A Forum cabinet - just for fun

[T00ts]

The forum cabinet is barking mad, where is the policies?

How about interviews for the jobs? First of all chancellor. Members say what they would do as chancellor and the rest of us can pick whom we think the best or least bad candidate?

I would introduce modest tax rises on the highest earners, initiate a big crackdown on tax avoidance and evasion, increase the minimum wage to living wage levels, boost education and health spending with the proceeds, and remove the exemption from NI payments for better off pensioners to help fund older age social care. And I would introduce a land value tax, using some of the proceeds to reduce high street business rates in town centres. I would aim to increase the NI threshold into line with the income tax threshold, then merge the two into one combined income tax in the interests of transparency and simplicity. And I would borrow to boost spending on a range of infrastructure projects, with particular focus upon ramped up social housing construction.

You're fired!!!!    Oh I do like being PM!

[srb7677]

The forum cabinet is barking mad, where is the policies?

How about interviews for the jobs? First of all chancellor. Members say what they would do as chancellor and the rest of us can pick whom we think the best or least bad candidate?

I would introduce modest tax rises on the highest earners, initiate a big crackdown on tax avoidance and evasion, increase the minimum wage to living wage levels, boost education and health spending with the proceeds, and remove the exemption from NI payments for better off pensioners to help fund older age social care. And I would introduce a land value tax, using some of the proceeds to reduce high street business rates in town centres. I would aim to increase the NI threshold into line with the income tax threshold, then merge the two into one combined income tax in the interests of transparency and simplicity. And I would borrow to boost spending on a range of infrastructure projects, with particular focus upon ramped up social housing construction.

[DeppityDawg]

And some friendly semi-jocular advice. Give up the Daily Fail or you risk morphing into Mr Disgusted and Angry of Tunbridge Wells. Sometimes you already seem to be half way there,

I think what you take for anger is what I call passion. But then of course, only left wing people are allowed to be passionate about issues, aren't they? Otherwise you're "Angry of Kent". Right wing don't do "sincerely held beliefs" do they?

I'll read whatever I feel like, thanks.

[Sheepy]

The forum cabinet is barking mad, where is the policies?

[Barry]

Since moving to Kent, I think I am probably closest forum member to Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells. (I think he's dead now)

[srb7677]

I was stereotyping certain types in a mocking way.

And yet, you got upset when another poster mocked your beliefs, suggesting that you were far left? Why, if its ok for you to mock and stereotype others, is it not ok for them to do the same to you?

Someone called you "far left" and you got upset, claiming it wasn't true. Yet you called me right wing, which I say its untrue. Do you see where this is going?

Taking issue with being labelled something I am not is in no way the same thing as being upset by it. Having to keep repeating the corrections is a bit annoying though because it proves someone is not listening. What I was angered by is the personal attacks involved in calling me a liar and a coward. But that's now in the past. If anyone wants to humourously stereotype me and others like me, feel free. I may attempt to take the stereotype apart as is my right but it's par for the course.

As for calling you right wing which you insist you are not, I will not ignore that but take it on board and seek a more accurate description. Perhaps you are left leaning in various ways and maybe even liked a few of our 2017 policies, eg a higher minimum wage and more social housing. But you totally reject Labour as a metropolitan middle class party which has abandoned the working class. And you reject totally it's stance on identity politics and other such social liberalisms. Such objections are generally perceived as right wing. And your choice of the Daily Mail as reading material supports me on that. So might it not actually be more accurate to describe you as left leaning at heart economically but right leaning when it comes to social liberalism?

And some friendly semi-jocular advice. Give up the Daily Fail or you risk morphing into Mr Disgusted and Angry of Tunbridge Wells. Sometimes you already seem to be half way there,

[DeppityDawg]

I was stereotyping certain types in a mocking way.

And yet, you got upset when another poster mocked your beliefs, suggesting that you were far left? Why, if its ok for you to mock and stereotype others, is it not ok for them to do the same to you?

Someone called you "far left" and you got upset, claiming it wasn't true. Yet you called me right wing, which I say its untrue. Do you see where this is going?

[cromwell]

The labour party have simply burned too many bridges with too many people .

I confidently predict that you are wrong. People will tire of the Tories. They always do eventually. It is just a matter of time. Unless you actually believe the Tories will be in power permanently? In the latest polls Labour have been drawing level with the Tories. If you write Labour off so complacently and permanently, the day will come when you will have egg on your face.

Tire of the tories? Probably,but turn to labour....well the young who haven't experienced the lies ,sleaze and broken promises might but the older ones who you appear to despise.....I don't think so.

That you've dismissed those of the red wall who voiced their displeasure and don't want them back I can only say I find that very strange,why do you think they voted the way they did?because they were tired of being patronised and ignored.

