You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Jeremy Corbyn
November 25 2024 6.31am

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Jeremy Corbyn

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 107 of 464 < 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 >

  

chris123 Flag hove actually 02 Oct 15 1.00pm Send a Private Message to chris123 Add chris123 as a friend

Quote Lyons550 at 02 Oct 2015 12.31pm

Quote nickgusset at 02 Oct 2015 10.25am

Quote We are goin up! at 02 Oct 2015 10.20am

Quote nickgusset at 02 Oct 2015 10.09am


Did you read about them in the mainstream media we are going up?
Why do you think the 5 owners of 80% of the british media (who incidently don't even live here) want to keep the non-dom status quo?


Hilarious, classic left-winger blaming the media. Could it possibly be that people have seen that capitalism has increased wealth at all levels and have therefore voted for it consistently in this country?

You'll probably call the Tories "anti-democratic" in a minute.


Increased wealth at all levels? Tell that to the people relying on food banks.


The fact they have 'food banks' to go to is evidence of a wealthy society anyway...surely?

If you earn 20k you take home 83 %, 30k you take home 78%, 40k it's 75% - so from a tax point of view that's as low as I can remember.

 
Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
nickgusset Flag Shizzlehurst 02 Oct 15 1.03pm

Quote Stuk at 02 Oct 2015 12.59pm

Quote nickgusset at 02 Oct 2015 12.56pm

Quote Stuk at 02 Oct 2015 12.53pm

Quote nickgusset at 02 Oct 2015 12.42pm

Quote Lyons550 at 02 Oct 2015 12.36pm

Quote nickgusset at 02 Oct 2015 12.23pm

Quote Lyons550 at 02 Oct 2015 12.22pm

Quote nickgusset at 01 Oct 2015 11.22pm

A poll in the Telegraph today showed 85% of respondents sided with Corbyn re the pressing the nuclear button question.

Ahhh...another little 'grenade' to drop in and walk away from eh Nick?

How many 'respondents' were there? Just to give it some context...

It seems that the results have changhed! Thje question was 'if you were prime minister, could you push the nuclear button'
Yesterday evening it was 85% no. Today its 75% yes.

Edited by nickgusset (02 Oct 2015 12.27pm)


But how many respondents? It's the denominator that provides the context to the figures.

Alas the telegraph is rather shoddy in this aspect.


Funny that you don't provide a link to that, as I suspect you're either telling porkies or not revealing the full details.

[Link]

scroll down.


But don't read it Stuk, the telegraph is biased.

Where? I'd already looked on that page as I assumed that's where it would be, but it's stupidly large. Even searching "button" doesn't find the poll you refer to.


for the blind.jpg Attachment: for the blind.jpg (509.04Kb)

 
Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
Stuk Flag Top half 02 Oct 15 1.16pm Send a Private Message to Stuk Add Stuk as a friend

Quote nickgusset at 02 Oct 2015 1.03pm

Quote Stuk at 02 Oct 2015 12.59pm

Quote nickgusset at 02 Oct 2015 12.56pm

Quote Stuk at 02 Oct 2015 12.53pm

Quote nickgusset at 02 Oct 2015 12.42pm

Quote Lyons550 at 02 Oct 2015 12.36pm

Quote nickgusset at 02 Oct 2015 12.23pm

Quote Lyons550 at 02 Oct 2015 12.22pm

Quote nickgusset at 01 Oct 2015 11.22pm

A poll in the Telegraph today showed 85% of respondents sided with Corbyn re the pressing the nuclear button question.

Ahhh...another little 'grenade' to drop in and walk away from eh Nick?

How many 'respondents' were there? Just to give it some context...

It seems that the results have changhed! Thje question was 'if you were prime minister, could you push the nuclear button'
Yesterday evening it was 85% no. Today its 75% yes.

Edited by nickgusset (02 Oct 2015 12.27pm)


But how many respondents? It's the denominator that provides the context to the figures.

Alas the telegraph is rather shoddy in this aspect.


Funny that you don't provide a link to that, as I suspect you're either telling porkies or not revealing the full details.

[Link]

scroll down.


But don't read it Stuk, the telegraph is biased.

