This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
I think that we can agree, that it can take many years or even decades before government ideologies can be shown to be of benefit or detriment to the country.
Since 1945, which party has cause the most damage to the country with their policies and or ideologies?
I'd say that the following were not good for the country with hindsight:
Right to buy without adequately replacing council stock
Poll Tax
Treatment of the miners
Deregulation
As a counter point you could state which ideologies/policies have proved to be unquestionably beneficial to the UK?
Post edited at 13:09
14
5
In reply to The Lemming:
PFI.
Demonisation of unionised labour.
Allowing huge increase in personal debt.
Commercialisation of higher education.
Almost universal adoption of knowing the price of everything (apart from a pint of milk and a loaf of bread) and the value of nothing among the political classes.
Not engaging with Europe constructively.
PFI.
Demonisation of unionised labour.
Allowing huge increase in personal debt.
Commercialisation of higher education.
Almost universal adoption of knowing the price of everything (apart from a pint of milk and a loaf of bread) and the value of nothing among the political classes.
Not engaging with Europe constructively.
Post edited at 13:32
14
2
1
1
In reply to The Lemming:
"Light touch" regulation of financial services.
Selling much of the country's gold at low prices.
Spending binge that left the country skint.
Iraq dossier.......WMD?
"Light touch" regulation of financial services.
Selling much of the country's gold at low prices.
Spending binge that left the country skint.
Iraq dossier.......WMD?
7
4
In reply to The Lemming:
No doubt about it. The Tory government of the 1980's did more damage to this country than Hitler could ever have dreamed of doing in World War Two. Mind you given time I've got a feeling the current Tory government could turn out to be just as bad.
> Since 1945, which party has cause the most damage to the country with their policies and or ideologies?I'd say that the following were not good for the country with hindsight:Right to buy without adequately replacing council stock Poll Tax Treatment of the miners Deregulation
No doubt about it. The Tory government of the 1980's did more damage to this country than Hitler could ever have dreamed of doing in World War Two. Mind you given time I've got a feeling the current Tory government could turn out to be just as bad.
29
23
12
1
In reply to The Lemming:
I'm pretty much a life long labour voter but the damage Jim Callaghan inflicted on us would take some beating.
I'm pretty much a life long labour voter but the damage Jim Callaghan inflicted on us would take some beating.
12
1
In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:
I think you may be showing your prejudices there. I don't remember Thatcher gassing large proportions of our population or demolishing half of the south east
> No doubt about it. The Tory government of the 1980's did more damage to this country than Hitler could ever have dreamed of doing in World War Two. Mind you given time I've got a feeling the current Tory government could turn out to be just as bad.
I think you may be showing your prejudices there. I don't remember Thatcher gassing large proportions of our population or demolishing half of the south east
42
In reply to The Lemming:
I don't think you can answer this without defining country. Economically UK plc has done very well in comparison to most other countries and lots of people have got rich. On the other hand large swathes of the population have got worse off relative to the better off and this is the result of policy. Whether you think a policy is good or bad will depend on whether you measure it by GDP growth or things like fairness, social mobility, happiness etc.
That said, we'll be reaping the damage done by invading Iraq for years to come.
I don't think you can answer this without defining country. Economically UK plc has done very well in comparison to most other countries and lots of people have got rich. On the other hand large swathes of the population have got worse off relative to the better off and this is the result of policy. Whether you think a policy is good or bad will depend on whether you measure it by GDP growth or things like fairness, social mobility, happiness etc.
That said, we'll be reaping the damage done by invading Iraq for years to come.
4
1
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
I expect to get lots of dislikes for this but it's because a lot of people are thick. That's not to say voting Tory means you are thick, there are lots of people for whom voting Tory is a sensible option, but the masses of people who are from the lower socio-economic strata who have swung from traditional Labour to Tory are doing so because they are too thick to realise they're fucking themselves over. They think Brexit will improve their economic situation, and see the Tories as being the party to deliver this, mistaking antagonism for 'strong'. They've hocked themselves for new cars and tellies thinking that makes them part of the middle classes and therefore natural Tory supporters. Also they fail to see that ineffectual as Corbyn is, he is just one MP among many so they are throwing away the baby with the bath water.
> So WTF is happening that they are about to be handed a landslide?
I expect to get lots of dislikes for this but it's because a lot of people are thick. That's not to say voting Tory means you are thick, there are lots of people for whom voting Tory is a sensible option, but the masses of people who are from the lower socio-economic strata who have swung from traditional Labour to Tory are doing so because they are too thick to realise they're fucking themselves over. They think Brexit will improve their economic situation, and see the Tories as being the party to deliver this, mistaking antagonism for 'strong'. They've hocked themselves for new cars and tellies thinking that makes them part of the middle classes and therefore natural Tory supporters. Also they fail to see that ineffectual as Corbyn is, he is just one MP among many so they are throwing away the baby with the bath water.
Post edited at 14:19
37
10
In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:
"Just as bad", they will be a whole lot worse
> Mind you given time I've got a feeling the current Tory government could turn out to be just as bad.
"Just as bad", they will be a whole lot worse
7
7
In reply to Chris Harris:
And this was a bad policy/ideology for who and how did it make the country worse?
Selling much of the country's gold at low prices.
Both parties sold gold at stupid prices, but how did that have a bad impact on the UK?
Not exactly a policy but maybe an ideology.
Spending binge that left the country skint.
Was that spending binge required because of previous policies or ideologies where infrastructure was ignored?
Iraq dossier.......WMD?
Yes, this was a disaster that we are reaping today.
> "Light touch" regulation of financial services.
And this was a bad policy/ideology for who and how did it make the country worse?
Selling much of the country's gold at low prices.
Both parties sold gold at stupid prices, but how did that have a bad impact on the UK?
Not exactly a policy but maybe an ideology.
Spending binge that left the country skint.
Was that spending binge required because of previous policies or ideologies where infrastructure was ignored?
Iraq dossier.......WMD?
Yes, this was a disaster that we are reaping today.
4
1
In reply to The Lemming:
We are all agreed that the conservative party had caused the most damage to the country with their policies than Labour by merit of being in power the longest?
A policy that has benefited the country has to be the creation of the NHS?
We are all agreed that the conservative party had caused the most damage to the country with their policies than Labour by merit of being in power the longest?
A policy that has benefited the country has to be the creation of the NHS?
2
1
In reply to The Lemming:
Whichever one we voted in at the time, obviously.
