them. They demonstrated that by being such an inept party that Labour, Milliband and Corbyn couldn't beat (and didn't even come close) the three worst post war PM's and weakest Tory party in living memory.
Corbyn was kicked out of the Parliamentary Labour party for racism as was Flabbot.  I actually give Starmer credit for that.

Reporting the news is fine, but it would be nice if they just did that, instead of made sh1t up, as is too often the case. I wasn't suggesting left-leaning media might not also be guilty, but it's a truism that most of the mainstream UK media is right-leaning.

There's less on Starmer because, well, they know there's nothing to see there. Ditto Rayner, pretty much, but she's a 'lefty', authentic and can engage the left of the Labour party, so the rabid right wing bloc are frothing at the mouth. Quelle surprise.

Corbyn was kicked out, specifically, re. anti-Semitism. Suggest you read around a little bit i.e. 'Weaponising Anti-Semitism', by Asa Winstanley etc. Given the knee-jerk support of Israel by pretty much the entire UK political spectrum (and Starmer's pathetic reaction), in denial of the evidence of Israel's historical behaviour together with their actual behaviour in Gaza now and the fact that active/strong pro-Israel lobbying is a reality and the fact that Corbyn refused to apologise for comments attributed to him (I wouldn't, either, if they were groundless), then it was hardly a surprise.

Islington North is apparently ~40% white British, ~22% 'other' white, ~9% Asian, ~15% black, ~8% mixed ethnic and ~7% 'other' ethnicities (see here). Therefore, approx. 40% 'non-white British' and approx. 60% 'non-white'. Corbyn got ~64% of the vote in 2019 and at least one prediction (here) has him increasing his vote share. I think it unlikely that he's actually racist, given these sort of numbers.

Corbyn was an amateur when it came to the organised politics required to win the 2019 GE, but it would nice if what we read in the mainstream press was actually based on objective information and reporting. Too often it's not and, IMO, the right-leaning media are far worse are this sort of misreporting.

Starmer's exclusion of Abbott, Corbyn etc is understandable re. trying to re-brand Labour and gaining power, but cynical and based on dubious facts and/or interpretations.

[super_realist]

I just don't agree that the majority of the UK media are "right wing". I think that is nonsense.
BBC, Sky, Channel 4, Channel 5, Guardian, Mirror, Observer Social Media etc are all largely left wing or guilty of being left leaning.

Given you seem to be toeing the Lineker line, and ignoring the "Hamas stuff" what do you think an appropriate response of Israel would be?
Do you think if US or UK had 1200 people killed in a terrorist attack that we would just sit back and go "oh well, never mind".
Israel are within their rights to defend themselves and to root out Hamas.
Funny how all these pro Palestinian people never have a bad word for Hamas, never ask for hostages to be returned or never ask for Hamas to surrender isn't it?

Also funny how 2 million Muslims in Chinese concentration camps aren't an issue for them, they only matter if Israelis are at the other end of a conflict.

What dubious facts about Corbyn? He is a racist because he's an outspoken anti Semite, he is a terrorist sympathiser, he is a Russophile and he is a mad Marxist. There is no place for his politics in mainstream UK politics, which is why the UK has never been anything other than centre left or centre right.

[navyblueshorts]

I just don't agree that the majority of the UK media are "right wing". I think that is nonsense.
BBC, Sky, Channel 4, Channel 5, Guardian, Mirror, Observer Social Media etc are all largely left wing or guilty of being left leaning.

Apologies, I was referring to mainstream print media. I wouldn't include social media in this conversation, but happy to consider X, and its absurd owner if you like? I'd argue that the BBC, Sky, Channels 4/5 etc aren't left-leaning and try to tread a pretty neutral line, along which they're clearly going to produce material/reports etc that hack off those from either the left or right of the spectrum. The fact the BBC seems to p!ss off the left and right, depending on article, would suggest they're doing a fair job of trying to maintain some sort of neutrality.

Given you seem to be toeing the Lineker line, and ignoring the "Hamas stuff" what do you think an appropriate response of Israel would be?
Do you think if US or UK had 1200 people killed in a terrorist attack that we would just sit back and go "oh well, never mind".
Israel are within their rights to defend themselves and to root out Hamas.
Funny how all these pro Palestinian people never have a bad word for Hamas, never ask for hostages to be returned or never ask for Hamas to surrender isn't it?

