Topic: Labour Thread * No Gaza *

[Jiminy Cricket]

He was being antagonistic, and you are reducing what for many is a major thing in their life to a pet obsession.

I doubt Rowling pays tax at a higher '%rate than I do.

"Many on the left". I did not write "many transsexuals". I'll thank you for not reframing my words to refer to something I did not write.

Isn't that the whole point of her letter? She thinks she should do.

Precisely. But for many on the left, they will instead focus upon their pet obsession, to the detriment of the larger picture. Kenny's post rather proves Sangria's point, does it not!? (Rhetorical question.)

@Kenny - I am not meaning to have a go at you. But agree with Sangria's point or not, his point was reasonably made. When someone (Rowling) agrees with your point of view, don't go on trash them - blowing over their point - because of something where you disagree with them.

[Yorkykopite]

Its not Rpwlings opinion on tax Im struggloing with. Its Sangria's  point  that people cant criticise those who dont evade tax that Im struggling with

Perhaps he should have just said I agree with Rowlings gender critical critical views.

I didn't think he was saying that Kenny. I thought he was saying that JK Rowling had a firmer grasp of what it was like to be on the political Left than her critics did. That's true, isn't it?

[Sangria]

Isn't that the whole point of her letter? She thinks she should do.

Someone who pays all the taxes she's supposed to, unlike most people at that level of wealth, and thinks she should pay more, unlike most people at that level of wealth, and there's a group of righteous who want everyone to boycott everything to do with her.

[Sangria]

Its not Rpwlings opinion on tax Im struggloing with. Its Sangria's  point  that people cant criticise those who dont evade tax that Im struggling with

Perhaps he should have just said I agree with Rowlings gender critical critical views.

I have no idea where to stand on gender critical issues, not understanding it myself. But I do appreciate those of the rich who pay everything they're supposed to, when so many don't, especially when they want to pay more.

[Sangria]

I didn't think he was saying that Kenny. I thought he was saying that JK Rowling had a firmer grasp of what it was like to be on the political Left than her critics did. That's true, isn't it?

I'd say that I'm firmly on the economic left, and care about economic issues. I'd say that I'm on the liberal left too, but that takes a distant back seat to economics. When someone conforms wholeheartedly to the economic left, but some on the liberal left say she's a non-person, which takes priority in the view of those who consider themselves on the left? It's a question that I've answered above. Would anyone else answer it too?

[Kenny's Jacket]

"Many on the left". I did not write "many transsexuals". I'll tank you for not reframing my words to refer to something I did not write.Precisely. But for many on the left, they will instead focus upon their pet obsession, to the detriment of the larger picture. Kenny's post rather proves Sangria's point, does it not!? (Rhetorical question.)

@Kenny - I am not meaning to have a go at you. But agree with Sangria's point or not, his point was reasonably made. When someone (Rowling) agrees with your point of view, don't go on trash them - blowing over their point - because of something where you disagree with them.

His point was poorly made as it suggests anyone who doesnt evade tax should not be criticised
Hypocritically  Sangria will have criticised people who dont evade tax and do want to see an increase in tax.

 

[Yorkykopite]

I'd say that I'm firmly on the economic left, and care about economic issues. I'd say that I'm on the liberal left too, but that takes a distant back seat to economics. When someone conforms wholeheartedly to the economic left, but some on the liberal left say she's a non-person, which takes priority in the view of those who consider themselves on the left? It's a question that I've answered above. Would anyone else answer it too?

Labour should be on the Left on both economics and culture. Indeed one of the best ways of reconciling working-class cultural conservatives to necessary and just cultural change is to redistribute economically. Give people their economic just desserts and they tend to overlook - even embrace - the cultural changes you think are important too. It's happened in the past (over race issues and feminism) and it will happen in the future.

The problem with 'culture-warriors' (such as those people who give grief to JKR and others) is that they seem obsessed by their cause - always on the look out for heretics and people who don't quite measure up. It's very off-putting to normal people. It also seems as if their priorities are a bit skew-iff.