> I think that we can agree, that it can take many years or even decades before government ideologies can be shown to be of benefit or detriment to the country.Since 1945, which party has cause the most damage to the country with their policies and or ideologies?
Whichever one we voted in at the time, obviously.
In reply to The Lemming:
I'll try some of the happy ones. I don't think any of these are necessarily without fault but;
All the civil freedom and equality legislation brought in by mostly labour governments over the past 50 years;
Repealing the death penalty, legalising homosexuality, equal rights for women, equal rights for all races, gay marriage etc. All these rights need to be protected, and sometimes the industry which does this has been self-serving but over all, hugely good for the country.
Big bang and deregulating the city - Thatcher;
This has distorted our economy and exacerbated the damage of 2008, but without the expansion of the city, it's hard to see our economy being remotely as large as it is.
Keeping out of Vietnam and other cold war conflict - mostly Wilson
NHS - Attlee
Privatisation of BT, but not most of the others - Thatcher
> As a counter point you could state which ideologies/policies have proved to be unquestionably beneficial to the UK?
I'll try some of the happy ones. I don't think any of these are necessarily without fault but;
All the civil freedom and equality legislation brought in by mostly labour governments over the past 50 years;
Repealing the death penalty, legalising homosexuality, equal rights for women, equal rights for all races, gay marriage etc. All these rights need to be protected, and sometimes the industry which does this has been self-serving but over all, hugely good for the country.
Big bang and deregulating the city - Thatcher;
This has distorted our economy and exacerbated the damage of 2008, but without the expansion of the city, it's hard to see our economy being remotely as large as it is.
Keeping out of Vietnam and other cold war conflict - mostly Wilson
NHS - Attlee
Privatisation of BT, but not most of the others - Thatcher
6
In reply to The Lemming:
The numbers tell us that manufacturing decline is the Tory's specialist skill.
They follow that up with expensive authoritarian measures that never achieve their aim.
Meanwhile, other numbers tell us that Germany has completely rejected the idea that manufacturing is something that just the Chinese do on the cheap and as a result they are the economic engine of Europe.
The numbers tell us that manufacturing decline is the Tory's specialist skill.
They follow that up with expensive authoritarian measures that never achieve their aim.
Meanwhile, other numbers tell us that Germany has completely rejected the idea that manufacturing is something that just the Chinese do on the cheap and as a result they are the economic engine of Europe.
8
2
In reply to The Lemming:
An indictment of Thatcher but also the neoliberal politicians that followed including Blair, who made that mistake that because the sun was shining (economically) he didn't have to fix the holes in the roof put there by the previous governments.
An indictment of Thatcher but also the neoliberal politicians that followed including Blair, who made that mistake that because the sun was shining (economically) he didn't have to fix the holes in the roof put there by the previous governments.
2
2
In reply to Jim Fraser:
"Shock Doctrine" policies invented by rightwing think tanks in Washington and implemented by public schoolboys in the UK, unfortunately never their constituents had had to suffer the "shock"
"Shock Doctrine" policies invented by rightwing think tanks in Washington and implemented by public schoolboys in the UK, unfortunately never their constituents had had to suffer the "shock"
1
3
In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:
The late 1970s were just going so well for the UK under labour. ?
> No doubt about it. The Tory government of the 1980's did more damage to this country than Hitler could ever have dreamed of doing in World War Two. Mind you given time I've got a feeling the current Tory government could turn out to be just as bad.
The late 1970s were just going so well for the UK under labour. ?
9
3
In reply to summo:
Yes, but are we still suffering as a result, and if not then what fixed the problems?
> The late 1970s were just going so well for the UK under labour. ?
Yes, but are we still suffering as a result, and if not then what fixed the problems?
1
In reply to The Lemming:
Ending union control of the UK than ended black outs, litter mountains etc... enabled companies like Nissan to even consider coming to the UK.
How are you suffering now because policies in the 1980s? I'd look at 3 Labour terms a little more recently , they had plenty chance to change anything they disliked from 80s?
> Yes, but are we still suffering as a result, and if not then what fixed the problems?
Ending union control of the UK than ended black outs, litter mountains etc... enabled companies like Nissan to even consider coming to the UK.
How are you suffering now because policies in the 1980s? I'd look at 3 Labour terms a little more recently , they had plenty chance to change anything they disliked from 80s?
7
1
In reply to summo:
There were problems with the unions in the 70's, but also with Uk management, we broke the unions but didn't really address the management, we also broke the unions by breaking the industries they were strong in. but that just made us unbalanced as a society.
There were problems with the unions in the 70's, but also with Uk management, we broke the unions but didn't really address the management, we also broke the unions by breaking the industries they were strong in. but that just made us unbalanced as a society.
5
2
In reply to summo:
I think labour propped up a lot of uncompetitive, badly-managed, union-dominated industries in the 1960s and 1970s, without any restructuring of these industries. But Thatcher's medicine killed most of these stone dead leaving communities which have never recovered, and led to the complete normalisation of widespread long term unemployment at a huge cost to the country and the people.
I think labour propped up a lot of uncompetitive, badly-managed, union-dominated industries in the 1960s and 1970s, without any restructuring of these industries. But Thatcher's medicine killed most of these stone dead leaving communities which have never recovered, and led to the complete normalisation of widespread long term unemployment at a huge cost to the country and the people.
3
1
In reply to stevieb:
I agree that this was disastrous and the country suffered. I also agree that Thatcher stopped this and sowed the seeds of recovery.
However....
Thatcher went too far with her ideologies. Maybe the UK would have been a different place if Thatcher had lost the 1983 General Election as at the time was on the cards. The Falklands Conflict, changed all that and Thatcher was written into history for both victories.
Not saying that the current Conservative Leader is trying to draw any parallels with picking a fight with Europe in the time of an election. That is purely coincidence.
> I think labour propped up a lot of uncompetitive, badly-managed, union-dominated industries in the 1960s and 1970s, without any restructuring of these industries.
I agree that this was disastrous and the country suffered. I also agree that Thatcher stopped this and sowed the seeds of recovery.
However....
> But Thatcher's medicine killed most of these stone dead leaving communities which have never recovered, and led to the complete normalisation of widespread long term unemployment at a huge cost to the country and the people.
Thatcher went too far with her ideologies. Maybe the UK would have been a different place if Thatcher had lost the 1983 General Election as at the time was on the cards. The Falklands Conflict, changed all that and Thatcher was written into history for both victories.
