Precautions in case of a Labour win

Turpinr

Once johnson wins the election he can do anything he wants, workers, human and animal rights out of the window and the manufacturing industry left on the scrap heap.

The 50p Brexit coin and the advice about leaving on the 31st of October (this year??) all over the media has proved money well spent hahaha
I wouldn't have thought the super savers on this site would be very happy, but then again they are mostly Tory.

Turpinr

And that’s putting aside the fact that Labour is the first party to be under EHRC investigation for racism since BNP.

IDS was about to be investigated by the UN regarding cruelty to those less fortunate ie disabled people, when he resigned.

In a government where terms like pickaninny are used by the PM, I can't see racism being a problem

DairyQueen

Deleted_User wrote: »

Anyone voting Corbyn has an interesting logic. Socialism didn’t work last 75 times it was tried in various places. Bound to work this time around. Right?

If he were to get elected then there won’t be an asset, a pension or an investment that is safe anywhere in Britain.

'Socialism' covers a broad political spectrum. Blair liberalism is very different from the far-Left idealism of Momentum.

Unfettered capitalism creates extreme economic inequality between the few (financial elites) and the many they exploit, and there have been periods in our history when socialism has been instrumental in addressing extreme injustice. The socialist movement of the 19th-thru-mid 20th centuries was generally a force for social good. It catalysed universal suffrage. It engineered trade unions and opposed the terrible exploitation of workers. It promoted government support for society's vulnerable - healthcare, state pensions, etc.

Lloyd George was arguably more of a leftie than Blair.

Developed countries have matured over the last two centuries into mixed economies and negotiating the balance between individualism and collectivism requires a different kind of politics. 21st century inequality is a different animal from its 19th/20th century predecessors and arguably the policies of political extremes are a bad fit. I would no more wish to live under a regime governed by the extreme right (think USA under Bush and Trump) than I would want to see the return of hard-leftism that destroyed the UK economy in the 1970s.

A commonality across the Leftist spectrum is the desire for wealth redistribution. Under Blair taxes were raised by stealth - Brown's dividend tax being one example - but Left-wing governments are more direct in their assault on the 'privileged'. The 'privileged' being a term arbitrarily applied to those with assets.

If Brown hadn't spent the UK's surplus during Blair's tenure (previously squirrelled by the Tories) arguably we would have been in a far better position to deal with the impact of the financial crisis. The idealistic may consider that it's a great thing to tax-and-spend in the service of equality. Appropriating the means of production for the collective good seems a great idea on paper. But this kind of extreme collectivism failed spectacularly in the late 20th century and there is no suggestion that it will fare any better in the 21st.

The law of unintended consequences will prevail under a hard left government. The top 10% pay 60% of income tax revenue. Tax 'the wealthy' too much and you end up with 90% of nothing as they will leave the country in droves. This time around (unlike the 1970s) you don't need to be a zillionaire to vote with your feet. Tax business too much and they will do likewise.

Threaten to appropriate assets and investment in those assets will dry-up. UK companies will be starved of capital. Private rentals will disappear from the housing market. Over-ambitious pay demands from powerful trade unions catalysed the collapse of whole industries in the 1970s when globalisation became a factor. Globalisation is now more than just a factor.

The irony is that the protectionist policies of a hard-left government are far more likely to close the UK's physical and metaphoric borders to investment, people, capital and trade than leaving the EU.

zagfles

Turpinr wrote: »

Once johnson wins the election he can do anything he wants, workers, human and animal rights out of the window and the manufacturing industry left on the scrap heap.

The 50p Brexit coin and the advice about leaving on the 31st of October (this year??) all over the media has proved money well spent hahaha
I wouldn't have thought the super savers on this site would be very happy, but then again they are mostly Tory.