[Yorkykopite]

His point was poorly made as it suggests anyone who doesnt evade tax should not be criticised
Hypocritically  Sangria will have criticised people who dont evade tax and do want to see an increase in tax.

I've read your second sentence five times now Kenny and I have no idea what it means.

Which makes me think that your first sentence is probably not fair.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

His point was poorly made as it suggests anyone who doesnt evade tax should not be criticised
Hypocritically  Sangria will have criticised people who dont evade tax and do want to see an increase in tax.

 

No one is perfect and some things do feel like 'whataboutery'

Person X says "This person has done A, which is great"

Person Y comes along and says "This person has done B, which isn't great"


That might or might not be true, but what has it got to do with the price of fish. If you're talking about, say, tax and someone mentions something about tax (Positive or negative) then it seems reasonable to respond to or answer the point that was made on the subject.

It's also a reasonable thing for him to opine I feel as 'non-mainstream' things that some people may or may not believe are foisted into conversations which aren't as important (or important at all to them) then it doesn't offer anything useful.

That isn't to say a debate isn't to be had or that it's not important to some people - I took it to mean that it's not important if it's not relevant to that discussion. Quite often it derails the threads and offers nothing to what was said.


Just my 50p worth


I don't mind Rowling myself. She's entitled to her views (Which, from what I've read aren't bonkers and have been wildly mis-represented) - it's a free country and just because someone thinks something or other, should they be hounded to death?

I've got my own views on shit, and if someone wants to persuade me otherwise then fair enough, otherwise fuck off.

[Sangria]

No one is perfect and some things do feel like 'whataboutery'

Person X says "This person has done A, which is great"

Person Y comes along and says "This person has done B, which isn't great"


That might or might not be true, but what has it got to do with the price of fish. If you're talking about, say, tax and someone mentions something about tax (Positive or negative) then it seems reasonable to respond to or answer the point that was made on the subject.

It's also a reasonable thing for him to opine I feel as 'non-mainstream' things that some people may or may not believe are foisted into conversations which aren't as important (or important at all to them) then it doesn't offer anything useful.

That isn't to say a debate isn't to be had or that it's not important to some people - I took it to mean that it's not important if it's not relevant to that discussion. Quite often it derails the threads and offers nothing to what was said.


Just my 50p worth


I don't mind Rowling myself. She's entitled to her views (Which, from what I've read aren't bonkers and have been wildly mis-represented) - it's a free country and just because someone thinks something or other, should they be hounded to death?

I've got my own views on shit, and if someone wants to persuade me otherwise then fair enough, otherwise fuck off.

I have one firm view that I absolutely will not budge on. People should pay their taxes.

[Kenny's Jacket]

I've read your second sentence five times now Kenny and I have no idea what it means.

Which makes me think that your first sentence is probably not fair.

If you have no idea what it means, how can you draw a conclusion on the 1st sentence?

Lets try again
I can guarantee that Sangria will have previously criticised someone who doesnt avoid tax and wants an increase in tax .

It is this he is criticising "the left" for.

[Yorkykopite]

If you have no idea what it means, how can you draw a conclusion on the 1st sentence?

The fogginess of your writing suggests the original problem might have been your own comprehension of what Sangria said rather than...what he said.

But, I'll admit, that doesn't necessarily follow. Unclear writers can sometimes be accurate readers.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

If you have no idea what it means, how can you draw a conclusion on the 1st sentence?

Lets try again
I can guarantee that Sangria will have previously criticised someone who doesnt avoid tax and wants an increase in tax .

It is this he is criticising "the left" for.

Not sure she is getting hounded and death threats from 'the left' is she?


If she is, then 'the left' are bigger wankers than I thought.

[Kenny's Jacket]

The fogginess of your writing suggests the original problem might have been your own comprehension of what Sangria said rather than...what he said.

But, I'll admit, that doesn't necessarily follow. Unclear writers can sometimes be accurate readers.