Not saying that the current Conservative Leader is trying to draw any parallels with picking a fight with Europe in the time of an election. That is purely coincidence.
3
In reply to The Lemming:
The question is did the Community Charge do any damage or was it the sh!t stirrers who dubbed it the poll tax that are responsible for the long term damage that you apparently perceive?
> I think that we can agree, that it can take many years or even decades before government ideologies can be shown to be of benefit or detriment to the country.Since 1945, which party has cause the most damage to the country with their policies and or ideologies?I'd say that the following were not good for the country with hindsight:Right to buy without adequately replacing council stockPoll TaxTreatment of the minersDeregulationAs a counter point you could state which ideologies/policies have proved to be unquestionably beneficial to the UK?
The question is did the Community Charge do any damage or was it the sh!t stirrers who dubbed it the poll tax that are responsible for the long term damage that you apparently perceive?
5
In reply to timjones:
It did untold damage!
No perceived in it.
> The question is did the Community Charge do any damage or was it the sh!t stirrers who dubbed it the poll tax that are responsible for the long term damage that you apparently perceive?
It did untold damage!
No perceived in it.
1
3
In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:
Alternatively if you are a bit less blinkered you could say that we are where we are due to the actions of a succession of governments formed by parties on both sides of the absurd political divide that our party political system fosters.
> No doubt about it. The Tory government of the 1980's did more damage to this country than Hitler could ever have dreamed of doing in World War Two. Mind you given time I've got a feeling the current Tory government could turn out to be just as bad.
Alternatively if you are a bit less blinkered you could say that we are where we are due to the actions of a succession of governments formed by parties on both sides of the absurd political divide that our party political system fosters.
3
In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:
Never voted Tory, but I disagree.
The country was desperately in need of getting a grip and becoming more competitive globally.
Andrew Marr's book "A history of Modern Britain" has an excellent summary without the rose-tinted spectacles for the pre-Thatcher era that so many suffer from.
> No doubt about it. The Tory government of the 1980's did more damage to this country than Hitler could ever have dreamed of doing in World War Two. Mind you given time I've got a feeling the current Tory government could turn out to be just as bad.
Never voted Tory, but I disagree.
The country was desperately in need of getting a grip and becoming more competitive globally.
Andrew Marr's book "A history of Modern Britain" has an excellent summary without the rose-tinted spectacles for the pre-Thatcher era that so many suffer from.
6
4
In reply to timjones:
For whatever reason, despite being progressive, wealth taxes are generally less popular than income tax or spending taxes, probably because you are being taxed on something you already have.
The rates was an unpopular progressive tax on wealth. The community charge/poll tax in its original form was a hugely unpopular regressive tax. Removal of rates has almost definitely contributed to the property bubble and a shift of wealth from workers to owners.
For whatever reason, despite being progressive, wealth taxes are generally less popular than income tax or spending taxes, probably because you are being taxed on something you already have.
The rates was an unpopular progressive tax on wealth. The community charge/poll tax in its original form was a hugely unpopular regressive tax. Removal of rates has almost definitely contributed to the property bubble and a shift of wealth from workers to owners.
1
In reply to Deadeye:
I see that you already have a dislike.
I've never read it, so I won't comment on your post nor make either a like or dislike, but I await with interest the disliker's critique of Andrew Marr's book?
> Never voted Tory, but I disagree.The country was desperately in need of getting a grip and becoming more competitive globally.Andrew Marr's book "A history of Modern Britain" has an excellent summary without the rose-tinted spectacles for the pre-Thatcher era that so many suffer from.
I see that you already have a dislike.
I've never read it, so I won't comment on your post nor make either a like or dislike, but I await with interest the disliker's critique of Andrew Marr's book?
2
1
In reply to balmybaldwin:
For that matter I don't remember the country being in a great state prior to Thatcher. In fact it was shit and going further down.
> I think you may be showing your prejudices there. I don't remember Thatcher gassing large proportions of our population or demolishing half of the south east
For that matter I don't remember the country being in a great state prior to Thatcher. In fact it was shit and going further down.
3
1
In reply to The Lemming:
They've pretty much all had their moments, bad and good. Cameron's referendum will probably prove to be the most damaging single decision/policy of my life so far but Thatcher has a lot to answer for as does Blair for his Iraq deception which has fueled a lot of problems since.
jk
They've pretty much all had their moments, bad and good. Cameron's referendum will probably prove to be the most damaging single decision/policy of my life so far but Thatcher has a lot to answer for as does Blair for his Iraq deception which has fueled a lot of problems since.
jk
3
1
In reply to The Lemming:
In recent history I would say the German government, blitz, u-boat campaign and so forth, but hey what do I know.
In recent history I would say the German government, blitz, u-boat campaign and so forth, but hey what do I know.
2
In reply to summo:
And conveniently for the tories in combination with FPTP this has set us up for for the gradual slide into one-party rule with weak fragmented opposition. Not a healthy situation.
They laid the groundwork for the 2008 crash and the stagnant real terms wage growth since. Selling social housing without replacement has driven up government housing spending. Privatisation of energy production and planning has lead us to the absurd situation we face with Hinkley C.
jk
> Ending union control of the UK than ended black outs, litter mountains etc... enabled companies like Nissan to even consider coming to the UK.
And conveniently for the tories in combination with FPTP this has set us up for for the gradual slide into one-party rule with weak fragmented opposition. Not a healthy situation.
> How are you suffering now because policies in the 1980s?
They laid the groundwork for the 2008 crash and the stagnant real terms wage growth since. Selling social housing without replacement has driven up government housing spending. Privatisation of energy production and planning has lead us to the absurd situation we face with Hinkley C.
jk
1
In reply to jkarran:
I would argue that Thather is only the backlash against the complete runnining down of the country iin the 60s and 70s to the extent that we were practically walking dead. If the country was flourishing with world leading industry and union relations, Thatcher wouldn't have happened. So you could argue its the inept Wilson / Callaghan/Heath era which allowed us to come to that position that brought us to Thatcher that did the most harm.
I would argue that Thather is only the backlash against the complete runnining down of the country iin the 60s and 70s to the extent that we were practically walking dead. If the country was flourishing with world leading industry and union relations, Thatcher wouldn't have happened. So you could argue its the inept Wilson / Callaghan/Heath era which allowed us to come to that position that brought us to Thatcher that did the most harm.
7
In reply to J1234:
And all this happened after 1945?