Where? I'd already looked on that page as I assumed that's where it would be, but it's stupidly large. Even searching "button" doesn't find the poll you refer to.



not on my browsers you cheeky cund.png Attachment: not on my browsers you cheeky cund.png (203.51Kb)

 

Optimistic as ever
Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
nickgusset Flag Shizzlehurst 02 Oct 15 1.21pm

Quote Stuk at 02 Oct 2015 1.16pm

Quote nickgusset at 02 Oct 2015 1.03pm

Quote Stuk at 02 Oct 2015 12.59pm

Quote nickgusset at 02 Oct 2015 12.56pm

Quote Stuk at 02 Oct 2015 12.53pm

Quote nickgusset at 02 Oct 2015 12.42pm

Quote Lyons550 at 02 Oct 2015 12.36pm

Quote nickgusset at 02 Oct 2015 12.23pm

Quote Lyons550 at 02 Oct 2015 12.22pm

Quote nickgusset at 01 Oct 2015 11.22pm

A poll in the Telegraph today showed 85% of respondents sided with Corbyn re the pressing the nuclear button question.

Ahhh...another little 'grenade' to drop in and walk away from eh Nick?

How many 'respondents' were there? Just to give it some context...

It seems that the results have changhed! Thje question was 'if you were prime minister, could you push the nuclear button'
Yesterday evening it was 85% no. Today its 75% yes.

Edited by nickgusset (02 Oct 2015 12.27pm)


But how many respondents? It's the denominator that provides the context to the figures.

Alas the telegraph is rather shoddy in this aspect.


Funny that you don't provide a link to that, as I suspect you're either telling porkies or not revealing the full details.

[Link]

scroll down.


But don't read it Stuk, the telegraph is biased.

Where? I'd already looked on that page as I assumed that's where it would be, but it's stupidly large. Even searching "button" doesn't find the poll you refer to.



 
Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
npn Flag Crowborough 02 Oct 15 1.22pm Send a Private Message to npn Add npn as a friend

Quote DanH at 02 Oct 2015 11.53am

Quote nickgusset at 02 Oct 2015 11.51am

Quote DanH at 02 Oct 2015 11.46am

Quote We are goin up! at 02 Oct 2015 11.31am

Quote nickgusset at 02 Oct 2015 11.17am

Quote We are goin up! at 02 Oct 2015 11.06am


In 20 years, this capitalist world has reduced the number in absolute poverty by almost a billion, despite growing world population.

[Link]


Most of which happened in China (due to allowing private business to grow- not conglomerates I hasten to add - and in developing countries.

From the article...

Another reason is that the bare achievement of pulling people over the .25-a-day line has been relatively easy in the past few years because so many people were just below it.

So because many more people earn over .25 a day, can we assume capitalism has been an unfettered success?


I don't pretend that capitalism is perfect, but show me a socialist country that has actually made its people wealthier. It's a false system, if you punish those who create at the top, they simply will not bother to innovate as there is no incentive to do so. If you raise taxes on big business, who do you think will suffer? It won't be those at the top, it will be efficiency savings (read job cuts) at the bottom. Would you rather those people were unemployed?

Capitalism can be accused (quite rightly) of being cold and ruthless, but the end result is a darn sight better than what socialism provides.

Maggie said it perfectly on socialism, "Once they talk about the gap, they'd rather the poor were poorer so long as the rich were less rich." The politics of envy.

[Link]


You make some good points. Even though I'd put myself slightly left of centre I think the only real system that can work in the modern western world is a "capitalism with a conscience" (the name needs work). I think what the last recession did has highlighted that capitalism, whilst realistically is the only way that the world can live, still has it's major flaws and injustices. Companies and individuals are now being forced to behave in a more 'moral' way (whatever that means now) due to the shift in public opinion.


[Link]

Although the term socialist is loosely used here, I think this list shows that those countries that take a more 'socialist' attitude to helping the worst off are doing alright.

I don't think for one minute that Corbyn is looking for a 'state runs everything' situation, but more of a rebalancing of wealth.

As for the politics of envy comment that gets bandied about. What coswallop. A facile argument.
How does not wanting a few individuals creaming cash off of everyone else to the detriment of society and the health of the planet constitute envy?

Edited by nickgusset (02 Oct 2015 11.52am)


Couldn't agree with this more.


