Author Topic: The Labour Party (*)  (Read 136210 times)

Offline The Gulleysucker

  • RAWK's very own spinached up Popeye. Transfer Board Veteran 5 Stars.
  • Campaigns
  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,570
  • An Indolent Sybarite
Re: The Labour Party (*)
« Reply #5920 on: April 20, 2017, 10:31:56 PM »
Who calls their children Sebastian?

Lord and Lady Marchmain...
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  - Sagan
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. - Aldous Huxley
Law of Logical Argument   Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
Believer in the Light Demons of Chunder-Upon-Tits - Corkboy
Very sad man with too much time on your hands - ghost1359

Online Alan_X

  • WUM. 'twatito' - The Cat Herding Firm But Fair Voice Of Reason (Except when he's got a plank up his arse). Gimme some skin, priest! Has a general dislike for Elijah Wood. Clearly cannot fill even a thong! RAWK Resident Muppet. Has a crush o
  • RAWK Staff
  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 39,917
  • Come on you fucking red men!!!
  • Super Title: This is super!
Re: The Labour Party (*)
« Reply #5921 on: April 20, 2017, 10:34:52 PM »
Sid Lowe (@sidlowe)
09/03/2011 08:04
Give a man a mask and he will tell the truth, Give a man a user name and he will act like a total twat.
Its all about winning shiny things.

Online So... Howard Phillips

  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,967
  • All I want for Christmas is a half and half scarf
Re: The Labour Party (*)
« Reply #5922 on: April 20, 2017, 10:39:14 PM »

Online oldfordie

  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,603
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: The Labour Party (*)
« Reply #5923 on: April 20, 2017, 10:39:24 PM »
Who calls their children Sebastian?
He would have been like a boy named Sue in my old school. :evil
"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they've have been fooled" Mark Twain on Brexit.

Offline killer_heels

  • Hates everyone and everything. Including YOU! Negativity not just for Christmas
  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,676
Re: The Labour Party (*)
« Reply #5924 on: April 20, 2017, 10:51:46 PM »
Lord and Lady Marchmain...

Love that show.

Offline shelts

  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,464
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
    • My Twitter Account
Re: The Labour Party (*)
« Reply #5925 on: April 20, 2017, 10:53:00 PM »
He would have been like a boy named Sue in my old school. :evil
was listening to that song on the way home earlier
Im in the nude in the garden rubbing marmite on myself,and i fucking hate marmite.
http://www.twitter.com/shelts_lfc

Offline alvaro

  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,737
Re: The Labour Party (*)
« Reply #5926 on: April 20, 2017, 11:10:42 PM »
Im from Chile and Sebastian is a really common name here fwiw ( Corbyn ex is chilean).

Offline Laughter is the best medicine...

  • unless you're actually ill.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 24,500
Re: The Labour Party (*)
« Reply #5927 on: April 21, 2017, 12:13:41 AM »
Im from Chile and Sebastian is a really common name here fwiw ( Corbyn ex is chilean).
is she the one he divorced over his school arrangements?

Online Alan_X

  • WUM. 'twatito' - The Cat Herding Firm But Fair Voice Of Reason (Except when he's got a plank up his arse). Gimme some skin, priest! Has a general dislike for Elijah Wood. Clearly cannot fill even a thong! RAWK Resident Muppet. Has a crush o
  • RAWK Staff
  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 39,917
  • Come on you fucking red men!!!
  • Super Title: This is super!
Re: The Labour Party (*)
« Reply #5928 on: April 21, 2017, 12:17:03 AM »
is she the one he divorced over his school arrangements?

Yes...
Sid Lowe (@sidlowe)
09/03/2011 08:04
Give a man a mask and he will tell the truth, Give a man a user name and he will act like a total twat.
Its all about winning shiny things.

Online Dyno-Rod

  • [BANNED] FORMERLY TEPID WATER Folically-challenged, God-piece-wearing, monkey-rubber. Jizz aroma expert. Operating at the lower end of the distribution curve...has the hots for Alan. Bastard. Fearless in transfer windows with lack of conviction
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 40,026
  • Liberal, and proud to be so.
Re: The Labour Party (*)
« Reply #5929 on: April 21, 2017, 07:58:14 AM »
You've got to be so so careful with things like those on over £70k being 'rich'

£70k is a lot more than the median wage (way more than I get paid too), don't get me wrong.  But it's not so far out of sight that the ordinary person can't aspire to it.