Those sneaky Germans.
> In recent history I would say the German government, blitz, u-boat campaign and so forth, but hey what do I know.
And all this happened after 1945?
Those sneaky Germans.
2
1
In reply to summo:
And the early seventies went so well under the Conservatives
> The late 1970s were just going so well for the UK under labour. ?
And the early seventies went so well under the Conservatives
2
In reply to Hat Dude:
Would agree. The 70s were a shambles for all concerned.
> And the early seventies went so well under the Conservatives
Would agree. The 70s were a shambles for all concerned.
In reply to jkarran:
Are you really blaming Thatcher for USA banks 20+ years later reclassifying mortgage debt and over leveraging themselves?
> .They laid the groundwork for the 2008 crash
Are you really blaming Thatcher for USA banks 20+ years later reclassifying mortgage debt and over leveraging themselves?
6
In reply to summo:
Or the fact that Gordon Brown saved the world, literally when he was in power and the Sub Prime sh1t hit the fan?
> Are you really blaming Thatcher for USA banks 20+ years later reclassifying mortgage debt and over leveraging themselves?
Or the fact that Gordon Brown saved the world, literally when he was in power and the Sub Prime sh1t hit the fan?
2
In reply to The Lemming:
He did save us from boom and bust though.
> Or the fact that Gordon Brown saved the world, literally when he was in power and the Sub Prime sh1t hit the fan?
He did save us from boom and bust though.
2
In reply to summo:
You not even going to credit him for saving the Banking System when the Sub Prime affected the whole world baking structure?
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/feb/11/saving-world-william-keegan-r...
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/12/gordon-brown-leaves-british-po...
> He did save us from boom and bust though.
You not even going to credit him for saving the Banking System when the Sub Prime affected the whole world baking structure?
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/feb/11/saving-world-william-keegan-r...
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/12/gordon-brown-leaves-british-po...
1
1
In reply to The Lemming:
It was a 50/50 call. To bail out or let go. He made the right choice at a time when some banks atms were about to be turned off. So yes he saved some things, but I think a bigger recession down road hasn't been prevented. What isn't so good looking at the annual deficit through those 3 terms. It started off good after the Tories, got even better for a couple of years. Then the Labour borrowing began, funding through pfi, selling gold etc... It was a downhill slide.
It was a 50/50 call. To bail out or let go. He made the right choice at a time when some banks atms were about to be turned off. So yes he saved some things, but I think a bigger recession down road hasn't been prevented. What isn't so good looking at the annual deficit through those 3 terms. It started off good after the Tories, got even better for a couple of years. Then the Labour borrowing began, funding through pfi, selling gold etc... It was a downhill slide.
2
1
In reply to The Lemming:
How so?
And which side caused this "damage"?
> It did untold damage!No perceived in it.
How so?
And which side caused this "damage"?
In reply to stevieb:
How can anyone define a tax on home ownership as progressive?
> For whatever reason, despite being progressive, wealth taxes are generally less popular than income tax or spending taxes, probably because you are being taxed on something you already have. The rates was an unpopular progressive tax on wealth. The community charge/poll tax in its original form was a hugely unpopular regressive tax. Removal of rates has almost definitely contributed to the property bubble and a shift of wealth from workers to owners.
How can anyone define a tax on home ownership as progressive?
2
In reply to timjones:
Because it's a tax on wealth, and those with more wealth pay more. That's pretty much the definition of a progressive tax.
> How can anyone define a tax on home ownership as progressive?
Because it's a tax on wealth, and those with more wealth pay more. That's pretty much the definition of a progressive tax.
1
In reply to stevieb:
I've had this great idea of creating a tax on earnings, perhaps a percentage so tax paid is proportional. We could call it an income tax. Then we can do away with all the other little taxes and just have a headline rate that's impossible to avoid.
> Because it's a tax on wealth, and those with more wealth pay more. That's pretty much the definition of a progressive tax.
I've had this great idea of creating a tax on earnings, perhaps a percentage so tax paid is proportional. We could call it an income tax. Then we can do away with all the other little taxes and just have a headline rate that's impossible to avoid.
2
2
In reply to summo:
We've been through 30 years in the uk where it has been much easier to build wealth through owning property and land than to build wealth through hard work and innovation.
Unless you plan to apply your tax at the same rate to all significant capital gains, then you are just exacerbating the problem.
Edit to add that this has been true for most of the past 1000 years too.
We've been through 30 years in the uk where it has been much easier to build wealth through owning property and land than to build wealth through hard work and innovation.
Unless you plan to apply your tax at the same rate to all significant capital gains, then you are just exacerbating the problem.
Edit to add that this has been true for most of the past 1000 years too.
Post edited at 18:31
2
In reply to stevieb:
Yes, income is income. It shouldn't matter if you make your money down the pit, selling your house, shares etc.. It is all income and should be taxed as such. Having multiple tax streams, with multiple allowances and clauses is why the UK tax code is the most complex in Europe.
> We've been through 30 years in the uk where it has been much easier to build wealth through owning property and land than to build wealth through hard work and innovation. Unless you plan to apply your tax at the same rate to all significant capital gains.
Yes, income is income. It shouldn't matter if you make your money down the pit, selling your house, shares etc.. It is all income and should be taxed as such. Having multiple tax streams, with multiple allowances and clauses is why the UK tax code is the most complex in Europe.
1
1
In reply to The Lemming:
I'm betting that Labour keeping the UK out of the euro was one of those policies that were good for the country.
A Labour government.
I'm betting that Labour keeping the UK out of the euro was one of those policies that were good for the country.
A Labour government.
1
1
In reply to The Lemming:
Blair and his cronies and spin doctors did by far the most damage.
Opened flood gates to immigration, signed the Lisbon Treaty hours before leaving office, taking us into Iraq just to name a few items.
Blair and his cronies and spin doctors did by far the most damage.
Opened flood gates to immigration, signed the Lisbon Treaty hours before leaving office, taking us into Iraq just to name a few items.
5
4
In reply to The Lemming:
We ain't seen nothing yet. Just wait until the UK is no more and we're desperately trying to bribe ruthless trans national corporations to invest here with low taxes. Given the base we're starting from (we never did resolve that deficit we were so worried about, did we? But we thought now would be a good time to turn the economy upside down none the less) once the economy has nose-dived and tax receipts dwindle, our infrastructure, health and education systems are going to be on their knees. Then it will take a bit more than low corporate taxes to persuade anyone to come here, and anyone with any talent will leave.