Whilst it is a pretty glib phrase, there are cases where it's entirely appropriate - for example, a dyed-in-the-wool Labour supporter I used to travel to away games with, was always very in favour of "taxing the sh*t out of the rich". However, when they decided to means-test child benefit (can't remember the limit, was it £50K pa per household?) it transpires that, for that test, he fell into the "rich" category and would therefore lose child benefit as he was too wealthy. He absolutely did his nut, blaming the Tories for taking this cash off him. So it transpires that, in his mind at least, "tax the rich" actually very quickly came to mean "tax the richer than me".

 
Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Kermit8 Flag Hevon 02 Oct 15 1.30pm Send a Private Message to Kermit8 Add Kermit8 as a friend

Quote npn at 02 Oct 2015 1.22pm

Quote DanH at 02 Oct 2015 11.53am

Quote nickgusset at 02 Oct 2015 11.51am

Quote DanH at 02 Oct 2015 11.46am

Quote We are goin up! at 02 Oct 2015 11.31am

Quote nickgusset at 02 Oct 2015 11.17am

Quote We are goin up! at 02 Oct 2015 11.06am


In 20 years, this capitalist world has reduced the number in absolute poverty by almost a billion, despite growing world population.

[Link]


Most of which happened in China (due to allowing private business to grow- not conglomerates I hasten to add - and in developing countries.

From the article...

Another reason is that the bare achievement of pulling people over the .25-a-day line has been relatively easy in the past few years because so many people were just below it.

So because many more people earn over .25 a day, can we assume capitalism has been an unfettered success?


I don't pretend that capitalism is perfect, but show me a socialist country that has actually made its people wealthier. It's a false system, if you punish those who create at the top, they simply will not bother to innovate as there is no incentive to do so. If you raise taxes on big business, who do you think will suffer? It won't be those at the top, it will be efficiency savings (read job cuts) at the bottom. Would you rather those people were unemployed?

Capitalism can be accused (quite rightly) of being cold and ruthless, but the end result is a darn sight better than what socialism provides.

Maggie said it perfectly on socialism, "Once they talk about the gap, they'd rather the poor were poorer so long as the rich were less rich." The politics of envy.

[Link]


You make some good points. Even though I'd put myself slightly left of centre I think the only real system that can work in the modern western world is a "capitalism with a conscience" (the name needs work). I think what the last recession did has highlighted that capitalism, whilst realistically is the only way that the world can live, still has it's major flaws and injustices. Companies and individuals are now being forced to behave in a more 'moral' way (whatever that means now) due to the shift in public opinion.


[Link]

Although the term socialist is loosely used here, I think this list shows that those countries that take a more 'socialist' attitude to helping the worst off are doing alright.

I don't think for one minute that Corbyn is looking for a 'state runs everything' situation, but more of a rebalancing of wealth.

As for the politics of envy comment that gets bandied about. What coswallop. A facile argument.
How does not wanting a few individuals creaming cash off of everyone else to the detriment of society and the health of the planet constitute envy?

Edited by nickgusset (02 Oct 2015 11.52am)


Couldn't agree with this more.


Whilst it is a pretty glib phrase, there are cases where it's entirely appropriate - for example, a dyed-in-the-wool Labour supporter I used to travel to away games with, was always very in favour of "taxing the sh*t out of the rich". However, when they decided to means-test child benefit (can't remember the limit, was it £50K pa per household?) it transpires that, for that test, he fell into the "rich" category and would therefore lose child benefit as he was too wealthy. He absolutely did his nut, blaming the Tories for taking this cash off him. So it transpires that, in his mind at least, "tax the rich" actually very quickly came to mean "tax the richer than me".


All very amateurishly done that change. If one partner was earning more than £50k they lost the benefit but if both were earning less - could be £40k each - they kept it. Odd. Your mate was right in blowing his top if he knew that.

 

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]
Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
npn Flag Crowborough 02 Oct 15 1.32pm Send a Private Message to npn Add npn as a friend

Quote Kermit8 at 02 Oct 2015 1.30pm

Quote npn at 02 Oct 2015 1.22pm

Quote DanH at 02 Oct 2015 11.53am

Quote nickgusset at 02 Oct 2015 11.51am

Quote DanH at 02 Oct 2015 11.46am

Quote We are goin up! at 02 Oct 2015 11.31am

Quote nickgusset at 02 Oct 2015 11.17am

Quote We are goin up! at 02 Oct 2015 11.06am


In 20 years, this capitalist world has reduced the number in absolute poverty by almost a billion, despite growing world population.

[Link]


Most of which happened in China (due to allowing private business to grow- not conglomerates I hasten to add - and in developing countries.