You think you'll get a majority without them? Dream on the metropolitan areas so beloved will not deliver it,TBH I find it all quite sad and being a liberal tosspot don't want to see those votes converted to the extremes at either end of the political spectrum.

New labour,well that's been tried and failed miserably,something new is needed but  don't see it coming from anyone in that party.

Let's make one thing clear, Cromwell. I do not despise older people. Neither do I despise you. I find it sad if you think I do.

Well Steve in the past you labelled us all as Gammons and thick ,dreaming of squadrons of spitfires really just figures of fun to be derided.

I'd call that despising people,not that it bothers me have been called worse on here.

I was stereotyping certain types in a mocking way. You mistake that for tarring everyone with the same brush. I have no animosity towards you even if you think I do and dislike me in response. Besides, I tend not to go on about so-called gammons anymore because I now recognise that the language was always unhelpful.

What else is it besides that which makes you think I have it in for older people, and perhaps you personally? I'd prefer to heal any rift if that were possible. However much we may disagree on some things, I am no more a bad person than you are.

Dislike you? Certainly not

Disagree on some things? Certainly do

There are a very few people on here who to put it bluntly I don't really like that much (to repeat you aren't one) doesn't stop me sometimes agreeing with them.

In any event life's too short to let it be that important on a forum.

[srb7677]

The labour party have simply burned too many bridges with too many people .

I confidently predict that you are wrong. People will tire of the Tories. They always do eventually. It is just a matter of time. Unless you actually believe the Tories will be in power permanently? In the latest polls Labour have been drawing level with the Tories. If you write Labour off so complacently and permanently, the day will come when you will have egg on your face.

Tire of the tories? Probably,but turn to labour....well the young who haven't experienced the lies ,sleaze and broken promises might but the older ones who you appear to despise.....I don't think so.

That you've dismissed those of the red wall who voiced their displeasure and don't want them back I can only say I find that very strange,why do you think they voted the way they did?because they were tired of being patronised and ignored.

You think you'll get a majority without them? Dream on the metropolitan areas so beloved will not deliver it,TBH I find it all quite sad and being a liberal tosspot don't want to see those votes converted to the extremes at either end of the political spectrum.

New labour,well that's been tried and failed miserably,something new is needed but  don't see it coming from anyone in that party.

Let's make one thing clear, Cromwell. I do not despise older people. Neither do I despise you. I find it sad if you think I do.

Well Steve in the past you labelled us all as Gammons and thick ,dreaming of squadrons of spitfires really just figures of fun to be derided.

I'd call that despising people,not that it bothers me have been called worse on here.

I was stereotyping certain types in a mocking way. You mistake that for tarring everyone with the same brush. I have no animosity towards you even if you think I do and dislike me in response. Besides, I tend not to go on about so-called gammons anymore because I now recognise that the language was always unhelpful.

What else is it besides that which makes you think I have it in for older people, and perhaps you personally? I'd prefer to heal any rift if that were possible. However much we may disagree on some things, I am no more a bad person than you are.

[cromwell]

The labour party have simply burned too many bridges with too many people .

I confidently predict that you are wrong. People will tire of the Tories. They always do eventually. It is just a matter of time. Unless you actually believe the Tories will be in power permanently? In the latest polls Labour have been drawing level with the Tories. If you write Labour off so complacently and permanently, the day will come when you will have egg on your face.

Tire of the tories? Probably,but turn to labour....well the young who haven't experienced the lies ,sleaze and broken promises might but the older ones who you appear to despise.....I don't think so.

That you've dismissed those of the red wall who voiced their displeasure and don't want them back I can only say I find that very strange,why do you think they voted the way they did?because they were tired of being patronised and ignored.

You think you'll get a majority without them? Dream on the metropolitan areas so beloved will not deliver it,TBH I find it all quite sad and being a liberal tosspot don't want to see those votes converted to the extremes at either end of the political spectrum.

New labour,well that's been tried and failed miserably,something new is needed but  don't see it coming from anyone in that party.

Let's make one thing clear, Cromwell. I do not despise older people. Neither do I despise you. I find it sad if you think I do.

Well Steve in the past you labelled us all as Gammons and thick ,dreaming of squadrons of spitfires really just figures of fun to be derided.

I'd call that despising people,not that it bothers me have been called worse on here.

[Borchester]

Modest tax increases on the top 5% and corporation tax increases would have raised revenue. As would a serious clampdown on tax evasion and avoidance by the wealthy.

No it wouldn't. The rich don't like paying taxes which is why they are rich. And every time the government tries to plug a tax loophole it creates a couple more.

Raising taxes are good for increasing the level of low calorie spite among the brothers and sisters, but in terms of cash to the exchequer, it is a bit of a no no.

[srb7677]

If a new party came on the scene and started taking millions of labour and tory votes , like ukip did at one stage , srb would be shitting himself.

Actually that very much depends upon the nature of any new party. If it championed the struggling millions with the kind of policies Labour had in 2017, I'd be part of it.