Just because we don't want anti-semite marxists running the country doesn't mean we're Tories. Yes Brexit is a farce, and will likely make most people poorer, but not as much as having the likes of Corbyn and McDonnell running the country.

zagfles

Turpinr wrote: »

And that’s putting aside the fact that Labour is the first party to be under EHRC investigation for racism since BNP.

IDS was about to be investigated by the UN regarding cruelty to those less fortunate ie disabled people, when he resigned.

Really, evidence for this? The UK has (still) one of the most generous means tested benefits system in the world for working age adults. Other countries have better contributory benefits, ie based on what you've paid in, but our system targets those in need better. We have a far greater proportion of people on disability benefits than even countries like Sweden, something like 6% here and 1% in Sweden, 0.3% in France!

This from a Scottish govt report:

https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/foi-eir-release/2018/07/foi-18-01623/documents/foi-18-01632-international-comparison-disability-benefits-report-pdf/foi-18-01632-international-comparison-disability-benefits-report-pdf/govscot:document/la-commission-des-droits-et-de-l-autonomie-des-personnes-handicapees

You really need to stop believing the propaganda about the Tories hating the sick and disabled etc. It's a narrative designed to vilify and shame those who don't know any better and make them think only cruel and heartless people vote Tory.

If you want to hate the Tories, hate them for the farce they're making of Brexit!

MaxiRobriguez

Sorry if this deviates the conversation slightly but whilst we're all happy to discuss how radical a Corbyn government may or may not be, are any One Nation Tories' not concerned the state and direction of their party at the moment?

Banished are the likes of what were once considered reasonable, pragmatic Tories like Ken Clarke and Phil Hammond and the wealth of experience in governing. Replaced by what looks more and more like a cabal of chancers each day that passes:

The great Orator Boris Johnson, who can barely deliver a coherent speech, Mr "F Business", father of multiple illegitimate children who he doesn't give a hoot about, alleged wifebeater, quite happy to trash parliamentary norms to get his way, using a Brexit crisis he doesn't give a stuff about how it actually ends in order to realise his dream of becoming PM. Nice guy.

The strong, unrelenting Demonic Raab, another one happy to trash parliamentary norms. Advertises for unpaid roles despite them being full time positions, bullies his staff, sexually harasses others, twelve of them, apparently. Refused to criticise Saudi Arabia in their role of murdering a journalist because didn't want to put the arms trade at risk.

The bounce-back-ability of Priti Patel, forced to resign from Government for getting caught undertaking multiple off-the-record lobbying mission which would have seen British taxpayer money used to fund hospitals for Israeli forces.

Andrea Leadsom, ridiculous lies about managing billions of pounds of funds whilst at Invesco. Told the country she'd make a better PM than May because she had children, unlike May (nice!). Won't employ a man in a role working with children because all !!!!!philes are men. Climate change denier.

Matt Hancock, described prorogation of parliament as disrespecting our war dead when running for PM. "It goes against everything those men who waded onto those beaches fought & died for - and I will not have it" - clearly he does have it.

So I ask you this Tory voters. Where is the competency in YOUR front bench? Why on earth are these complete and utter morons who wouldn't have made it past a first promotion in the private sector the people to deliver capable Government for the next 5 years? "They're not Labour" isn't an answer, because there's a few parties which aren't Labour, who have maintained a sense of decency and pragmatism across the political spectrum.

The Tory party as we knew it is dead, the entryists have turned it into little more than an shouty shouty party who's policies have no plan for the country for a year let alone 5, they're just designed to win an election. What then? A bunch of low IQ fools undertaking the biggest economic change this country has undertaken in generations. Good grief I long for Cameron back.

DairyQueen

zagfles wrote: »

Just because we don't want anti-semite marxists running the country doesn't mean we're Tories. Yes Brexit is a farce, and will likely make most people poorer, but not as much as having the likes of Corbyn and McDonnell running the country.

The political landscape is going through a seismic shift as parties realign and redefine themselves. Blair and Corbyn both fly the Labour Party flag but are as different as night-and-day.