From the article...

Another reason is that the bare achievement of pulling people over the .25-a-day line has been relatively easy in the past few years because so many people were just below it.

So because many more people earn over .25 a day, can we assume capitalism has been an unfettered success?


I don't pretend that capitalism is perfect, but show me a socialist country that has actually made its people wealthier. It's a false system, if you punish those who create at the top, they simply will not bother to innovate as there is no incentive to do so. If you raise taxes on big business, who do you think will suffer? It won't be those at the top, it will be efficiency savings (read job cuts) at the bottom. Would you rather those people were unemployed?

Capitalism can be accused (quite rightly) of being cold and ruthless, but the end result is a darn sight better than what socialism provides.

Maggie said it perfectly on socialism, "Once they talk about the gap, they'd rather the poor were poorer so long as the rich were less rich." The politics of envy.

[Link]


You make some good points. Even though I'd put myself slightly left of centre I think the only real system that can work in the modern western world is a "capitalism with a conscience" (the name needs work). I think what the last recession did has highlighted that capitalism, whilst realistically is the only way that the world can live, still has it's major flaws and injustices. Companies and individuals are now being forced to behave in a more 'moral' way (whatever that means now) due to the shift in public opinion.


[Link]

Although the term socialist is loosely used here, I think this list shows that those countries that take a more 'socialist' attitude to helping the worst off are doing alright.

I don't think for one minute that Corbyn is looking for a 'state runs everything' situation, but more of a rebalancing of wealth.

As for the politics of envy comment that gets bandied about. What coswallop. A facile argument.
How does not wanting a few individuals creaming cash off of everyone else to the detriment of society and the health of the planet constitute envy?

Edited by nickgusset (02 Oct 2015 11.52am)


Couldn't agree with this more.


Whilst it is a pretty glib phrase, there are cases where it's entirely appropriate - for example, a dyed-in-the-wool Labour supporter I used to travel to away games with, was always very in favour of "taxing the sh*t out of the rich". However, when they decided to means-test child benefit (can't remember the limit, was it £50K pa per household?) it transpires that, for that test, he fell into the "rich" category and would therefore lose child benefit as he was too wealthy. He absolutely did his nut, blaming the Tories for taking this cash off him. So it transpires that, in his mind at least, "tax the rich" actually very quickly came to mean "tax the richer than me".


All very amateurishly done that change. If one partner was earning more than £50k they lost the benefit but if both were earning less - could be £40k each - they kept it. Odd. Your mate was right in blowing his top if he knew that.


His wife don't earn much - was purely that he was caught, and doesn't consider himself 'rich', ergo, it's wrong!

 
Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
nickgusset Flag Shizzlehurst 02 Oct 15 1.46pm

Quote npn at 02 Oct 2015 1.32pm

Quote Kermit8 at 02 Oct 2015 1.30pm

Quote npn at 02 Oct 2015 1.22pm

Quote DanH at 02 Oct 2015 11.53am

Quote nickgusset at 02 Oct 2015 11.51am

Quote DanH at 02 Oct 2015 11.46am

Quote We are goin up! at 02 Oct 2015 11.31am

Quote nickgusset at 02 Oct 2015 11.17am

Quote We are goin up! at 02 Oct 2015 11.06am


In 20 years, this capitalist world has reduced the number in absolute poverty by almost a billion, despite growing world population.

[Link]


Most of which happened in China (due to allowing private business to grow- not conglomerates I hasten to add - and in developing countries.

From the article...

Another reason is that the bare achievement of pulling people over the .25-a-day line has been relatively easy in the past few years because so many people were just below it.

So because many more people earn over .25 a day, can we assume capitalism has been an unfettered success?


I don't pretend that capitalism is perfect, but show me a socialist country that has actually made its people wealthier. It's a false system, if you punish those who create at the top, they simply will not bother to innovate as there is no incentive to do so. If you raise taxes on big business, who do you think will suffer? It won't be those at the top, it will be efficiency savings (read job cuts) at the bottom. Would you rather those people were unemployed?

Capitalism can be accused (quite rightly) of being cold and ruthless, but the end result is a darn sight better than what socialism provides.

Maggie said it perfectly on socialism, "Once they talk about the gap, they'd rather the poor were poorer so long as the rich were less rich." The politics of envy.