£150k?  I think it's fair to say that's beyond most people's reasonable aspirations.

So why do we need to be careful?  Well, if you stigmatize something that isn't an outlandish aspiration, then you risk stigmatizing people who are trying to earn more to support their family.  You could alienate a whole tranche of support.

It's a very difficult line to tread and needs to be done with sensitivity and thought..
With courage, nothing is impossible.

"My right arm hurts - I don't know why or who hit me."

Offline JohnnoWhite

  • Deliverer of the -Q- de grace.
  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,988
  • Thought I was wrong once - but I was mistaken.
Re: The Labour Party (*)
« Reply #5930 on: April 21, 2017, 09:15:01 AM »
Who calls their children Sebastian?

Oi KH - behave eh  :o :o! My youngest daughter's second son for a start :P :P
It goes well with the surname Walsh
There is nothing wrong with striving to win, so long as you don't set the prize above the game. There can be no dishonour in defeat nor any conceit in victory. What matters above all is that the team plays in the right spirit, with skill, courage, fair play,no favour and the result accepted without bitterness. Sir Matt Busby CBE KCSG 1909-1994

Offline Banquo's Ghost

  • Macbeth's on repeat
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,332
  • Justice for the 96
Re: The Labour Party (*)
« Reply #5931 on: April 21, 2017, 09:27:37 AM »
Lord and Lady Marchmain...

 ;D

Please, please let there be a teddy bear involved.

Online BoRed

  • BoRing
  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 6,429
  • BoRac
Re: The Labour Party (*)
« Reply #5932 on: April 21, 2017, 09:35:50 AM »
You've got to be so so careful with things like those on over £70k being 'rich'

£70k is a lot more than the median wage (way more than I get paid too), don't get me wrong.  But it's not so far out of sight that the ordinary person can't aspire to it.

£150k?  I think it's fair to say that's beyond most people's reasonable aspirations.

So why do we need to be careful?  Well, if you stigmatize something that isn't an outlandish aspiration, then you risk stigmatizing people who are trying to earn more to support their family.  You could alienate a whole tranche of support.

It's a very difficult line to tread and needs to be done with sensitivity and thought..

Is being called rich a stigma, though? People wouldn't be aspiring to be rich if it was. No one's saying there's something wrong with earning £70k, but it's a lot of money and should be taxed accordingly.

According to the Guardian, around 5% of people earn £70k or more:

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/apr/19/how-much-earn-rich-70000-labour

Isn't it perfectly reasonable to say that the top 5% of earners are rich?

Offline Laughter is the best medicine...

  • unless you're actually ill.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 24,500
Re: The Labour Party (*)
« Reply #5933 on: April 21, 2017, 09:44:19 AM »
Is being called rich a stigma, though? People wouldn't be aspiring to be rich if it was. No one's saying there's something wrong with earning £70k, but it's a lot of money and should be taxed accordingly.

According to the Guardian, around 5% of people earn £70k or more:

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/apr/19/how-much-earn-rich-70000-labour

Isn't it perfectly reasonable to say that the top 5% of earners are rich?
id say well off is a better term, top 1/2% is £150k? Pushing to increase taxes a bit for those (not what McDonnell has said before @ 75%) would make more sense, the way they're going about it will just make them look like they're punishing people who are/want to do well, fine line to tread

Online filopastry

  • seldom posts but often delivers
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,577
  • Let me tell you a story.........
Re: The Labour Party (*)
« Reply #5934 on: April 21, 2017, 09:50:18 AM »
Is being called rich a stigma, though? People wouldn't be aspiring to be rich if it was. No one's saying there's something wrong with earning £70k, but it's a lot of money and should be taxed accordingly.

According to the Guardian, around 5% of people earn £70k or more:

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/apr/19/how-much-earn-rich-70000-labour

Isn't it perfectly reasonable to say that the top 5% of earners are rich?

I would say PAYE earnings are already taxed accordingly generally, they're pretty progressive as they stand,  if you are earning between £100-120k your effective marginal tax rate is 60%, and evasion for salaried employees is pretty minimal

If I was serious about dealing with inequality within society, I wouldn't have PAYE taxation as my first port of call.