I'm not "ignoring the Hamas stuff". At all. It's also tangential to where were at re. Corbyn, but since you ask, I'll bite. I think Israel's response reflects the typical macho, usually male, absurdity of so many so-called leaders. They could quite easily have mopped up the insurgents that had entered Israel proper and then decided in a rational manner how to deal with the hostage situation and Hamas. Once Israel was awake to what was going on, Hamas has pretty much no armaments that can do Israel any harm whatsoever. They'd have had almost universal support in following a rational response, but no, of course they couldn't do that. They had to go all Rambo and appease the right wing xenophobes that prop up Netenyahu's government etc. Biden even implored them not to make the same post-9/11 mistakes (i.e. a purely vengeance-based response) that the US had made.
I don't think 'we' would sit back at all, mainly because we're led by the same sort of ****wits as Israel is, albeit with less of an obvious xenophobic input into national policy. We're getting there with the current Tory sewer we have as a Government, but we need more time on that.
Israel are absolutely within their rights to defend themselves (not that it's what they're doing now) and neutralise Hamas. However, they're members of the UN, signatories to conventions on human rights and international laws relating to wars and genocide etc etc. They are not allowed to murder innocent civilians and trot out the pathetic excuses that they do.

All of this on top of the historic rape, murder & ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people, theft of Palestinian land/property etc etc that Israel and its now IDF have perpetrated for ~80 or more years. The Palestinians have had no recourse through any legal means either in Israel itself or at fora such as the UN. It's hardly a surprise that they've resorted to supporting, or taking part in, armed uprisings; such uprisings being relatively recent cf. Israel's ethnic cleansing etc.

You can go on all you like with the whataboutery of "They never condemn Hamas!" line if you like, but it's not true and you should know better. People protesting Israel's behaviour absolutely have, and do, condemn Hamas. However, it's not a requirement of being allowed to condemn Israel that one should also lay into Hamas at the same time.

Also funny how 2 million Muslims in Chinese concentration camps aren't an issue for them, they only matter if Israelis are at the other end of a conflict.

What dubious facts about Corbyn? He is a racist because he's an outspoken anti Semite, he is a terrorist sympathiser, he is a Russophile and he is a mad Marxist. There is no place for his politics in mainstream UK politics, which is why the UK has never been anything other than centre left or centre right.

Your Uighur analogy is also more deflection. It's not specifically relevant to Israel, or those protesting their actions. Why would someone protesting Israel's behaviour in Gaza etc go and shout "...and another thing! What China's doing re. the Uighurs is a disgrace!" ?? That's absurd, and you don't actually know that if there was a protest re. China and the Uighurs, that many of the people protesting Israel's actions in Gaza wouldn't also be at protests re. China's treatment of their Uighur population. It's a justification you appear to be making to yourself, in the absence of actual evidence to that effect, to suggest that the Palestinian protests are therefore without merit.

I didn't comment on Corby re. being a Marxist, Russophile, or arguable terrorist sympathiser so don't bring that up as some sort of charge against my comments. Specifically, re. Corbyn and charges of anti-Semitism, I suggest you read a bit more widely, and not rely so much on those right-leaning print media where I started this reply. I proposed a starting text for you, but suggest that your mind is made up re. Corbyn and his views re. Jews, so you won't take up the challenge and read anything contrary to that view. I notice you didn't comment re. Corbyn's share of the vote in North Islington and its demographics, and how that tallies with him being such an obvious 'racist'.
Corbyn was/is many things, a lot of which wouldn't have convinced me to lend him my vote in 2019 (now? Maybe), and I won't forgive him for not trying to reach the floating voters that may well have given him the election, but I suggest we should be a little less credulous re. obviously politically motivated charges of things like being an anti-Semite being laid against him.

[Duty281]

Islington North is apparently ~40% white British, ~22% 'other' white, ~9% Asian, ~15% black, ~8% mixed ethnic and ~7% 'other' ethnicities (see here). Therefore, approx. 40% 'non-white British' and approx. 60% 'non-white'. Corbyn got ~64% of the vote in 2019 and at least one prediction (here) has him increasing his vote share. I think it unlikely that he's actually racist, given these sort of numbers.

I think Super was only claiming Corbyn is racist against Jews, so the relevance of the % of non-whites is fairly irrelevant in that case.

[navyblueshorts]

Islington North is apparently ~40% white British, ~22% 'other' white, ~9% Asian, ~15% black, ~8% mixed ethnic and ~7% 'other' ethnicities (see here). Therefore, approx. 40% 'non-white British' and approx. 60% 'non-white'. Corbyn got ~64% of the vote in 2019 and at least one prediction (here) has him increasing his vote share. I think it unlikely that he's actually racist, given these sort of numbers.