I probably cant be arsed with this tangent, but where was the fogginess?

[Yorkykopite]

I probably cant be arsed with this tangent, but where was the fogginess?

Hypocritically  Sangria will have criticised people who dont evade tax and do want to see an increase in tax.

Now you've told me what it means I can sort of 'get' it. But deprived of the explanation I found it a bit foggy.

It still misses the point of course. Sangria wasn't saying that people who advocate higher taxes are exempt from political criticism. He was saying what he often says. That economic redistribution should be more important to the Left than political correctness. Nobby says it too, who is coming from a different direction altogether.

[Indomitable_Carp]

Well this thread certainly took an unexpected direction 

I get there is a general discussion to be had on the balance of interests of the economic left with the "cultural left", but I thought JK Rowling was an odd direction to go. Nice to see any discussion of a wealth tax get sidelined in the process.

Why are they even putting forward the alternative tax rises over 5 yrs to raise £250 bill as a option, it's not a option as the public cant afford to pay far higher taxes , how will the economy react if people have even less money to spend???  and even if they could afford some of those tax rises then this would only confirm the shit the Torys throw at Labour over wanting to tax and spend our way out of trouble, introduce  those alternative suggestions and the Torys would be over the moon as Labour would be shown the door at the following election.
Rule out higher taxes for the man in the street.
The Wealth Tax looks good and it will help but £10 bill is sod all in the grand scheme of things.

The five year 1% wealth tax is put forward for people with an individual wealth of £500,000 (potential to raise £250 billion) or £2 million (Potential to raise £80 billion). "Individual" would mean a couple would need to have a combined wealth of over £1 million in the first instance to be eligible, or else £4 million in the second.

I believe the examples of other taxes have been put in there to demonstrate the effectiveness of a wealth tax, as opposed to far more drastic and unpopular taxes on the general public that would raise the same amount. The commission is definitely not suggesting these other examples as a good idea, they are merely illustrative.

As for the commission itself, it was raised in the immediate aftermath of Covid and includes an international network of 50 tax experts.

[Yorkykopite]

I get there is a general discussion to be had on the balance of interests of the economic left with the "cultural left", but I thought JK Rowling was an odd direction to go. Nice to see any discussion of a wealth tax get sidelined in the process.

Oddly enough on Monday next week it will be 100 years since the first-ever Labour government took office with Ramsay Macdonald as Labour's first PM. The most famous item in its manifesto was 'The Capital Levy' - a tax on wealth that Labour said would help to pay off the war debt, reflate the dying economy, and relieve the poor of the unfair burden of taxation. The party lacked a majority in the Commons and therefore the Capital Levy never found its way into the budget. And of course the Tory party - and its rich pals who owned the press - howled the idea down. Better to immiserate the population and have their kids on the edge of starvation than touch a rich man's wealth.

Labour should try again.

[Kenny's Jacket]

Now you've told me what it means I can sort of 'get' it. But deprived of the explanation I found it a bit foggy.

It still misses the point of course. Sangria wasn't saying that people who advocate higher taxes are exempt from political criticism. He was saying what he often says. That economic redistribution should be more important to the Left than political correctness. Nobby says it too, who is coming from a different direction altogether.

Sangria is lucky he has you fighting his battles.

If Sangria thinks Tax is so important why  in 2019 did he refuse to vote for a party that wanted to increate tax and close loopholes. 

[Indomitable_Carp]

Oddly enough on Monday next week it will be 100 years since the first-ever Labour government took office with Ramsay Macdonald as Labour's first PM. The most famous item in its manifesto was 'The Capital Levy' - a tax on wealth that Labour said would help to pay off the war debt, reflate the dying economy, and relieve the poor of the unfair burden of taxation. The party lacked a majority in the Commons and therefore the Capital Levy never found its way into the budget. And of course the Tory party - and its rich pals who owned the press - howled the idea down. Better to immiserate the population and have their kids on the edge of starvation than touch a rich man's wealth.