Offline Classycara

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,091
Re: The Labour Party (*)
« Reply #5935 on: April 21, 2017, 09:54:57 AM »
Is being called rich a stigma, though? People wouldn't be aspiring to be rich if it was. No one's saying there's something wrong with earning £70k, but it's a lot of money and should be taxed accordingly.

According to the Guardian, around 5% of people earn £70k or more:

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/apr/19/how-much-earn-rich-70000-labour

Isn't it perfectly reasonable to say that the top 5% of earners are rich?

It depends. I don't think I'd class people on 70k a year as rich, especially if I was unfamiliar with their circumstances. If they're the sole person earning in a household (which they might be renting), or they're supporting/caring for someone, that 70k a year would probably go relatively quickly.

Obviously subjective, but I'd personally use rich to describe people who have absolutely loads of money and capital, and who retain a lot of the money they earn

Online filopastry

  • seldom posts but often delivers
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,577
  • Let me tell you a story.........
Re: The Labour Party (*)
« Reply #5936 on: April 21, 2017, 10:11:24 AM »
It depends. I don't think I'd class people on 70k a year as rich, especially if I was unfamiliar with their circumstances. If they're the sole person earning in a household (which they might be renting), or they're supporting/caring for someone, that 70k a year would probably go relatively quickly.

Obviously subjective, but I'd personally use rich to describe people who have absolutely loads of money and capital, and who retain a lot of the money they earn

A subjective view that  I would largely agree with, I'll be interested to see if we start to see some moves towards wealth taxation in some form or another in the manifesto

Online Alan_X

  • WUM. 'twatito' - The Cat Herding Firm But Fair Voice Of Reason (Except when he's got a plank up his arse). Gimme some skin, priest! Has a general dislike for Elijah Wood. Clearly cannot fill even a thong! RAWK Resident Muppet. Has a crush o
  • RAWK Staff
  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 39,917
  • Come on you fucking red men!!!
  • Super Title: This is super!
Re: The Labour Party (*)
« Reply #5937 on: April 21, 2017, 11:23:17 AM »
Is being called rich a stigma, though? People wouldn't be aspiring to be rich if it was. No one's saying there's something wrong with earning £70k, but it's a lot of money and should be taxed accordingly.

According to the Guardian, around 5% of people earn £70k or more:

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/apr/19/how-much-earn-rich-70000-labour

Isn't it perfectly reasonable to say that the top 5% of earners are rich?

It is a stigma when the rhetoric is all about fat cats and tax havens. When McDonnell conflates a GP's (or MP's) salary with Phillip Green then middle class and aspiring Labour voters will question whether they belong or how they'll be treated.

If the top 5% are 'rich' what about the next 5% of earners below that? That takes you down to £50k a year - train drivers and the like. Wouldn't you say that say, an 80:20 split would be about fair for the poor:rich split? That would make the break at £38,500 before tax.

The Inland Revenue makes the break at £43,000. Earnings above that level are taxed at 40%.

It just comes across as all 'class war' bollocks from McDonnell. You could propose the same tax proposals in an inclusive and positive way. Talk about society and the responsibility of those earning more to pay more tax. I pay the higher rate because I own my own business and employ staff. I don't have a problem with it and neither do most higher rate tax payers have a problem in principle. I don't want to pay any more tax than I need to but I understand the principle of redistribution of wealth through taxation.

I do resent that prick McDonnell spouting off about fat cats on his £74k MP's salary. I get pissed off when taxation is portrayed as a penalty for being well off rather than a social responsibility.
Sid Lowe (@sidlowe)
09/03/2011 08:04
Give a man a mask and he will tell the truth, Give a man a user name and he will act like a total twat.
Its all about winning shiny things.

Online Alan_X

  • WUM. 'twatito' - The Cat Herding Firm But Fair Voice Of Reason (Except when he's got a plank up his arse). Gimme some skin, priest! Has a general dislike for Elijah Wood. Clearly cannot fill even a thong! RAWK Resident Muppet. Has a crush o
  • RAWK Staff
  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 39,917
  • Come on you fucking red men!!!
  • Super Title: This is super!
Re: The Labour Party (*)
« Reply #5938 on: April 21, 2017, 11:29:54 AM »
It depends. I don't think I'd class people on 70k a year as rich, especially if I was unfamiliar with their circumstances. If they're the sole person earning in a household (which they might be renting), or they're supporting/caring for someone, that 70k a year would probably go relatively quickly.