I think Super was only claiming Corbyn is racist against Jews, so the relevance of the % of non-whites is fairly irrelevant in that case.

Yeah; could be. 'Racist' is a bit of a catchall term though. Happy for him to confirm specifics.

[super_realist]

Israel are not "murdering" innocents Navy. Murder is intentional and no nation in the history of warfare has done so much to limit collateral damage.
They are taking far more precaution that any war in the last 200 years

Corbyns vote share is irrelevant in regards to the extent of his racism. This an openly anti Semitic man who cannot bring himself to condemn Hamas or indeed Russia.

In regards to these virtue signalling protests, they've been doing it every weekend for months, yet they don't protest China, Syria, Yemen etc for the atrocities going on there. Funny that.
Have to laugh at the Gays for Palestine stuff though.

[JAS]

You need to stop this nonsense that Corbyn failed because of some right wing media conspiracy Jas.

Corbyn was inept, charmless, humourless, miserable, racist, terrorist sympathiser, Russophile etc and no media outlet needed to spend any effort in exposing him.
Much like Labour haven't needed to do anything but wait for Tories to hang themselves it's similar in the way that the media simply sat back and waited for Corbyn and his vile accolytes to stick their own feet in their collective mouths.

I think I quite clearly said he had presentational and charisma issues, obviously those contributed in a big way but you surely cannot deny the way he was completely and utterly pilloried by the right wing media. Having said that his inability to robustly re-butt a lot of the Poopie that was thrown at him also suggests a certain ineptness for highest office. There is however a vast difference between standing for PM than standing for MP. Regardless of what you think about him being vile, racist blah blah blah, Navy pretty much nailed it in his response. His share of the vote and the diversity of his constituency suggest he's a good constituency MP. I wouldn't want to stand against him as a Labour MP that's for sure and whoever does is on a hiding to nothing. I don't even think Labour should field a candidate in that seat, they don't need to, it would be a waste, Lets face it in crucial Commons votes he's never going to vote Tory is he?

[JAS]

Just out of interest how are we defining Russophile these days...Is it someone who's basically a Communist? and the name caller hasn't caught up with the fact that Russia is no longer a communist state but a Kleptocratic Plutocracy run by a dictator supported by Oligarchs.

By virtue of the fact that Johnson installed an Oligarchs son in the House of Lords AND allowed him to take over a National Newspaper AND pretty much turned a blind eye to Russian dirty money sloshing around the CoL (because a lot of it was finding it's way into Tory Party funds).. Is it not a bit more 2020s to call Johnson and Tories in general Russophiles rather than old Commies like Corbyn?

[Duty281]

You need to stop this nonsense that Corbyn failed because of some right wing media conspiracy Jas.

Corbyn was inept, charmless, humourless, miserable, racist, terrorist sympathiser, Russophile etc and no media outlet needed to spend any effort in exposing him.
Much like Labour haven't needed to do anything but wait for Tories to hang themselves it's similar in the way that the media simply sat back and waited for Corbyn and his vile accolytes to stick their own feet in their collective mouths.

I think I quite clearly said he had presentational and charisma issues, obviously those contributed in a big way but you surely cannot deny the way he was completely and utterly pilloried by the right wing media. Having said that his inability to robustly re-butt a lot of the Poopie that was thrown at him also suggests a certain ineptness for highest office. There is however a vast difference between standing for PM than standing for MP. Regardless of what you think about him being vile, racist blah blah blah, Navy pretty much nailed it in his response. His share of the vote and the diversity of his constituency suggest he's a good constituency MP.  I wouldn't want to stand against him as a Labour MP that's for sure and whoever does is on a hiding to nothing. I don't even think Labour should field a candidate in that seat, they don't need to, it would be a waste, Lets face it in crucial Commons votes he's never going to vote Tory is he?

Why not? Labour will easily win that seat, not Corbyn. Don't confuse winning safe party seats as some sort of big personal endorsement. Lots of MPs in the Change party thought it was that simple, as did some expelled Tories who fought as independents in 2019, and they got beaten easily.

Party machines are no match for independents.

"Lets face it in crucial Commons votes he's never going to vote Tory is he?" Well he voted against Labour 428 times the last time Labour were in government, so I'd say it's a possibility.

[navyblueshorts]

Israel are not "murdering" innocents Navy. Murder is intentional and no nation in the history of warfare has done so much to limit collateral damage.
They are taking far more precaution that any war in the last 200 years

Corbyns vote share is irrelevant in regards to the extent of his racism. This an openly anti Semitic man who cannot bring himself to condemn Hamas or indeed Russia.