The Tories have been so distracted by Brexit that it's hard to know where they currently fit on the political spectrum. Johnson hasn't much time to define his brand of Conservatism before the election and I will only know whether I am a Johnson-Tory when their manifesto is made clear. Based on his tenure as London Mayor I believe him to be more liberal than some posters suggest. Jury is out.

Interesting times.

MaxiRobriguez

DairyQueen wrote: »

The political landscape is going through a seismic shift as parties realign and redefine themselves. Blair and Corbyn both fly the Labour Party flag but are as different as night-and-day.

The Tories have been so distracted by Brexit that it's hard to know where they currently fit on the political spectrum. Johnson hasn't much time to define his brand of Conservatism before the election and I will only know whether I am a Johnson-Tory when their manifesto is made clear. Based on his tenure as London Mayor I believe him to be more liberal than some posters suggest. Jury is out.

Interesting times.

You won't find out what his brand of Conservatism is because it will change based on what they think the public wants to hear. Johnson doesn't have any real opinions, he just selects them as he sees fit to benefit his career. That's why he wrote articles for and against the EU in the run up to the election, that's why he voted against May's deal and then presented something which was almost the same as it.

The Tory party as it currently stands doesn't have any policies anymore. The only thing they have is "Get Brexit Done" masterminded together by Dom Cummings and Isaac Levido, neither of whom are actually Conservatives, and which the slogan doesn't come with any content, meaning or plan. They're a joke.

zagfles

DairyQueen wrote: »

'Socialism' covers a broad political spectrum. Blair liberalism is very different from the far-Left idealism of Momentum.

Unfettered capitalism creates extreme economic inequality between the few (financial elites) and the many they exploit, and there have been periods in our history when socialism has been instrumental in addressing extreme injustice. The socialist movement of the 19th-thru-mid 20th centuries was generally a force for social good. It catalysed universal suffrage. It engineered trade unions and opposed the terrible exploitation of workers. It promoted government support for society's vulnerable - healthcare, state pensions, etc.

Indeed - if you could bring a 19th century socialist back to life today they'd marvel at their success - free education and healthcare for all, workers working far shorter hours in far safer conditions, child mortality very low, compared to it being common to lose half your children before age of 10 in Victorian times, people living generally healthy lives and being able to have years or even decades of retirement... They'd probably think, job done!

Today's socialism in rich countries isn't driven by the same motivations as it was then, which was to fight against high mortality rates, dangerous & expolitative working conditions, starvation and disease. It's driven by an obsession with money, about financial inequality being a scurge even if everyone has enough for their basic needs. That it's not poverty that's the problem but inequality, ie if you're living a simple basic life and so is everyone else then you're happy, but if you live a simple basic life and you see others living a better life then you then you won't be - you'll become insanely jealous.

That seems to be the logic - they've even redefined "poverty" to mean inequality. And most disingenously of all, defined it to mean inequality within your own country. So we might have more "poverty" than a country where most of the population are starving.

Lloyd George was arguably more of a leftie than Blair.

Developed countries have matured over the last two centuries into mixed economies and negotiating the balance between individualism and collectivism requires a different kind of politics. 21st century inequality is a different animal from its 19th/20th century predecessors and arguably the policies of political extremes are a bad fit. I would no more wish to live under a regime governed by the extreme right (think USA under Bush and Trump) than I would want to see the return of hard-leftism that destroyed the UK economy in the 1970s.

A commonality across the Leftist spectrum is the desire for wealth redistribution. Under Blair taxes were raised by stealth - Brown's dividend tax being one example - but Left-wing governments are more direct in their assault on the 'privileged'. The 'privileged' being a term arbitrarily applied to those with assets.