Obviously subjective, but I'd personally use rich to describe people who have absolutely loads of money and capital, and who retain a lot of the money they earn

I don't take 70k from my business in a normal year but I'm in the higher tax bracket and as you say it's easy for it to go relatively quickly when you are the only earner. I have no savings and no pension and have to support my son because he's been denied disability payments by those pricks at ATOS. I'm going through a divorce and will probably have to commit to working until I'm 75 to get a last mortgage before I retire or drop dead (whichever comes first). I work 60+ hours a week as a minimum and at least one day most weekends.

Am I rich? Comparatively I might be but I'm worth more dead than alive.
Sid Lowe (@sidlowe)
09/03/2011 08:04
Give a man a mask and he will tell the truth, Give a man a user name and he will act like a total twat.
Its all about winning shiny things.

Offline Classycara

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,091
Re: The Labour Party (*)
« Reply #5939 on: April 21, 2017, 11:47:40 AM »
I don't take 70k from my business in a normal year but I'm in the higher tax bracket and as you say it's easy for it to go relatively quickly when you are the only earner. I have no savings and no pension and have to support my son because he's been denied disability payments by those pricks at ATOS. I'm going through a divorce and will probably have to commit to working until I'm 75 to get a last mortgage before I retire or drop dead (whichever comes first). I work 60+ hours a week as a minimum and at least one day most weekends.

Am I rich? Comparatively I might be but I'm worth more dead than alive.

Precisely as you put it Alan, it comes across as scornful/hateful 'class warfare' nonsense. And as Filo put it, wealth taxation would be far more interesting a proposal but probably too nuanced for McDonnell, compared to trying to convince people that those on 70k don't pay their taxes.

As someone who has an academic and work interest in reducing inequalities, I've yet to hear McDonnell, Corbyn or any of their cronies suggest anything in line with an evidence base. It's hard to believe them when they claim to be guys who are interested trying to tackle inequalities, when they seem more intent on stoking up divisions and faking/lying that they aren't part of the 'establishment' than on economic policy.

Online SamAteTheRedAcid

  • Currently facing issues around potty training. All help appreciated.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,212
Re: The Labour Party (*)
« Reply #5940 on: April 21, 2017, 11:49:52 AM »
they seem more intent on stoking up divisions and faking/lying that they aren't part of the 'establishment' than on economic policy.

It seems a bit embarrassing to me - career politicians who've never had a proper job in their lives going on about taking on 'the establishment'. You are the fucking establishment, dickheads.

Online oldfordie

  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,603
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: The Labour Party (*)
« Reply #5941 on: April 21, 2017, 11:54:36 AM »
Is being called rich a stigma, though? People wouldn't be aspiring to be rich if it was. No one's saying there's something wrong with earning £70k, but it's a lot of money and should be taxed accordingly.

According to the Guardian, around 5% of people earn £70k or more:

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/apr/19/how-much-earn-rich-70000-labour

Isn't it perfectly reasonable to say that the top 5% of earners are rich?
There are far more than 5% working hard in the hope of getting promoted to a job which will earn them over 70k a year as well. most people adjust their spending to their income, if they earn more then they buy better homes and cars.
"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they've have been fooled" Mark Twain on Brexit.

Online filopastry

  • seldom posts but often delivers
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,577
  • Let me tell you a story.........
Re: The Labour Party (*)
« Reply #5942 on: April 21, 2017, 12:01:34 PM »
There are far more than 5% working hard in the hope of getting promoted to a job which will earn them over 70k a year as well. most people adjust their spending to their income, if they earn more then they buy better homes and cars.

Its not an obscene wage in London either, I know people getting close to that level (mid 60s) and they're still renting in flatshares, because they weren't one of the lucky ones who were on the property ladder at the right time, on the other hand its not uncommon down here to find people sitting on a fortune in their property value with in theory relatively low taxable earnings.

During the property boom I think the average homeowner down here was earning more from the appreciation in value of their house than they were from wages, which just shows how ridiculous the whole situation is.