In regards to these virtue signalling protests, they've been doing it every weekend for months, yet they don't protest China, Syria, Yemen etc for the atrocities going on there. Funny that.  
Have to laugh at the Gays for Palestine stuff though.

Your comments re. the IDF's behaviour are, frankly, incredible. I suppose all this caution is why the percentage of non-combatant women and children is so high? I could go on, but it's pointless as you appear to be simply parroting the IDF/Israeli Government spokespeople at this point.

Re. Corbyn. Again, you're just repeating the same old stuff, and please stop talking about Russia re. our chat - I didn't mention Corbyn's view on them at all. I'm glad that your opinions re. Corbyn's so-called anti-Semitism are the correct ones and you see no need to even consider that they might need revision.

Yadda, yadda, Syria, yadda, China, yadda, yadda, Yemen. Irrelevant to the conversation we're having. Actually, let's stop this conversation at this point, I think; it's going nowhere. Happy with my position and the fact we disagree.

[JAS]

As for taxing the rich, as I've said before, it's not individuals you need to worry about, it's corporations.

Hmmm 98-99% true but the top 1-2% need to be contributing a helluva lot more

The top 10% of earners already pay 60% of our tax income, so that's not the problem,

Not sure on why you've drawn an arbitrary line at the top 10% as I say it's to top 1-2% that are the problem

even if Labour rethink you can run a country on non dom tax and VAT on school fees. UK needs to do what Oirland has done and slash corporation tax. They went from peasants to skyrocketing GDP, and it had nothing to do with the Irish population suddenly paying more tax.

You always used to bemoan anyone comparing covid figures across different countries, same goes for monetary/fiscal comparisons, it's like comparing broccoli & potatoes

Look, bottom line I don't disagree with the fact that there are some quite profound inefficiencies throughout the public sector. That's not a political statement per se that's based on experience. British Industry in general including the public sector has a hideous relationship with Leadership and Management. It exacerbated the countries problems in the 70s and was never properly addressed because workers and unions were blamed for all ills and demonised whilst managerial incompetents got off Scot free, nothing has changed in that regard other than Senior industry leaders now being paid exorbitantly more for being Poopie and instead of spending their "unearned wealth" on goods and services (thus keeping the economy turning), now have so much rolling in that they either spend the excess on assets (pricing ordinary people out of many items  e.g. property) or pay clever accountants/financial managers to help them stash it in places like IoM, The Cayman Islands, Panama etc (usually at the expense of our exchequer - which mean we ordinary people have to make good the difference, or suffer degraded Public services). Tax the top 1% to the hilt and if they don't like it and want to bugger off, fine, that'll help net migration too. Lets have some middle and upper management that can provide real leadership and drive economic efficiencies in a sustainable way. Separately but connected  we HAVE to address income inequality. Greed driven inequality breaks society, no need to ask me to explain that one, just look around a city centre, road network, school, hospital, social housing estate, food bank etc...we're already there!!

[Duty281]

The top 1% pay nearly 30% of all income tax...is that not enough? What do you mean by tax to the hilt, what rates? How do you cover the near 30% of all income tax (about £78bn) if the top 1% then bugger off?

[JAS]

The top 1% pay nearly 30% of all income tax...is that not enough? What do you mean by tax to the hilt, what rates? How do you cover the near 30% of all income tax (about £78bn) if the top 1% then bugger off?

Meaning that the bottom 99% pay the other 70% given that there will be a chunk of that 70% not earning enough to pay any tax that’s significantly burdening the upper working class and lower middle class.  If you want a progressive taxation system based upon disposable earned income (which I presume you don’t) then up the top is where to get it because the bottom half don’t really have that much disposable income do they? They’ve certainly less now than they had 14 years ago. The income distribution is an exponential curve and the tax system should reflect that. Then there’s the whole thorny question of passive income why should it be taxed at less than earned income?