Labour should try again.

Interesting! Some things never change....

Still, I'm hoping Starmer isn't scaring himself stiff with thoughts of the MacDonald government. If Labour do win a (likely looking) majority, I'd say this is as good an oppurtunity as we'll get to bring the idea of redistribution back into the political mainstream. At the very least, with a little bit of backbone it's a very practical and achievable way to try and repair the damage to our public services.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

Sangria is lucky he has you fighting his battles.

If Sangria thinks Tax is so important why  in 2019 did he refuse to vote for a party that wanted to increate tax and close loopholes. 

That is an interesting question.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

Interesting! Some things never change....

Still, I'm hoping Starmer isn't scaring himself stiff with thoughts of the MacDonald government. If Labour do win a (likely looking) majority, I'd say this is as good an oppurtunity as we'll get to bring the idea of redistribution back into the political mainstream. At the very least, with a little bit of backbone it's a very practical and achievable way to try and repair the damage to our public services.

If Labour can look at that and tie in strict new laws about media lies and holding journos and editors and owners to account for each and every mistruth, then I think that could have a chance of turning the country around.

The problem is that most of the country is too thick/too un-arsed and too set in their views to bother fact-checking anything ever. So when the screeching rich whine about losing 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of their wealth in tax as 'destroying the country' then they can be banged up for lying as well as being forced to pay what they owe.

Win. Win.

[Yorkykopite]

Interesting! Some things never change....

Still, I'm hoping Starmer isn't scaring himself stiff with thoughts of the MacDonald government. If Labour do win a (likely looking) majority, I'd say this is as good an oppurtunity as we'll get to bring the idea of redistribution back into the political mainstream.

I hope so too.

A full comparison with 1924 would require a book. But boiling things down drastically one might say that Starmer will have two big advantages that MacDonald didn't have, and one big disadvantage.

The two advantages are (1) He will have a working majority (2) He will have a political establishment that is not actively working to undermine him. Whitehall and the Treasury will be friendlier to Labour than they were a hundred years ago. The army won't be as hostile and even the intelligence services are more progressive than they used to be (no 'Zinoviev Letter' this time!).

The disadvantage is that Starmer's Labour Party will not have much of an organised working class behind him, as MacDonald (broadly) did. The industries that supported that class have gone and trade unionism in what is left of manufacturing and mining (is there even any?) is negligible. That means that Starmer will not have the (huge) comfort of knowing that there is considerable and automatic good will for him from a large segment of society. He'll have cynics 'supporting' him instead.

[Nobby Reserve]

I reckon Jeremy Corbyn pays his taxes.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

I hope so too.

A full comparison with 1924 would require a book. But boiling things down drastically one might say that Starmer will have two big advantages that MacDonald didn't have, and one big disadvantage.

The two advantages are (1) He will have a working majority (2) He will have a political establishment that is not actively working to undermine him. Whitehall and the Treasury will be friendlier to Labour than they were a hundred years ago. The army won't be as hostile and even the intelligence services are more progressive than they used to be (no 'Zinoviev Letter' this time!).

The disadvantage is that Starmer's Labour Party will not have much of an organised working class behind him, as MacDonald (broadly) did. The industries that supported that class have gone and trade unionism in what is left of manufacturing and mining (is there even any?) is negligible. That means that Starmer will not have the (huge) comfort of knowing that there is considerable and automatic good will for him from a large segment of society. He'll have cynics 'supporting' him instead.

https://www.hauspublishing.com/product/the-men-of-1924/

[Andy @ Allerton!]

I reckon Jeremy Corbyn pays his taxes.

He's minted, innit.

But yes, I would very much think he would. I'd expect that most Labour MPs do (But not all) and that the vast majority of Tory MPs don't.

[RedDeadRejection]

What's the French equivalent of "Fuck the Tories"?

Fuck le Tories

[Yorkykopite]

https://www.hauspublishing.com/product/the-men-of-1924/

The classics are the best:

Richard Lyman, The First Labour Government.