Then we'll know which government inflicted the greatest harm on our country, and I for one will not be here to moan about it.
We ain't seen nothing yet. Just wait until the UK is no more and we're desperately trying to bribe ruthless trans national corporations to invest here with low taxes. Given the base we're starting from (we never did resolve that deficit we were so worried about, did we? But we thought now would be a good time to turn the economy upside down none the less) once the economy has nose-dived and tax receipts dwindle, our infrastructure, health and education systems are going to be on their knees. Then it will take a bit more than low corporate taxes to persuade anyone to come here, and anyone with any talent will leave.
Then we'll know which government inflicted the greatest harm on our country, and I for one will not be here to moan about it.
7
1
In reply to Jon Stewart:
I hope you're wrong, but I think you're right. I can't see how (and nobody with greater insight has been able to articulate) we're going to be better off after Brexit. My daughter will emerge into the jobs market in about 7 years and I hope, but don't expect, that things will have settled down by then.
I hope you're wrong, but I think you're right. I can't see how (and nobody with greater insight has been able to articulate) we're going to be better off after Brexit. My daughter will emerge into the jobs market in about 7 years and I hope, but don't expect, that things will have settled down by then.
1
In reply to Jon Stewart:
Creating a low tax nation to lure in companies worked for Juncker in Luxembourg, for 18 years, he only resigned because of a phone hacking scandal.
> We ain't seen nothing yet. Just wait until the UK is no more and we're desperately trying to bribe ruthless trans national corporations to invest here with low taxes.
Creating a low tax nation to lure in companies worked for Juncker in Luxembourg, for 18 years, he only resigned because of a phone hacking scandal.
1
1
In reply to summo:
Yes, and the main reason it worked for juncker is because Luxembourg were in the single market, so it was incredibly easy to repatriate money from the rest of the EU
> Creating a low tax nation to lure in companies worked for Juncker in Luxembourg, for 18 years
Yes, and the main reason it worked for juncker is because Luxembourg were in the single market, so it was incredibly easy to repatriate money from the rest of the EU
In reply to The Lemming:
The Community Charge ("Poll Tax") was actually a half passable idea in principle - a household with several earners in it would pay more than an identical property with just one occupant. Doesn't seem an unreasonable replacement for the Rates, in which both properties would have paid the same - a rather unfair, system, some might say.
Unfortunately, it was poorly thought through & implemented, and very difficult to put into practice.
Also, by placing control & setting of the Charge in the hands of local government, the Conservative Government handed Labour Councils a gift wrapped weapon.
Labour Councils throughout the country jumped on it with glee, using it as a political tool to attack the Conservative Government, regardless of whether or not they were harming their local community.
Labour Councils set deliberately high charges & blamed it on the Government ("Tory tax"). Following the inevitable howls of protest, the Government was forced to cap the charges.
This led these Councils to announce that they would have to introduce cuts ("Tory Cuts").
The cuts were deliberately aimed at the most emotive targets possible - old folks' homes, libraries, schools, bus services for the elderly etc etc - in order to maximise political damage. David Bookbinder of Derbyshire County Council was a particularly enthusiastic proponent.
> It did untold damage!No perceived in it.
The Community Charge ("Poll Tax") was actually a half passable idea in principle - a household with several earners in it would pay more than an identical property with just one occupant. Doesn't seem an unreasonable replacement for the Rates, in which both properties would have paid the same - a rather unfair, system, some might say.
Unfortunately, it was poorly thought through & implemented, and very difficult to put into practice.
Also, by placing control & setting of the Charge in the hands of local government, the Conservative Government handed Labour Councils a gift wrapped weapon.
Labour Councils throughout the country jumped on it with glee, using it as a political tool to attack the Conservative Government, regardless of whether or not they were harming their local community.
Labour Councils set deliberately high charges & blamed it on the Government ("Tory tax"). Following the inevitable howls of protest, the Government was forced to cap the charges.
This led these Councils to announce that they would have to introduce cuts ("Tory Cuts").
The cuts were deliberately aimed at the most emotive targets possible - old folks' homes, libraries, schools, bus services for the elderly etc etc - in order to maximise political damage. David Bookbinder of Derbyshire County Council was a particularly enthusiastic proponent.
3
2
In reply to summo:
I don't think many people actually relocated their operations to Luxembourg. They simply routed money through the country to avoid tax.
> Creating a low tax nation to lure in companies worked for Juncker in Luxembourg.
I don't think many people actually relocated their operations to Luxembourg. They simply routed money through the country to avoid tax.
In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:
What a stupid thing to say. Comparing the tories to Hitler. I find that offensive to all those that lost their lives in the war
What a stupid thing to say. Comparing the tories to Hitler. I find that offensive to all those that lost their lives in the war
5
2
In reply to Chris Harris:
You're having a laugh, surely? Not content with a (flawed but well-meaning) progressive taxation mechanism designed to charge those with higher earnings at a higher rate, they instead chose to tax both rich and poor identically, not even in percentage terms but in actual cash value, meaning an utterly trivial amount for the rich and a kick in the teeth for the poor. That's what counts as a half passable idea for you?
> The Community Charge ("Poll Tax") was actually a half passable idea in principle...
You're having a laugh, surely? Not content with a (flawed but well-meaning) progressive taxation mechanism designed to charge those with higher earnings at a higher rate, they instead chose to tax both rich and poor identically, not even in percentage terms but in actual cash value, meaning an utterly trivial amount for the rich and a kick in the teeth for the poor. That's what counts as a half passable idea for you?
2
1
In reply to Chris Harris:
I rather thought that the principle - a flat rate tax - was what caused the riots...
> The Community Charge ("Poll Tax") was actually a half passable idea in principle
I rather thought that the principle - a flat rate tax - was what caused the riots...
2
1
In reply to Chris Harris:
Same difference, the man who claims to want an equal Europe turned it into a tax haven for multi nationals.
> I don't think many people actually relocated their operations to Luxembourg. They simply routed money through the country to avoid tax.
Same difference, the man who claims to want an equal Europe turned it into a tax haven for multi nationals.
1
In reply to Chris Harris:
And what is the excuse for the Austerity Measures going on at the moment with similar emotive targets, or are you going to blame the Labour party because they are "in it together"?