You could also tweak the Vat system and be more lax on essential items and more punitive on luxury goods

You know fine well it’s a far more nuanced argument than the simplistic way you’ve constructed your response.
Said it before and I’ll say it again, this country is broken and the main reason it’s broken is because the powerful and greedy have basically had free reign to bleed the country dry…and they have. Explain house prices rising in a cost of living crisis? Actually let me, the reason house prices are still rising is because the rich at the top have now mopped up all the money that was doled out during Covid.  What do people use money for? To buy goods and services. If they don’t have enough, they struggle to heat and eat, further up the tree above average earners have some capacity to buy more and better goods and services, maybe some assets. Top of the tree the amount they spend on goods and services  is a small proportion of their income, they have loads of excess income to buy assets which will give them even more passive income. We are therefore inexorably gravitating to a position where a small elite will have all the assets and power over the majority. Personally I think it’s already too late but one way to at least try and arrest that slide is to tax the rich hard. That might sound very 1970s Dennis Healy but it’s an absolutely relevant and important statement for now. If you don’t get it you don’t get it or if you dont want to get it because it means you fair enough.

[JAS]

The above is all about the revenue side, on the spending side because there hasn’t been enough coming in and as Super will assert there’s too much waste that means that public services are in a quite frankly embarrassing state. Now….who allowed them to get into that state? Was it the bottom 99% of earners? NO it was the Fred Goodwins, Andy Hornbys  of this world and their ilk that broke the economy through their greed in the 00s and the rest of us and public services have had to pay the price ever since. For ordinary hard working people it’s high time we made the elite take the strain for a bit, at least to dig us out a hole and help get the income distribution skewed back to some sort of working normaility

[Duty281]

The top 1% pay nearly 30% of all income tax...is that not enough? What do you mean by tax to the hilt, what rates? How do you cover the near 30% of all income tax (about £78bn) if the top 1% then bugger off?

Meaning that the bottom 99% pay the other 70% given that there will be a chunk of that 70% not earning enough to pay any tax that’s significantly burdening the upper working class and lower middle class.  If you want a progressive taxation system based upon disposable earned income (which I presume you don’t) then up the top is where to get it because the bottom half don’t really have that much disposable income do they? They’ve certainly less now than they had 14 years ago. The income distribution is an exponential curve and the tax system should reflect that. Then there’s the whole thorny question of passive income why should it be taxed at less than earned income?

You could also tweak the Vat system and be more lax on essential items and more punitive on luxury goods

You know fine well it’s a far more nuanced argument than the simplistic way you’ve constructed your response.
Said it before and I’ll say it again, this country is broken and the main reason it’s broken is because the powerful and greedy have basically had free reign to bleed the country dry…and they have. Explain house prices rising in a cost of living crisis? Actually let me, the reason house prices are still rising is because the rich at the top have now mopped up all the money that was doled out during Covid.  What do people use money for? To buy goods and services. If they don’t have enough, they struggle to heat and eat, further up the tree above average earners have some capacity to buy more and better goods and services, maybe some assets. Top of the tree the amount they spend on goods and services  is a small proportion of their income, they have loads of excess income to buy assets which will give them even more passive income. We are therefore inexorably gravitating to a position where a small elite will have all the assets and power over the majority. Personally I think it’s already too late but one way to at least try and arrest that slide is to tax the rich hard. That might sound very 1970s Dennis Healy but it’s an absolutely relevant and important statement for now. If you don’t get it you don’t get it or if you dont want to get it because it means you fair enough.

Bottom 99% paying the other 70%...trying to make it sound as though the hard up are shouldering too much of the burden. Just under 10% of all income tax is paid by the bottom 50% (that's the bottom 50% that earn 25.5% of the total income).

House prices are going up because there's not enough housing (supply) for the increase in population (demand). If we want to have net migration at over 500k, great, but we need lots more housing built.

You say tax the rich hard, but you haven't give any definitive number as to what that means, and how you would arrest a potential shortfall if raising taxes caused the overall tax yield to be lower.

For ordinary hard working people it’s high time we made the elite take the strain for a bit, at least to dig us out a hole and help get the income distribution skewed back to some sort of working normaility

Great, so numerically what does this mean?

[JAS]

Ain’t it fascinating how the right always demand specific figures from the Left but when it’s their narrative they get all high level “keeping more of you own money in your pocket” sloganising….yeah? How much specifically and will it offset my ballooning mortgage payment and utility price hikes and if so by how much. See it’s easy to ask for specifics knowing fine well a definitive answer isn’t there. Excellent way of distracting from the broad theme that’s being suggested though.

[navyblueshorts]

Frankly, I don't think it matters how much, or who pays the most tax. Where the **** has the money gone to-date, when everyone seems to claim we're being taxed a lot already?

This Government (and I'm not sure I hold out too much hope for the next one) hasn't proven it can spend our hard-earned money even remotely properly. They spaff money everywhere and look at the state of the country FFS.
They're so pathetic (I suspect Labour are similar, but we'll see shortly), they can't even propose a grown up conversation on what we want, how much that costs and how much tax etc would be needed to pay for it.