[Link]


You make some good points. Even though I'd put myself slightly left of centre I think the only real system that can work in the modern western world is a "capitalism with a conscience" (the name needs work). I think what the last recession did has highlighted that capitalism, whilst realistically is the only way that the world can live, still has it's major flaws and injustices. Companies and individuals are now being forced to behave in a more 'moral' way (whatever that means now) due to the shift in public opinion.


[Link]

Although the term socialist is loosely used here, I think this list shows that those countries that take a more 'socialist' attitude to helping the worst off are doing alright.

I don't think for one minute that Corbyn is looking for a 'state runs everything' situation, but more of a rebalancing of wealth.

As for the politics of envy comment that gets bandied about. What coswallop. A facile argument.
How does not wanting a few individuals creaming cash off of everyone else to the detriment of society and the health of the planet constitute envy?

Edited by nickgusset (02 Oct 2015 11.52am)


Couldn't agree with this more.


Whilst it is a pretty glib phrase, there are cases where it's entirely appropriate - for example, a dyed-in-the-wool Labour supporter I used to travel to away games with, was always very in favour of "taxing the sh*t out of the rich". However, when they decided to means-test child benefit (can't remember the limit, was it £50K pa per household?) it transpires that, for that test, he fell into the "rich" category and would therefore lose child benefit as he was too wealthy. He absolutely did his nut, blaming the Tories for taking this cash off him. So it transpires that, in his mind at least, "tax the rich" actually very quickly came to mean "tax the richer than me".


All very amateurishly done that change. If one partner was earning more than £50k they lost the benefit but if both were earning less - could be £40k each - they kept it. Odd. Your mate was right in blowing his top if he knew that.


His wife don't earn much - was purely that he was caught, and doesn't consider himself 'rich', ergo, it's wrong!

What could be classified as rich though?
When Mrs gusset started full time work again , we lost a lot on tax credits. A pain, but only fair as we earn enough to get by.
A lot of working poor in this country are really struggling to get by. Is it envy on my part for me to want them to earn enough to live on?

As an aside, how long will it be before those that have lost their jobs at the steel works in Redcar are described as welfare scroungers by many (who subscribe to the blame the victim narrative that's ever more prevailant) on here?

 
Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
npn Flag Crowborough 02 Oct 15 1.52pm Send a Private Message to npn Add npn as a friend

Quote nickgusset at 02 Oct 2015 1.46pm

Quote npn at 02 Oct 2015 1.32pm

Quote Kermit8 at 02 Oct 2015 1.30pm

Quote npn at 02 Oct 2015 1.22pm

Quote DanH at 02 Oct 2015 11.53am

Quote nickgusset at 02 Oct 2015 11.51am

Quote DanH at 02 Oct 2015 11.46am

Quote We are goin up! at 02 Oct 2015 11.31am

Quote nickgusset at 02 Oct 2015 11.17am

Quote We are goin up! at 02 Oct 2015 11.06am


In 20 years, this capitalist world has reduced the number in absolute poverty by almost a billion, despite growing world population.

[Link]


Most of which happened in China (due to allowing private business to grow- not conglomerates I hasten to add - and in developing countries.

From the article...

Another reason is that the bare achievement of pulling people over the .25-a-day line has been relatively easy in the past few years because so many people were just below it.

So because many more people earn over .25 a day, can we assume capitalism has been an unfettered success?


I don't pretend that capitalism is perfect, but show me a socialist country that has actually made its people wealthier. It's a false system, if you punish those who create at the top, they simply will not bother to innovate as there is no incentive to do so. If you raise taxes on big business, who do you think will suffer? It won't be those at the top, it will be efficiency savings (read job cuts) at the bottom. Would you rather those people were unemployed?

Capitalism can be accused (quite rightly) of being cold and ruthless, but the end result is a darn sight better than what socialism provides.

Maggie said it perfectly on socialism, "Once they talk about the gap, they'd rather the poor were poorer so long as the rich were less rich." The politics of envy.

[Link]


You make some good points. Even though I'd put myself slightly left of centre I think the only real system that can work in the modern western world is a "capitalism with a conscience" (the name needs work). I think what the last recession did has highlighted that capitalism, whilst realistically is the only way that the world can live, still has it's major flaws and injustices. Companies and individuals are now being forced to behave in a more 'moral' way (whatever that means now) due to the shift in public opinion.