In 2017 GE Corbyn was lauded as some sort of saint led by social media hysteria. By 2019 Corbyn and his policies were no longer novel. They were old hat and stale and obviously pie in the sky. His rhetoric was constantly and boringly repetitive and the novelty factor of 2017 had faded and died. Each time he opened his mouth he promised the world. Labour talked as if they had the crock of gold. He would never have won an election from then on and knew it. As did his puppeteers.

Starmer is a new game, but what he doesn't have that Corbyn had in spades is the oratory technique that he had obviously honed over decades of crowd manipulation. The only way Starmer can win an election in my view is to move the party much closer to the centre, but his enemies in the party will fight him every step of the way. They have tasted power in their own minds and won't relinquish it easily. The fact that they are totally out of step with the modern world seems to escape their consciousness.

Our 2017 policies were mostly not pie in the sky and were pretty modest - rent caps, security of tenure, a minimum wage in line with what people need to live on, an end to exploitative and insecure work contracts, etc. And polling revealed them to be popular. You don't make yourself more electable by abandoning the only things people liked about you

Didn't he also promise to abandon University fees/debts and possibly repay them too? Students loved it and flocked to him. Didn't he promise 'for the many not the few' meaning that he fed into the envy of those who have accrued wealth? Yet those are the circles he himself grew up in and no doubt benefitted from. Another vote buyer. What he didn't seem to offer was where this untold wealth to pay for these 'promises' was going to come from.

He promised to abolish university tuition fees. This policy was contained in both our 2017 and 2019 manifestoes.

Writing off existing student debt was never part of the policy, and was in no way costed, though by being unclear about that Corbyn was perhaps guilty of misleading some young people into believing that this was on the cards too. Might he have tried to do that anyway in government? We'll never know.

We did have money raising and money saving measures. Capping rents for example would have reduced the housing benefit bill. Modest tax increases on the top 5% and corporation tax increases would have raised revenue. As would a serious clampdown on tax evasion and avoidance by the wealthy. Raising the minimum wage to a level sufficient to live on would have reduced the welfare bill, a large part of which is a de facto subsidy for low pay.  And we would have borrowed to invest - at record low interest rates - which would have boosted the economy, increasing the tax take and reducing welfare costs. Keynesian spending makes a lot of sense when the cost of borrowing is so low because it tends to increase incomes and reduce outgoings in ways that more than pay for itself.

[Thomas]

=T00ts link=topic=1826.msg39112#msg39112 date=1600764589]
Didn't he also promise to abandon University fees/debts and possibly repay them too?

so did ed milliband toots. Until it came to manifesto time ,then this was dummed down to only paying 6 grand tuition fees.

Be interesting though when starmer has to put forth a manifesto , and the light is shined on labours nonsense yet again.

[Thomas]

. You don't make yourself more electable by abandoning the only things people liked about you

you dont make yourself electable by being in denial about what the voting public want either.

Starmer done that last year in england over brexit , and is currently doing that in scotland ove scot indy.

Alienating 56% of the scottish vote in the process ,and 54% of the english vote last december.

So your wise words steve are wasted on a fool like starmer.

[T00ts]

If a new party came on the scene and started taking millions of labour and tory votes , like ukip did at one stage , srb would be shitting himself.

Actually that very much depends upon the nature of any new party. If it championed the struggling millions with the kind of policies Labour had in 2017, I'd be part of it.

In 2017 GE Corbyn was lauded as some sort of saint led by social media hysteria. By 2019 Corbyn and his policies were no longer novel. They were old hat and stale and obviously pie in the sky. His rhetoric was constantly and boringly repetitive and the novelty factor of 2017 had faded and died. Each time he opened his mouth he promised the world. Labour talked as if they had the crock of gold. He would never have won an election from then on and knew it. As did his puppeteers.

Starmer is a new game, but what he doesn't have that Corbyn had in spades is the oratory technique that he had obviously honed over decades of crowd manipulation. The only way Starmer can win an election in my view is to move the party much closer to the centre, but his enemies in the party will fight him every step of the way. They have tasted power in their own minds and won't relinquish it easily. The fact that they are totally out of step with the modern world seems to escape their consciousness.

Our 2017 policies were mostly not pie in the sky and were pretty modest - rent caps, security of tenure, a minimum wage in line with what people need to live on, an end to exploitative and insecure work contracts, etc. And polling revealed them to be popular. You don't make yourself more electable by abandoning the only things people liked about you

Didn't he also promise to abandon University fees/debts and possibly repay them too? Students loved it and flocked to him. Didn't he promise 'for the many not the few' meaning that he fed into the envy of those who have accrued wealth? Yet those are the circles he himself grew up in and no doubt benefitted from. Another vote buyer. What he didn't seem to offer was where this untold wealth to pay for these 'promises' was going to come from.