It's a joke how the main parties tie themselves in knots over not explicitly saying they'll raise taxes. FFS; grow up and explain why taxes are needed, how much is needed and be clear on how/what they'll be spent on.

As for one of the major problems, IMO, it's stuff like this, or tax laws that allow a company to be registered in some bastard of a state that allows them to pay a few pence in UK tax on a turnover or profit of £billions. It's about time it stopped. Even if some of this behaviour is fine from a legal point of view, it's utterly corrosive to society, and it shows.

[super_realist]

You need to stop this nonsense that Corbyn failed because of some right wing media conspiracy Jas.

Corbyn was inept, charmless, humourless, miserable, racist, terrorist sympathiser, Russophile etc and no media outlet needed to spend any effort in exposing him.
Much like Labour haven't needed to do anything but wait for Tories to hang themselves it's similar in the way that the media simply sat back and waited for Corbyn and his vile accolytes to stick their own feet in their collective mouths.

I think I quite clearly said he had presentational and charisma issues, obviously those contributed in a big way but you surely cannot deny the way he was completely and utterly pilloried by the right wing media. Having said that his inability to robustly re-butt a lot of the Poopie that was thrown at him also suggests a certain ineptness for highest office. There is however a vast difference between standing for PM than standing for MP. Regardless of what you think about him being vile, racist blah blah blah, Navy pretty much nailed it in his response. His share of the vote and the diversity of his constituency suggest he's a good constituency MP.  I wouldn't want to stand against him as a Labour MP that's for sure and whoever does is on a hiding to nothing. I don't even think Labour should field a candidate in that seat, they don't need to, it would be a waste, Lets face it in crucial Commons votes he's never going to vote Tory is he?

JAS in many safe seats around the country you can put up a tailors dummy and win a constituency seat. How on earth do you think the likes of Boris, Mogg, Corbyn and Abbot got their seats. Winning your seat repeat, doesn't mean you're a good constituency MP, it could just mean you're in a safe seat or are not the opposition.
Khan's re-election as mayor shows this.

PS Jas, Corbyn repeatedly failed to condemn the Russian invasion of Ukraine, doesn't even think we should support Ukraine with weapons and repeatedly failed to condemn the attack on Salisbury/Skripls and has repeatedly failed to state that Hamas are a terrorist group or that their most recent atrocity was a terrorist attack. He is a vile man and Starter was right to kick him out.

[super_realist]

Israel are not "murdering" innocents Navy. Murder is intentional and no nation in the history of warfare has done so much to limit collateral damage.
They are taking far more precaution that any war in the last 200 years

Corbyns vote share is irrelevant in regards to the extent of his racism. This an openly anti Semitic man who cannot bring himself to condemn Hamas or indeed Russia.

In regards to these virtue signalling protests, they've been doing it every weekend for months, yet they don't protest China, Syria, Yemen etc for the atrocities going on there. Funny that.  
Have to laugh at the Gays for Palestine stuff though.

Your comments re. the IDF's behaviour are, frankly, incredible. I suppose all this caution is why the percentage of non-combatant women and children is so high? I could go on, but it's pointless as you appear to be simply parroting the IDF/Israeli Government spokespeople at this point.

Re. Corbyn. Again, you're just repeating the same old stuff, and please stop talking about Russia re. our chat - I didn't mention Corbyn's view on them at all. I'm glad that your opinions re. Corbyn's so-called anti-Semitism are the correct ones and you see no need to even consider that they might need revision.

Yadda, yadda, Syria, yadda, China, yadda, yadda, Yemen. Irrelevant to the conversation we're having. Actually, let's stop this conversation at this point, I think; it's going nowhere. Happy with my position and the fact we disagree.

I'm not defending any dead people on Gaza, I'm stating that the people who are caught in the crossfire there are not being murdered. Murder is intentional. I'd also question Hamas figures on how many have died, no doubt there has been many, bit I doubt as many as they claim. Doesn't make it any better, bit it isn't murder.

Funny how all these pro Palestine supporters never call for an end to Hamas, for Hamas to give up or for hostages to be returned isn't it?

[super_realist]

The top 1% pay nearly 30% of all income tax...is that not enough? What do you mean by tax to the hilt, what rates? How do you cover the near 30% of all income tax (about £78bn) if the top 1% then bugger off?