> The cuts were deliberately aimed at the most emotive targets possible - old folks' homes, libraries, schools, bus services for the elderly etc etc - in order to maximise political damage. David Bookbinder of Derbyshire County Council was a particularly enthusiastic proponent.
And what is the excuse for the Austerity Measures going on at the moment with similar emotive targets, or are you going to blame the Labour party because they are "in it together"?
1
1
In reply to Chris Harris:
In Sweden the first 31-33% of your income tax goes to the local authority, only the income from the higher levels goes to central government. So there are some similarities and with a tax free threshold of around £1500/yr everyone has chance to pay in.
> The Community Charge ("Poll Tax") was actually a half passable idea in principle - a household with several earners in it would pay more than an identical property with just one occupant.
In Sweden the first 31-33% of your income tax goes to the local authority, only the income from the higher levels goes to central government. So there are some similarities and with a tax free threshold of around £1500/yr everyone has chance to pay in.
2
2
1
In reply to baron:
Ah yes, that old playbook. Throw a few well-publicised scraps to a tiny minority of people you've already run hopelessly into the ground, then bet on people not noticing that all of those only just getting by would now be paying exactly the same tax as millionaires.
The scariest part of it all is that the same tactics are still being used, seemingly more so that ever, and people are still falling for it
> There was a reduction of the poll tax for poor people, wasn't there?
Ah yes, that old playbook. Throw a few well-publicised scraps to a tiny minority of people you've already run hopelessly into the ground, then bet on people not noticing that all of those only just getting by would now be paying exactly the same tax as millionaires.
The scariest part of it all is that the same tactics are still being used, seemingly more so that ever, and people are still falling for it
2
1
2
2
1
In reply to stevieb:
I find it hard to see a tax on something as essential as the roof over your head as progressive.
> Because it's a tax on wealth, and those with more wealth pay more. That's pretty much the definition of a progressive tax.
I find it hard to see a tax on something as essential as the roof over your head as progressive.
2
In reply to timjones:
Because, in the UK, the occupant of a £50 million house in Westminster will pay less tax than the occupant of a £200 000 house in Barnsley. The UK is almost unique in the OECD in not having a property tax payable by the owner, and making the occupant pay. This feeds into speculation, as you don't have to pay if you own roofs over someone else's head.
Tax will generally be paid on income, spending, wealth or existence. Since 1979, tax rates on spending (VAT) has gone up from 8% to 20%, while income and wealth taxes have mostly reduced (residential stamp duty is an exception).
This has moved more of the tax burden to the poorer members of society.
> I find it hard to see a tax on something as essential as the roof over your head as progressive.
Because, in the UK, the occupant of a £50 million house in Westminster will pay less tax than the occupant of a £200 000 house in Barnsley. The UK is almost unique in the OECD in not having a property tax payable by the owner, and making the occupant pay. This feeds into speculation, as you don't have to pay if you own roofs over someone else's head.
Tax will generally be paid on income, spending, wealth or existence. Since 1979, tax rates on spending (VAT) has gone up from 8% to 20%, while income and wealth taxes have mostly reduced (residential stamp duty is an exception).
This has moved more of the tax burden to the poorer members of society.
7
In reply to timjones:
Unfortunately there are many people sucking up the housing stock for profit, we have generated a weird system were a house is for quite a few people no longer a roof over your head but some separate entity that "generates" wealth. we have turned the housing into some weird ponzi scheme and it is a bubble that can only burst in the long term. It will take some very intelligent and broad laws, taxes and investment to bring some sanity to the situation, something that doesn't seem to be on the cards. Leaving it to "market forces" is only going to lead to misery for renters and disappointment for amateur investors when the market inevitably collapses.
Unfortunately there are many people sucking up the housing stock for profit, we have generated a weird system were a house is for quite a few people no longer a roof over your head but some separate entity that "generates" wealth. we have turned the housing into some weird ponzi scheme and it is a bubble that can only burst in the long term. It will take some very intelligent and broad laws, taxes and investment to bring some sanity to the situation, something that doesn't seem to be on the cards. Leaving it to "market forces" is only going to lead to misery for renters and disappointment for amateur investors when the market inevitably collapses.
Post edited at 12:31
1
In reply to stevieb:
I said the roof over your head, not the roof over smeone elses head.
> Because, in the UK, the occupant of a £50 million house in Westminster will pay less tax than the occupant of a £200 000 house in Barnsley. The UK is almost unique in the OECD in not having a property tax payable by the owner, and making the occupant pay. This feeds into speculation, as you don't have to pay if you own roofs over someone else's head. Tax will generally be paid on income, spending, wealth or existence. Since 1979, tax rates on spending (VAT) has gone up from 8% to 20%, while income and wealth taxes have mostly reduced (residential stamp duty is an exception). This has moved more of the tax burden to the poorer members of society.
I said the roof over your head, not the roof over smeone elses head.
In reply to jethro kiernan:
You're taking off at a tangent.
My point is that where a person owns a single house that they live in themselves it ias absolutely absurd to claim that there is anything prgogressive about taxing them on that house.
How is there any logic in claiming that the community charge was bad, the "bedroom tax" is bad but that the current council tax system is in any way progressive?
> Unfortunately there are many people sucking up the housing stock for profit, we have generated a weird system were a house is for quite a few people no longer a roof over your head but some separate entity that "generates" wealth. we have turned the housing into some weird ponzi scheme and it is a bubble that can only burst in the long term. It will take some very intelligent and broad laws, taxes and investment to bring some sanity to the situation, something that doesn't seem to be on the cards. Leaving it to "market forces" is only going to lead to misery for renters and disappointment for amateur investors when the market inevitably collapses.
You're taking off at a tangent.
My point is that where a person owns a single house that they live in themselves it ias absolutely absurd to claim that there is anything prgogressive about taxing them on that house.
How is there any logic in claiming that the community charge was bad, the "bedroom tax" is bad but that the current council tax system is in any way progressive?
In reply to timjones:
You may have said that, but you are arguing in favour of an existence tax (community charge) which replaced a property ownership tax (rates)
> I said the roof over your head, not the roof over smeone elses head.
You may have said that, but you are arguing in favour of an existence tax (community charge) which replaced a property ownership tax (rates)
In reply to timjones:
"it will take some very intelligent and broad laws, taxes and investment to bring some sanity to the situation"
In an intelligent society it should be possible to draw a progressive line that will tax people fairly, people have started talking about their houses as an "investment" maybe we should cool this slightly because some people are earning a lot of money from their houses and some people are homeless, investing in business ventures, creativity should surly be better for the country than the housing bubble.