[Kenny's Jacket]

I reckon Jeremy Corbyn pays his taxes.

I reckon he wants to increase tax too,


-

[Kenny's Jacket]

Fuck le Tories

Enculer Tories?

[Andy @ Allerton!]

The classics are the best:

Richard Lyman, The First Labour Government.

I'll have a look out for that cheers mate.

Been doing tons of political reading at the moment.

I'm up to between Tufty and Jemimha level-grade now

[Yorkykopite]

I'll have a look out for that cheers mate.

Been doing tons of political reading at the moment.

I'm up to between Tufty and Jemimha level-grade now

You can get it on abebooks for £12. A bargain.

[RedDeadRejection]

Enculer Tories?

Any abuse for tories works for me Kenny.

[Kenny's Jacket]

Any abuse for tories works for me Kenny.

I just wanted to show off my very limited French. Hope you were impressed

[Andy @ Allerton!]

I just wanted to show off my very limited French. Hope you were impressed

Les conservateurs sentent le fond des éléphants et leur discours sort de puanteur d'une combinaison de haddock pourrie de dix semaines, de chaussettes malodorantes et de conneries.

[Kenny's Jacket]

Les conservateurs sentent le fond des éléphants et leur discours sort de puanteur d'une combinaison de haddock pourrie de dix semaines, de chaussettes malodorantes et de conneries.

 

You're basically a poet, but only in French

[Sangria]

Sangria is lucky he has you fighting his battles.

If Sangria thinks Tax is so important why  in 2019 did he refuse to vote for a party that wanted to increate tax and close loopholes.

Partly because my parents' carers told me they were going back to their home countries because they felt unwelcome here, and I valued my parents more than I did myself.

But mainly because I'd moved to a constituency where the Lib Dems were the main contestants to the Tories. You know what, I'll vote Lib Dem in the next general election too.

Here's one more quote for you to copy and paste as a future Gotcha!: "I will not vote Labour again until I live in a constituency where they are the most likely to displace the Tory".

[Kenny's Jacket]

Partly because my parents' carers told me they were going back to their home countries because they felt unwelcome here, and I valued my parents more than I did myself.

But mainly because I'd moved to a constituency where the Lib Dems were the main contestants to the Tories. You know what, I'll vote Lib Dem in the next general election too.

Here's one more quote for you to copy and paste as a future Gotcha!: "I will not vote Labour again until I live in a constituency where they are the most likely to displace the Tory".

You previously gave Brexit as the reason

As for your quote in this post, its very different to the one you made in the Eric Blair thread.

I hope the carers feel safer under Braverman, Patel, Jenrick and Guillis

[Andy @ Allerton!]

You previously gave Brexit as the reason

As for your quote in this post, its very different to the one you made in the Eric Blair thread.

I hope the carers feel safer under Braverman, Patel, Jenrick and Guillis

Someone voting libdem in an area where the Libdems kept out the Tories couldn't really do any more to oppose them could they?

If they had all voted Labour and the Tories went through on a landslide, how would that have helped?

[Kenny's Jacket]

Someone voting libdem in an area where the Libdems kept out the Tories couldn't really do any more to oppose them could they?

If they had all voted Labour and the Tories went through on a landslide, how would that have helped?

I agree Andy, GTTO, however Ive seen Sangria give various reasons why he didnt vote Labour and thats his prerogative, but it was the only way of getting those vital tax issues sorted which  he holds in such high regard.

Im sure the care workers he was concerned about would be better under Labour

[Andy @ Allerton!]

I agree Andy, GTTO, however Ive seen Sangria give various reasons why he didnt vote Labour and thats his prerogative, but it was the only way of getting those vital tax issues sorted which  he holds in such high regard.

Im sure the care workers he was concerned about would be better under Labour

So we can agree that Billionaires paying more tax is a good thing and that Jeremy Corbyn looks like how a genteel whelk would look like with glasses, a nice tweed suit and a jolly set of teeth?