Meaning that the bottom 99% pay the other 70% given that there will be a chunk of that 70% not earning enough to pay any tax that’s significantly burdening the upper working class and lower middle class.  If you want a progressive taxation system based upon disposable earned income (which I presume you don’t) then up the top is where to get it because the bottom half don’t really have that much disposable income do they? They’ve certainly less now than they had 14 years ago. The income distribution is an exponential curve and the tax system should reflect that. Then there’s the whole thorny question of passive income why should it be taxed at less than earned income?

You could also tweak the Vat system and be more lax on essential items and more punitive on luxury goods

You know fine well it’s a far more nuanced argument than the simplistic way you’ve constructed your response.
Said it before and I’ll say it again, this country is broken and the main reason it’s broken is because the powerful and greedy have basically had free reign to bleed the country dry…and they have. Explain house prices rising in a cost of living crisis? Actually let me, the reason house prices are still rising is because the rich at the top have now mopped up all the money that was doled out during Covid.  What do people use money for? To buy goods and services. If they don’t have enough, they struggle to heat and eat, further up the tree above average earners have some capacity to buy more and better goods and services, maybe some assets. Top of the tree the amount they spend on goods and services  is a small proportion of their income, they have loads of excess income to buy assets which will give them even more passive income. We are therefore inexorably gravitating to a position where a small elite will have all the assets and power over the majority. Personally I think it’s already too late but one way to at least try and arrest that slide is to tax the rich hard. That might sound very 1970s Dennis Healy but it’s an absolutely relevant and important statement for now. If you don’t get it you don’t get it or if you dont want to get it because it means you fair enough.

Jas, we have been through this before. The top 10% pay 60% of income tax, meaning the remaining 40% is contributed by the remaining 90%. Where's the inequity there?

UK tax is way too high for the level of service. The governments and local councils need to massively improve efficiency before any tax rises.
They also need to lower corporation tax.

Why do you think mortgages and interest rates went up? It was down to all the mess of a badly handled COVID epidemic, which was supported in every way by the party YOU vote for so even if Labour had been in charge your mortgage would be high, possibly higher given how much more strict Labour wanted to be, despite no evidence being available that they were effective or that being more strict and longer would have achieved anything. Besides low mortgage rates are abnormal. You don't have a right pr even an expectation to low and sustained low interest rates. Home ownership is a gamble and the average mortgage rate over time is effectively what it is now.

Why are house prices rising? Oh I don't know, perhaps because the population of the UK has outstripped the ability to build houses in the last 25 years. Why not build more houses then? Ok, but you also need to improve roads, infrastructure, education, health, doctors, hospitals, public services etc and guess what that means? More tax.

Never mind eh? You can solve it all with non dom tax and VAT on school fees

[JAS]

which was supported in every way by the party YOU vote for

You have no earthly idea how I vote, you're making a lazy assumption

Never mind eh? You can solve it all with non dom tax and VAT on school fees

I guess your attention span or your willingness to research won't take you beyond a Daily Mail heading...No everything's fine no need for change in this country, leave it as it is. FFS Super listen to your arguments back to yourself.

I'll say it again, it's income inequality that's destroying this country, that's not a political statement that's a fact and BOTH parties have ploughed a path for the past 40 years that have made inequality worse. NOBODY, in any political party has the answer at the moment, they might think they do but it's not just about having the answer it's about then convincing  people that the status quo has to change...pretty difficult when those elites currently massively benefitting from the status quo control the media

[Duty281]

Ain’t it fascinating how the right always demand specific figures from the Left but when it’s their narrative they get all high level “keeping more of you own money in your pocket” sloganising….yeah? How much specifically and will it offset my ballooning mortgage payment and utility price hikes and if so by how much. See it’s easy to ask for specifics knowing fine well a definitive answer isn’t there. Excellent way of distracting from the broad theme that’s being suggested though.

I thought you didn't have an actual answer, so thanks for confirming. Your ideas are based on feelings, not reality, unfortunately, otherwise you'd be able to come up with specifics.

[JAS]

Ain’t it fascinating how the right always demand specific figures from the Left but when it’s their narrative they get all high level “keeping more of you own money in your pocket” sloganising….yeah? How much specifically and will it offset my ballooning mortgage payment and utility price hikes and if so by how much. See it’s easy to ask for specifics knowing fine well a definitive answer isn’t there. Excellent way of distracting from the broad theme that’s being suggested though.

I thought you didn't have an actual answer, so thanks for confirming. Your ideas are based on feelings, not reality, unfortunately, otherwise you'd be able to come up with specifics.