Online Alan_X

  • WUM. 'twatito' - The Cat Herding Firm But Fair Voice Of Reason (Except when he's got a plank up his arse). Gimme some skin, priest! Has a general dislike for Elijah Wood. Clearly cannot fill even a thong! RAWK Resident Muppet. Has a crush o
  • RAWK Staff
  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 39,917
  • Come on you fucking red men!!!
  • Super Title: This is super!
Re: The Labour Party (*)
« Reply #5943 on: April 21, 2017, 12:33:34 PM »
Its not an obscene wage in London either, I know people getting close to that level (mid 60s) and they're still renting in flatshares...

I'm 60 and if my divorce goes badly I'll be looking at being able to afford a one bedroom flat in Peckham. While I was Googling a few things I came across this discussion about final pension schemes for train drivers.

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=77712

Some interesting stuff in the context of Corbyn and McDonnell's statements. £60k a year, $40k a year final pension scheme (£24k for early retirement) and some lovely comments about tax avoidance. I can't afford to retire at 60 let alone 55 and certainly not on £40k. Who is 'richer' - a train driver on £60 with a massive final pension scheme or someone working for themselves with no job security and no pension but earning £70k?

Corbyn and McDonnell are so far up the arses of the unions they have no fucking idea what it's like for people like me who have built a small business, employ people and pay their taxes.
Sid Lowe (@sidlowe)
09/03/2011 08:04
Give a man a mask and he will tell the truth, Give a man a user name and he will act like a total twat.
Its all about winning shiny things.

Online oldfordie

  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,603
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: The Labour Party (*)
« Reply #5944 on: April 21, 2017, 12:40:00 PM »
Its not an obscene wage in London either, I know people getting close to that level (mid 60s) and they're still renting in flatshares, because they weren't one of the lucky ones who were on the property ladder at the right time, on the other hand its not uncommon down here to find people sitting on a fortune in their property value with in theory relatively low taxable earnings.

During the property boom I think the average homeowner down here was earning more from the appreciation in value of their house than they were from wages, which just shows how ridiculous the whole situation is.
Yeah, I know a couple who love London and offered decent jobs on higher pay but turned them down, house prices horrified them and they would have been worse off in real terms.
Were back to what does fair actually mean. people who aspire to improve their lives (and that band is far higher than 5%) wont take kindly to the idea their dream of earning enough to buy a nice home and provide a better life for their children will be hurt because the Labour government want to take more tax off them.
« Last Edit: April 21, 2017, 01:07:41 PM by oldfordie »
"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they've have been fooled" Mark Twain on Brexit.

Online Bakez0151

  • Grumpy Optimist
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 15,098
Re: The Labour Party (*)
« Reply #5945 on: April 21, 2017, 02:03:47 PM »
I mean, I just googled 'Corbyn salary' and the first thing that came up was Jeremy Corbyn says he is 'not wealthy', despite £137k salary. ("I don't consider myself highbrow or wealthy...")

We are a pretty conservative country, not quite as bad as somewhere like America, but the 'tax the rich' stuff is never going to fly and always going to be seen as anti-aspirational, and when you can just google something like that it comes across as hypocritical. I would avoid talking so much about tax. The stuff that everyone cares about needs to be at the forefront. I don't think people are against contributing to essential services but you talk about those essential services, not the tax.

Offline Classycara

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,091
Re: The Labour Party (*)
« Reply #5946 on: April 21, 2017, 03:32:46 PM »


Unlike Corbyn and McDonnell to score own goals like that...

Considering they're thick as thieves, it doesn't exactly bode well that they can't be on message. Same thing happened yesterday, with the unclear second referendum waffling

Offline Sangria

  • Ally Machoist
  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 10,383
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: The Labour Party (*)
« Reply #5947 on: April 21, 2017, 03:38:19 PM »
Unlike Corbyn and McDonnell to score own goals like that...

Considering they're thick as thieves, it doesn't exactly bode well that they can't be on message. Same thing happened yesterday, with the unclear second referendum waffling

I know they're thick. I didn't know they were thieves as well.
"i just dont think (Lucas is) that type of player that Kenny wants"
Vidocq, 20 January 2011

http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=267148.msg8032258#msg8032258

Offline Libertine

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,322
  • Nothing behind me, everything ahead of me
    • Frontiers of Travel
Re: The Labour Party (*)
« Reply #5948 on: April 21, 2017, 03:41:42 PM »
Brexit cheerleader Kate Hoey has faced down unrest in her local party after they backed her reselection to stand in Vauxhall.