[Link]

Although the term socialist is loosely used here, I think this list shows that those countries that take a more 'socialist' attitude to helping the worst off are doing alright.

I don't think for one minute that Corbyn is looking for a 'state runs everything' situation, but more of a rebalancing of wealth.

As for the politics of envy comment that gets bandied about. What coswallop. A facile argument.
How does not wanting a few individuals creaming cash off of everyone else to the detriment of society and the health of the planet constitute envy?

Edited by nickgusset (02 Oct 2015 11.52am)


Couldn't agree with this more.


Whilst it is a pretty glib phrase, there are cases where it's entirely appropriate - for example, a dyed-in-the-wool Labour supporter I used to travel to away games with, was always very in favour of "taxing the sh*t out of the rich". However, when they decided to means-test child benefit (can't remember the limit, was it £50K pa per household?) it transpires that, for that test, he fell into the "rich" category and would therefore lose child benefit as he was too wealthy. He absolutely did his nut, blaming the Tories for taking this cash off him. So it transpires that, in his mind at least, "tax the rich" actually very quickly came to mean "tax the richer than me".


All very amateurishly done that change. If one partner was earning more than £50k they lost the benefit but if both were earning less - could be £40k each - they kept it. Odd. Your mate was right in blowing his top if he knew that.


His wife don't earn much - was purely that he was caught, and doesn't consider himself 'rich', ergo, it's wrong!

What could be classified as rich though?
When Mrs gusset started full time work again , we lost a lot on tax credits. A pain, but only fair as we earn enough to get by.
A lot of working poor in this country are really struggling to get by. Is it envy on my part for me to want them to earn enough to live on?

As an aside, how long will it be before those that have lost their jobs at the steel works in Redcar are described as welfare scroungers by many (who subscribe to the blame the victim narrative that's ever more prevailant) on here?


Absolutely. I have no issue with people asking for increased taxation with a view to a better society. In fact, I'd say I am firmly behind the idea (provided it's done right and the money's spent well). What I object to is "Increase taxation! No, hang on, not MY taxation, I meant that lot over there because they've got a nicer car than me. I've only got 4 bedrooms and 2 cars, I'm not RICH".

I was hit by the child credit thing too and, much like yourself, thought "you know what, that's fair enough, I can't justify it". I was just using an example of the attitude that p*sses many off

 
Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Stuk Flag Top half 02 Oct 15 1.55pm Send a Private Message to Stuk Add Stuk as a friend

Quote Kermit8 at 02 Oct 2015 1.30pm

Quote npn at 02 Oct 2015 1.22pm

Quote DanH at 02 Oct 2015 11.53am

Quote nickgusset at 02 Oct 2015 11.51am

Quote DanH at 02 Oct 2015 11.46am

Quote We are goin up! at 02 Oct 2015 11.31am

Quote nickgusset at 02 Oct 2015 11.17am

Quote We are goin up! at 02 Oct 2015 11.06am


In 20 years, this capitalist world has reduced the number in absolute poverty by almost a billion, despite growing world population.

[Link]


Most of which happened in China (due to allowing private business to grow- not conglomerates I hasten to add - and in developing countries.

From the article...

Another reason is that the bare achievement of pulling people over the .25-a-day line has been relatively easy in the past few years because so many people were just below it.

So because many more people earn over .25 a day, can we assume capitalism has been an unfettered success?


I don't pretend that capitalism is perfect, but show me a socialist country that has actually made its people wealthier. It's a false system, if you punish those who create at the top, they simply will not bother to innovate as there is no incentive to do so. If you raise taxes on big business, who do you think will suffer? It won't be those at the top, it will be efficiency savings (read job cuts) at the bottom. Would you rather those people were unemployed?

Capitalism can be accused (quite rightly) of being cold and ruthless, but the end result is a darn sight better than what socialism provides.

Maggie said it perfectly on socialism, "Once they talk about the gap, they'd rather the poor were poorer so long as the rich were less rich." The politics of envy.

[Link]


You make some good points. Even though I'd put myself slightly left of centre I think the only real system that can work in the modern western world is a "capitalism with a conscience" (the name needs work). I think what the last recession did has highlighted that capitalism, whilst realistically is the only way that the world can live, still has it's major flaws and injustices. Companies and individuals are now being forced to behave in a more 'moral' way (whatever that means now) due to the shift in public opinion.


[Link]

Although the term socialist is loosely used here, I think this list shows that those countries that take a more 'socialist' attitude to helping the worst off are doing alright.