I'm an IT manager, not a politician, it's not my job to have the answers.  Ideas, based on whatever become opinions and unless we're based in somewhere like North Korea we're allowed to have them. You've got your reality, I've got mine, they don't match, simples. You can say it's not reality all you like but it doesn't make it so

Anyway, you didn't think, you knew, to be able to suggest a workable numerical answer one would need to have access to the books. Can you just imagine me knocking on Hunts door..."Excuse me Jezzers can I have a look/study of the countries books, Duty has asked me to provide some specifity on a answer I'm trying to give him on how Muppet like you should be taxed to the hilt"

You cant be all specific now it's about getting people to buy into the broad theme that the taxation burden needs to be tilted onto a different axis than where it is now.

This guy, and from a position of experience (and experience of both sides of the poverty wealth divide and experience of how markets ACTUALLY work), gets it....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVvoyRpxG-A

[Duty281]

Ain’t it fascinating how the right always demand specific figures from the Left but when it’s their narrative they get all high level “keeping more of you own money in your pocket” sloganising….yeah? How much specifically and will it offset my ballooning mortgage payment and utility price hikes and if so by how much. See it’s easy to ask for specifics knowing fine well a definitive answer isn’t there. Excellent way of distracting from the broad theme that’s being suggested though.

I thought you didn't have an actual answer, so thanks for confirming. Your ideas are based on feelings, not reality, unfortunately, otherwise you'd be able to come up with specifics.

I'm an IT manager, not a politician, it's not my job to have the answers.  Ideas, based on whatever become opinions and unless we're based in somewhere like North Korea we're allowed to have them. You've got your reality, I've got mine, they don't match, simples. You can say it's not reality all you like but it doesn't make it so

Anyway, you didn't think, you knew, to be able to suggest a workable numerical answer one would need to have access to the books. Can you just imagine me knocking on Hunts door..."Excuse me Jezzers can I have a look/study of the countries books, Duty has asked me to provide some specifity on a  answer I'm trying to give him on how Muppet like you should be taxed to the hilt"

You cant be all specific now it's about getting people to buy into the broad theme that the taxation burden needs to be tilted onto a different axis than where it is now.

This guy, and from a position of experience (and experience of both sides of the poverty wealth divide and experience of how markets ACTUALLY work), gets it....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVvoyRpxG-A

Gary Stevenson. Oh dear. Nothing about him adds up, and I'm not talking about his economic views.

What isn't reality is what you're advocating, because it isn't based on a point of logic or data. It's just you feel that taxes should be raised, based on an idea that reducing income inequality will make things better, but that's all it is. A feeling. It's not logical or evidence based. So it's worthless.

[JAS]

Ain’t it fascinating how the right always demand specific figures from the Left but when it’s their narrative they get all high level “keeping more of you own money in your pocket” sloganising….yeah? How much specifically and will it offset my ballooning mortgage payment and utility price hikes and if so by how much. See it’s easy to ask for specifics knowing fine well a definitive answer isn’t there. Excellent way of distracting from the broad theme that’s being suggested though.

I thought you didn't have an actual answer, so thanks for confirming. Your ideas are based on feelings, not reality, unfortunately, otherwise you'd be able to come up with specifics.

I'm an IT manager, not a politician, it's not my job to have the answers.  Ideas, based on whatever become opinions and unless we're based in somewhere like North Korea we're allowed to have them. You've got your reality, I've got mine, they don't match, simples. You can say it's not reality all you like but it doesn't make it so

Anyway, you didn't think, you knew, to be able to suggest a workable numerical answer one would need to have access to the books. Can you just imagine me knocking on Hunts door..."Excuse me Jezzers can I have a look/study of the countries books, Duty has asked me to provide some specifity on a  answer I'm trying to give him on how Muppet like you should be taxed to the hilt"

You cant be all specific now it's about getting people to buy into the broad theme that the taxation burden needs to be tilted onto a different axis than where it is now.

This guy, and from a position of experience (and experience of both sides of the poverty wealth divide and experience of how markets ACTUALLY work), gets it....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVvoyRpxG-A

Gary Stevenson. Oh dear. Nothing about him adds up, and I'm not talking about his economic views.

What isn't reality is what you're advocating, because it isn't based on a point of logic or data. It's just you feel that taxes should be raised, based on an idea that reducing income inequality will make things better, but that's all it is. A feeling. It's not logical or evidence based. So it's worthless.

So you think we should just let inequality rip then? Everything has been fine and everything will be fine and get better.

Re GS ok then, my turn to ask you for specifics. What doesn’t add up?

[Sponsored content]