If Brown hadn't spent the UK's surplus during Blair's tenure (previously squirrelled by the Tories) arguably we would have been in a far better position to deal with the impact of the financial crisis. The idealistic may consider that it's a great thing to tax-and-spend in the service of equality. Appropriating the means of production for the collective good seems a great idea on paper. But this kind of extreme collectivism failed spectacularly in the late 20th century and there is no suggestion that it will fare any better in the 21st.

Indeed, the famines in Russia in the early 20's and China in the 50's/60's caused by collectivist policies.

The law of unintended consequences will prevail under a hard left government. The top 10% pay 60% of income tax revenue. Tax 'the wealthy' too much and you end up with 90% of nothing as they will leave the country in droves. This time around (unlike the 1970s) you don't need to be a zillionaire to vote with your feet. Tax business too much and they will do likewise.

Threaten to appropriate assets and investment in those assets will dry-up. UK companies will be starved of capital. Private rentals will disappear from the housing market. Over-ambitious pay demands from powerful trade unions catalysed the collapse of whole industries in the 1970s when globalisation became a factor. Globalisation is now more than just a factor.

The irony is that the protectionist policies of a hard-left government are far more likely to close the UK's physical and metaphoric borders to investment, people, capital and trade than leaving the EU.

And the EU would provide us with some protection eg against physical or financial borders. Leaving the EU then having a Corbyn govt would be the nightmare scenario.

DairyQueen

MaxiRobriguez wrote: »

Sorry if this deviates the conversation slightly but whilst we're all happy to discuss how radical a Corbyn government may or may not be, are any One Nation Tories' not concerned the state and direction of their party at the moment?

Banished are the likes of what were once considered reasonable, pragmatic Tories like Ken Clarke and Phil Hammond and the wealth of experience in governing. Replaced by what looks more and more like a cabal of chancers each day that passes:

The great Orator Boris Johnson, who can barely deliver a coherent speech, Mr "F Business", father of multiple illegitimate children who he doesn't give a hoot about, alleged wifebeater, quite happy to trash parliamentary norms to get his way, using a Brexit crisis he doesn't give a stuff about how it actually ends in order to realise his dream of becoming PM. Nice guy.

The strong, unrelenting Demonic Raab, another one happy to trash parliamentary norms. Advertises for unpaid roles despite them being full time positions, bullies his staff, sexually harasses others, twelve of them, apparently. Refused to criticise Saudi Arabia in their role of murdering a journalist because didn't want to put the arms trade at risk.

The bounce-back-ability of Priti Patel, forced to resign from Government for getting caught undertaking multiple off-the-record lobbying mission which would have seen British taxpayer money used to fund hospitals for Israeli forces.

Andrea Leadsom, ridiculous lies about managing billions of pounds of funds whilst at Invesco. Told the country she'd make a better PM than May because she had children, unlike May (nice!). Won't employ a man in a role working with children because all !!!!!philes are men. Climate change denier.

Matt Hancock, described prorogation of parliament as disrespecting our war dead when running for PM. "It goes against everything those men who waded onto those beaches fought & died for - and I will not have it" - clearly he does have it.

So I ask you this Tory voters. Where is the competency in YOUR front bench? Why on earth are these complete and utter morons who wouldn't have made it past a first promotion in the private sector the people to deliver capable Government for the next 5 years? "They're not Labour" isn't an answer, because there's a few parties which aren't Labour, who have maintained a sense of decency and pragmatism across the political spectrum.

The Tory party as we knew it is dead, the entryists have turned it into little more than an shouty shouty party who's policies have no plan for the country for a year let alone 5, they're just designed to win an election. What then? A bunch of low IQ fools undertaking the biggest economic change this country has undertaken in generations. Good grief I long for Cameron back.

I just love a newbie rant.... and so eloquent too.;)

I have yet to find ranting persuasive. Quite the contrary, it tends to alienate those whom you are trying to persuade. The more 'shouty shouty' you are the less convincing your arguments (been there; ironed the t-shirt).

The highlighted comment indicates to me that you are under 40 and not a scholar of economic or social history.