I don't think for one minute that Corbyn is looking for a 'state runs everything' situation, but more of a rebalancing of wealth.

As for the politics of envy comment that gets bandied about. What coswallop. A facile argument.
How does not wanting a few individuals creaming cash off of everyone else to the detriment of society and the health of the planet constitute envy?

Edited by nickgusset (02 Oct 2015 11.52am)


Couldn't agree with this more.


Whilst it is a pretty glib phrase, there are cases where it's entirely appropriate - for example, a dyed-in-the-wool Labour supporter I used to travel to away games with, was always very in favour of "taxing the sh*t out of the rich". However, when they decided to means-test child benefit (can't remember the limit, was it £50K pa per household?) it transpires that, for that test, he fell into the "rich" category and would therefore lose child benefit as he was too wealthy. He absolutely did his nut, blaming the Tories for taking this cash off him. So it transpires that, in his mind at least, "tax the rich" actually very quickly came to mean "tax the richer than me".


All very amateurishly done that change. If one partner was earning more than £50k they lost the benefit but if both were earning less - could be £40k each - they kept it. Odd. Your mate was right in blowing his top if he knew that.

No he wasn't, he just wanted to keep getting free cash. ie He was looking out for himself. They should get rid of the each bit though and cap it at household incomes of 50K or more.


Edited by Stuk (02 Oct 2015 3.40pm)

 

Optimistic as ever
Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
leggedstruggle Flag Croydon 02 Oct 15 2.02pm

Quote We are goin up! at 02 Oct 2015 9.46am

Quote leggedstruggle at 02 Oct 2015 7.04am

Quote We are goin up! at 02 Oct 2015 6.55am

Why does everyone keep talking about nationalising things assuming that it will provide a better service than the public sector when all evidence suggests the contrary?

Should we privatise everything then? The army, navy and airforce? The police? The fire service? The NHS? Parliament and local government - why elect people, couldn't we give the jobs to the highest bidder?


Did I say that? Defence of the country, its people and its law should of course be the responsibility of government because that cannot realistically be expected to be provided by citizens. The NHS I think should stay free at the point of service but I have no problem with privatising parts of the background to make it more efficient. I have family that work in the NHS and they endorse that, as long as it is free to use who the bloody hell cares?

My point was that because the railways are providing a poor service now, does not mean that you can wave a magic wand, nationalise it and assume that it will provide a better and cheaper service. The same goes for utilities, I don't want my power being at the hands of the unions, I don't particularly like rolling blackouts since my business that I run from home relies on it.

Corbyn is promoting fantasist economics and policies and it won't wash with the British electorate.

Are you arguing that defence etc needs to be run by the state because of its size and complexity? But the state is not capable of running lesser endeavours? I too have no problem with parts of the NHS being run privately. The service and pricing of the railways does not seem significantly better than it used to be - certainly not the astronomical prices. Why would power supplies be in the hands of the unions? Workers in private companies are quite capable of being in unions and striking. Corbyn is promoting alternative policies to current ones, not fantasist at all. Many of these policies were in force during the 1960s, arguably our decade of greatest prosperity.

 

mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler
Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 02 Oct 15 2.24pm

Quote nickgusset at 02 Oct 2015 12.23pm

Quote Lyons550 at 02 Oct 2015 12.22pm

Quote nickgusset at 01 Oct 2015 11.22pm

A poll in the Telegraph today showed 85% of respondents sided with Corbyn re the pressing the nuclear button question.

Ahhh...another little 'grenade' to drop in and walk away from eh Nick?

How many 'respondents' were there? Just to give it some context...

It seems that the results have changhed! Thje question was 'if you were prime minister, could you push the nuclear button'
Yesterday evening it was 85% no. Today its 75% yes.

Edited by nickgusset (02 Oct 2015 12.27pm)

Oddly though there never has been a 'nuclear button'. Although only the UK Prime Minister, and in his absence his appointed Nuclear Deputies have the capacity to order a launch.

One of the first things a new prime minister does is to sign letters for each trident submarine, that if the UK is destroyed and the prime minister and all deputies are not able to communicate, detailing whether they wish to launch or not. These are seal in safes on each submarine and never opened (and destroyed when the prime minister leaves office).

 

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]
Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply

  

Page 107 of 464 < 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Jeremy Corbyn