The Labour Leave chair sparked controversy for campaigning alongside ex-UKIP leader Nigel Frottage on his Thames flotilla during the referendum.

Despite the Vauxhall Labour Party publicly disassociating themselves from her over Brexit and rumours she would be deselected, members have rallied around her so she can fight her eighth election.

A statement released by the branch to the Evening Standard said they had agreed to “work collaboratively” with 70-year-old Ms Hoey, who has held the seat since 1989.

Labour strong-hold Vauxhall voted 77 percent in favour of Remain at the EU referendum.

Her main challenge comes from the Lib Dems who today announced they are targeting her 12,708 majority and will make it one of their key General Election battlegrounds.

A senior Lib Dem campaign source said: “We just can’t believe Labour has been dumb enough to re-select someone who makes Nigel Frottage look like a cuddly pro-European. It’s game on in Vauxhall.”

Ms Hoey shrugged off the party’s provocation. She said: “It’s fine. Why wouldn’t they? They’ve got a history of targeting seats.”

The Lib Dems claim their membership in local branch Wandsworth and Vauxhall has doubled since the EU referendum and 2000 people have joined the party since Tuesday.

Membership is said to be up 12 percent in Kingston & Surbiton, 15 percent in Twickenham and up 17 percent in Bermondsey & Old Southwark, which will form the centre of the party’s plans for a revival.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/brexitbacker-kate-hoey-faces-down-unrest-to-stand-in-vauxhall-a3520111.html

interested in adventure travel?

Then check out my new website http://www.frontiersoftravel.com to find inspiration and information for your travels

Online filopastry

  • seldom posts but often delivers
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,577
  • Let me tell you a story.........
Re: The Labour Party (*)
« Reply #5949 on: April 21, 2017, 03:51:47 PM »
McCluskey has been reelected as General Secretary of Unite

Online Alan_X

  • WUM. 'twatito' - The Cat Herding Firm But Fair Voice Of Reason (Except when he's got a plank up his arse). Gimme some skin, priest! Has a general dislike for Elijah Wood. Clearly cannot fill even a thong! RAWK Resident Muppet. Has a crush o
  • RAWK Staff
  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 39,917
  • Come on you fucking red men!!!
  • Super Title: This is super!
Re: The Labour Party (*)
« Reply #5950 on: April 21, 2017, 03:55:50 PM »
McCluskey has been reelected as General Secretary of Unite

Fucks sake.
Sid Lowe (@sidlowe)
09/03/2011 08:04
Give a man a mask and he will tell the truth, Give a man a user name and he will act like a total twat.
Its all about winning shiny things.

Online filopastry

  • seldom posts but often delivers
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,577
  • Let me tell you a story.........
Re: The Labour Party (*)
« Reply #5951 on: April 21, 2017, 04:01:54 PM »
Len McCluskey won 59,067 votes, Gerard Coyne 53,544 and Ian Allinson 17,143, in a turnout of just over 12% -

Online Kashinoda

  • and in the attic - gets biy wath a luttle halp frum hes friends
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,162
  • ....mmm
Re: The Labour Party (*)
« Reply #5952 on: April 21, 2017, 04:32:33 PM »
I mean, I just googled 'Corbyn salary' and the first thing that came up was Jeremy Corbyn says he is 'not wealthy', despite £137k salary. ("I don't consider myself highbrow or wealthy...")

We are a pretty conservative country, not quite as bad as somewhere like America, but the 'tax the rich' stuff is never going to fly and always going to be seen as anti-aspirational, and when you can just google something like that it comes across as hypocritical. I would avoid talking so much about tax. The stuff that everyone cares about needs to be at the forefront. I don't think people are against contributing to essential services but you talk about those essential services, not the tax.