I don't want to see a tax for just owning a home but if you have made £750,000 from your house then some sort of tax may be due on that "income".
if you are speculating and flipping houses then sorry but that should be taxes just like the rest of us pay tax.
Im not saying it is going to be easy as this has gone too far down the road with too many people with money invested, but this is all the more reason to address it.
"it will take some very intelligent and broad laws, taxes and investment to bring some sanity to the situation"
In an intelligent society it should be possible to draw a progressive line that will tax people fairly, people have started talking about their houses as an "investment" maybe we should cool this slightly because some people are earning a lot of money from their houses and some people are homeless, investing in business ventures, creativity should surly be better for the country than the housing bubble.
I don't want to see a tax for just owning a home but if you have made £750,000 from your house then some sort of tax may be due on that "income".
if you are speculating and flipping houses then sorry but that should be taxes just like the rest of us pay tax.
Im not saying it is going to be easy as this has gone too far down the road with too many people with money invested, but this is all the more reason to address it.
2
In reply to The Lemming:
I'd have thought its a foregone conclusion.
Cameron selling the country lock stock and barrel down the Daily Mail line in order to gain himself another term.
I'd have thought its a foregone conclusion.
Cameron selling the country lock stock and barrel down the Daily Mail line in order to gain himself another term.
1
In reply to stevieb:
I'm not particularly arguing in favour of the community charge.
What I am trying to say is that I don't think the community charge should be way down any list of most damaging government policies. Any damage caused was largely down to those who did a great job of stirring up dissent by dubbing it as the "poll tax".
At the time it came in I had just finished at college and was constantly switching from one short term low paid job to another whilst looking for longer term employment and in spite of it beiong something new that I had to pay I could not see the problem with a very open and transparent charge for the provision of local services.
To suggest that current opaque council tax based on wild guesses at the value of peoples homes is more progressive is just absurd IMO.
It seems even more absurd that I wind up paying a silly amount because I live in a rural area whilst those who live in local towns all too often pay less and get a rather higher level of service. If I must be taxed on the value of my home wouldn't it be fairer to levy that tax at the point that I sell it and realise that value?
> You may have said that, but you are arguing in favour of an existence tax (community charge) which replaced a property ownership tax (rates)
I'm not particularly arguing in favour of the community charge.
What I am trying to say is that I don't think the community charge should be way down any list of most damaging government policies. Any damage caused was largely down to those who did a great job of stirring up dissent by dubbing it as the "poll tax".
At the time it came in I had just finished at college and was constantly switching from one short term low paid job to another whilst looking for longer term employment and in spite of it beiong something new that I had to pay I could not see the problem with a very open and transparent charge for the provision of local services.
To suggest that current opaque council tax based on wild guesses at the value of peoples homes is more progressive is just absurd IMO.
It seems even more absurd that I wind up paying a silly amount because I live in a rural area whilst those who live in local towns all too often pay less and get a rather higher level of service. If I must be taxed on the value of my home wouldn't it be fairer to levy that tax at the point that I sell it and realise that value?
2
In reply to timjones:
progressive tax—A tax that takes a larger percentage of income from high-income groups proportional tax—A tax that takes the same percentage of income from all income groups. regressive tax—A tax that takes a larger percentage of income from low income groups.
By being a flat rate, community charge is hugely regressive.
Council tax is also regressive, but less so. Basically, Someone in a 500k house will pay exactly the same as someone in a 5m house.
Rates were closer to proportional.
Only a few taxes; income tax, inheritance tax, stamp duty are actually progressive.
progressive tax—A tax that takes a larger percentage of income from high-income groups proportional tax—A tax that takes the same percentage of income from all income groups. regressive tax—A tax that takes a larger percentage of income from low income groups.
By being a flat rate, community charge is hugely regressive.
Council tax is also regressive, but less so. Basically, Someone in a 500k house will pay exactly the same as someone in a 5m house.
Rates were closer to proportional.
Only a few taxes; income tax, inheritance tax, stamp duty are actually progressive.
1
In reply to stevieb:
How can council tax be less regressive?
Your home is your home it is not income and you get no income from it?
It makes f all difference whether you levy a charge on the individual or tax him on a wild guess at the value of his home
How can council tax be less regressive?
Your home is your home it is not income and you get no income from it?
It makes f all difference whether you levy a charge on the individual or tax him on a wild guess at the value of his home
In reply to timjones: I always thought that councils charging a flat rate per adult for services provided was as good an idea as it gets. Given that you can't feasibly only charge people for the services they actually use and therefore it makes sense to charge everybody the same.
The poor people got a rebate of up to 80% so the argument that the richest paid the same as the poorest was never really true.
As you said, the fact that some malcontents kicked off in London didn't make the poll tax a bad idea.
Those who subscribe to the politics of envy obviously disagree.
The poor people got a rebate of up to 80% so the argument that the richest paid the same as the poorest was never really true.
As you said, the fact that some malcontents kicked off in London didn't make the poll tax a bad idea.
Those who subscribe to the politics of envy obviously disagree.
2
1
In reply to baron:
I don't subscribe to the politics of envy. I was on the right side of the property bubble. Over a decade, my homes earned more money than I did working full time. I just think it's a very sub optimal way to run a country.
I don't subscribe to the politics of envy. I was on the right side of the property bubble. Over a decade, my homes earned more money than I did working full time. I just think it's a very sub optimal way to run a country.
3
In reply to baron:
So let's deconstruct this a little. You're extolling the virtues of a 2-band taxation system. The lower figure is only for the very poorest in society, yet despite that you're still taxing them. No exemptions, no matter how needy. The other band is for absolutely everyone else, from manual workers through to bankers and football players. Does that seem progressive to you?
If salaries were even remotely comparable in our society, your point might have some merit. They aren't, so your point is either selfish, if you are wealthy, or moronic if not.
> I always thought that councils charging a flat rate per adult for services provided was as good an idea as it gets. Given that you can't feasibly only charge people for the services they actually use and therefore it makes sense to charge everybody the same.The poor people got a rebate of up to 80% so the argument that the richest paid the same as the poorest was never really true.
So let's deconstruct this a little. You're extolling the virtues of a 2-band taxation system. The lower figure is only for the very poorest in society, yet despite that you're still taxing them. No exemptions, no matter how needy. The other band is for absolutely everyone else, from manual workers through to bankers and football players. Does that seem progressive to you?