We already Tax 'the rich' a fair amount though, more so now then we ever did under Labour:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39641222

It's more nuanced than that of course, but when you hear it from Labour it sounds like by the book socialism rather than understanding the concerns of working class people.
:D

Online oldfordie

  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,603
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: The Labour Party (*)
« Reply #5953 on: April 21, 2017, 05:10:47 PM »
Len McCluskey won 59,067 votes, Gerard Coyne 53,544 and Ian Allinson 17,143, in a turnout of just over 12% -
Unbelievable. McCluskey getting re elected is bad enough, a 12% turnout is shocking.
"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they've have been fooled" Mark Twain on Brexit.

Offline zebenzui

  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,823
Re: The Labour Party (*)
« Reply #5954 on: April 21, 2017, 05:19:24 PM »
I tried looking for this myself (and failed), so I'll ask here. What's Labour's policy on the EU/brexit for this election.

It feels like the sort of information that should be plastered everywhere, let alone unable to be found for a person actively seeking it.

Offline SP

  • Alpheus. SPoogle. The Equusfluminis Of RAWK. Straight in at the deep end with a tube of Vagisil. Needs to get a half-life. Needs a damned good de-frag.
  • RAWK Staff.
  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 31,073
  • .
Re: The Labour Party (*)
« Reply #5955 on: April 21, 2017, 05:22:18 PM »
I tried looking for this myself (and failed), so I'll ask here. What's Labour's policy on the EU/brexit for this election.

It feels like the sort of information that should be plastered everywhere, let alone unable to be found for a person actively seeking it.

Don't ask, don't tell.

Online Alan_X

  • WUM. 'twatito' - The Cat Herding Firm But Fair Voice Of Reason (Except when he's got a plank up his arse). Gimme some skin, priest! Has a general dislike for Elijah Wood. Clearly cannot fill even a thong! RAWK Resident Muppet. Has a crush o
  • RAWK Staff
  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 39,917
  • Come on you fucking red men!!!
  • Super Title: This is super!
Re: The Labour Party (*)
« Reply #5956 on: April 21, 2017, 05:28:15 PM »
I tried looking for this myself (and failed), so I'll ask here. What's Labour's policy on the EU/brexit for this election.

It feels like the sort of information that should be plastered everywhere, let alone unable to be found for a person actively seeking it.

This election - the one that's being held to increase the Tories majority so they can push through Brexit, the one that's being held during the UK's withdrawal from the EU - is not about Brexit apparently.
Sid Lowe (@sidlowe)
09/03/2011 08:04
Give a man a mask and he will tell the truth, Give a man a user name and he will act like a total twat.
Its all about winning shiny things.

Online Bakez0151

  • Grumpy Optimist
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 15,098
Re: The Labour Party (*)
« Reply #5957 on: April 21, 2017, 05:36:38 PM »
We already Tax 'the rich' a fair amount though, more so now then we ever did under Labour:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39641222

It's more nuanced than that of course, but when you hear it from Labour it sounds like by the book socialism rather than understanding the concerns of working class people.
Yeah, that's what I mean, I'm not saying this country is particularly anti-tax, just that I'm not sure 'tax the rich' sentiment is much of a votewinner. Feels too extreme for this country and a throwback. Maybe that's the me having been brought up in a New Labour world shining through, but I think we probably have moved on that, if we were ever on it (and I don't think we were, were we?)

Offline zebenzui

  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,823
Re: The Labour Party (*)
« Reply #5958 on: April 21, 2017, 05:37:26 PM »
Don't ask, don't tell.
This election - the one that's being held to increase the Tories majority so they can push through Brexit, the one that's being held during the UK's withdrawal from the EU - is not about Brexit apparently.

It's shit like this isn't it? This might be my epitome moment, for how bad Labour actually are these days.

Look Labour, I like you. I always have. But you have to try...

Offline Sangria

  • Ally Machoist
  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 10,383
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: The Labour Party (*)
« Reply #5959 on: April 21, 2017, 05:43:12 PM »
It's shit like this isn't it? This might be my epitome moment, for how bad Labour actually are these days.

Look Labour, I like you. I always have. But you have to try...

Labour have expressed a firm position. There will be no second referendum. Brexit is what we voted for, so Brexit is what we're going to get, if Labour take power. If you voted Leave, that's Labour reassuring you.
"i just dont think (Lucas is) that type of player that Kenny wants"
Vidocq, 20 January 2011

http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=267148.msg8032258#msg8032258