If salaries were even remotely comparable in our society, your point might have some merit. They aren't, so your point is either selfish, if you are wealthy, or moronic if not.
2
1
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
The people have been told to be stupid, they like being told what to do and they like being stupid.
> So WTF is happening that they are about to be handed a landslide?
The people have been told to be stupid, they like being told what to do and they like being stupid.
Post edited at 00:42
1
2
In reply to baron:
This is the most moronic post I've read in ages. When you know you're talking bollocks, you use the phrase "politics of envy" (or failing that, "spending other people's money"). Which translates as "I don't know what the f*ck I am talking about".
The notion that progressive taxation is motivated by envy is the most pathetic, worthless, risible pile of shit - and in truth, everyone who uses this argument knows it. People who want to have well funded public services want to have well funded public services because they benefit society. We want good schools and good hospitals, and good roads, and a successul, well-functioning economy and labour market, because that brings about the best outcome for everyone. Including the rich, and it gives the poor better opportunities. If you're so averse to paying more tax than someone who's less well off that you have to accuse people who believe in progressive taxation of being motivated by envy to protect your own self-image, then frankly, go to hell.
> I always thought that councils charging a flat rate per adult for services provided was as good an idea as it gets. Given that you can't feasibly only charge people for the services they actually use and therefore it makes sense to charge everybody the same.The poor people got a rebate of up to 80% so the argument that the richest paid the same as the poorest was never really true.As you said, the fact that some malcontents kicked off in London didn't make the poll tax a bad idea.Those who subscribe to the politics of envy obviously disagree.
This is the most moronic post I've read in ages. When you know you're talking bollocks, you use the phrase "politics of envy" (or failing that, "spending other people's money"). Which translates as "I don't know what the f*ck I am talking about".
The notion that progressive taxation is motivated by envy is the most pathetic, worthless, risible pile of shit - and in truth, everyone who uses this argument knows it. People who want to have well funded public services want to have well funded public services because they benefit society. We want good schools and good hospitals, and good roads, and a successul, well-functioning economy and labour market, because that brings about the best outcome for everyone. Including the rich, and it gives the poor better opportunities. If you're so averse to paying more tax than someone who's less well off that you have to accuse people who believe in progressive taxation of being motivated by envy to protect your own self-image, then frankly, go to hell.
Post edited at 00:54
5
3
In reply to Jon Stewart:
I expect the motivations are various and include spite (rather than envy) at one end of the scale and altruism at the other. Yes the rich can be and are supportive too. But analyse how many of those in favour of progressive taxation do so because it causes the greatest burden to fall on shoulders other than their own and you'll find the vast majority. It's human nature, innit?
> This is the most moronic post I've read in ages. When you know you're talking bollocks, you use the phrase "politics of envy" (or failing that, "spending other people's money"). Which translates as "I don't know what the f*ck I am talking about".The notion that progressive taxation is motivated by envy is the most pathetic, worthless, risible pile of shit - and in truth, everyone who uses this argument knows it. People who want to have well funded public services want to have well funded public services because they benefit society. We want good schools and good hospitals, and good roads, and a successul, well-functioning economy and labour market, because that brings about the best outcome for everyone. Including the rich, and it gives the poor better opportunities. If you're so averse to paying more tax than someone who's less well off that you have to accuse people who believe in progressive taxation of being motivated by envy to protect your own self-image, then frankly, go to hell.
I expect the motivations are various and include spite (rather than envy) at one end of the scale and altruism at the other. Yes the rich can be and are supportive too. But analyse how many of those in favour of progressive taxation do so because it causes the greatest burden to fall on shoulders other than their own and you'll find the vast majority. It's human nature, innit?
In reply to summo:
From 1945 until the 1960s, the management of British industrial companies was in the hands of a bunch of useless muppets who had been something in the war or privately educated wasters whose daddy knew someone. By the 1970s we already knew how to fix British industry but politicians had too much influence and there were still few in the House of Commons who stood anywhere between the old Etonians and the former union reps. The Liberals had been preaching the same industrial policies as our European neighbours since they were in the national government during WW2 but nobody who was still fighting the class war was listening.
Just as we were on the brink of the meritocracy properly taking hold, the Tories came along and royally screwed it up. F3ck Nissan. We didn't need them. In 1979 I was working in a major vehicle plant and we already knew all the stuff that we needed to know to do that sort of thing but those at the top knew even less about running an engineering company than the PTSD-ravaged hangers-on and public school wasters that had preceded them. Price of everything, value of nothing.
> Ending union control of the UK than ended black outs, litter mountains etc...
From 1945 until the 1960s, the management of British industrial companies was in the hands of a bunch of useless muppets who had been something in the war or privately educated wasters whose daddy knew someone. By the 1970s we already knew how to fix British industry but politicians had too much influence and there were still few in the House of Commons who stood anywhere between the old Etonians and the former union reps. The Liberals had been preaching the same industrial policies as our European neighbours since they were in the national government during WW2 but nobody who was still fighting the class war was listening.
Just as we were on the brink of the meritocracy properly taking hold, the Tories came along and royally screwed it up. F3ck Nissan. We didn't need them. In 1979 I was working in a major vehicle plant and we already knew all the stuff that we needed to know to do that sort of thing but those at the top knew even less about running an engineering company than the PTSD-ravaged hangers-on and public school wasters that had preceded them. Price of everything, value of nothing.
1
In reply to Jim Fraser:
That may well be true. But nothing was going to change with either the Tories in the early part then Labour in the later end of the 70s. All politicians have their faults, but Thatcher brought Britain out of the dark ages. Another Labour government and train wreck uk could have ran on until 84/85... until people final gave up on Labour. The UK still has given up on 1970s Labour policy, Blair was way more central and now Labour is back to the 70s it's popularity has declined.
I think a new break away more central Labour party might be good, it would suck up a few Tory voter and bring in more coalition or concensus politics.
That may well be true. But nothing was going to change with either the Tories in the early part then Labour in the later end of the 70s. All politicians have their faults, but Thatcher brought Britain out of the dark ages. Another Labour government and train wreck uk could have ran on until 84/85... until people final gave up on Labour. The UK still has given up on 1970s Labour policy, Blair was way more central and now Labour is back to the 70s it's popularity has declined.
I think a new break away more central Labour party might be good, it would suck up a few Tory voter and bring in more coalition or concensus politics.
Post edited at 05:49
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...