The Corbyn is feeling the water?

[Sheepy]

Well clearly you aren't watching what is going on right now in politics. I doubt Johnson can make it to the end of the month given his sleazy scandals. There is a gulf of difference between Labour and the Tories right now and explains why Starmer is polling better than Johnson. So clearly there is a large number of Corbynites who will hold their noses and vote Labour despite who is leader. If they have an alternative they will split the Labour vote. And this the issue with FPTP. And that isn't even getting to the fact that Long Bailey is most likely the next leader anyway as she has support from both Starmer and Burnham and have the backing from all the Unions (as well as Corbyn). Corbyn is never going to be PM. His time is up. He now needs to back a new horse and get behind that.

Well clearly, I am because they all agreed on the same rules and voted for them. Blair has had his day; it hasn't stopped him ruling over Westminster. 

[B0ycey]

The point being they have realised there is no lesser evil. They are all the same thing.

Well clearly you aren't watching what is going on right now in politics. I doubt Johnson can make it to the end of the month given his sleazy scandals. There is a gulf of difference between Labour and the Tories right now and explains why Starmer is polling better than Johnson. So clearly there is a large number of Corbynites who will hold their noses and vote Labour despite who is leader. If they have an alternative they will split the Labour vote. And that is the issue with FPTP. And that isn't even getting to the fact that Long Bailey is most likely the next leader anyway as she has support from both Starmer and Burnham and have the backing from all the Unions (as well as Corbyn). Corbyn is never going to be PM. His time is up. He now needs to back a new horse and get behind that.

[Sheepy]

It has been the case for a while now that you vote for the lesser evil rather than the party you want. Corbyn starts a new party, he splits the Labour Vote. It is that simple. But what is worse is there are still Corbynites in Labour and at least one has a great chance being the new leader after Starmer. And that is where his focus should be. Become a independent MP and she where the Unions put their weight behind once Starmer leaves office.

The point being they have realised there is no lesser evil. They are all the same thing. 

[B0ycey]

They are not going to vote for a Blairite party anyway, most of them would rather cut their hands off.

It has been the case for a while now that you vote for the lesser evil rather than the party you want. Corbyn starts a new party, he splits the Labour Vote. It is that simple. But what is worse is there are still Corbynites in Labour and at least one has a great chance being the new leader after Starmer. And that is where his focus should be. Become a independent MP and she where the Unions put their weight behind once Starmer leaves office.

[Nick]

The obvious point to make is this. Young people who achieve the same financial success as you as their life progresses will still be paying those same taxes you now pay. But they will on top also be paying a de facto extra income tax that you are insisting they pay, whilst not having to pay it yourself. It is still tantamount to you doing what you often accuse the left of - advocating higher taxes for others.

Oh no, how terrible!! Making the poor little dears pay for a service they have actually used. You expect me to pay extra tax to pay for the education that will lead to them getting a better job and therefore more money?

My son in law did his masters and now works on the safety systems for the AUKUS submarines, he earns about £100 an hour and that's down to his university education. He's paying his student loan off and isn't complaining. 

[Sheepy]

They are not going to vote for a Blairite party anyway, most of them would rather cut their hands off. 

[B0ycey]

Corbyn could indeed start a new party and it would most definitely have better success than Reform UK I would expect given the sharpe jump in membership in Labour to make him leader. The problem is a divided Labour Party will not win an election under FPTP. 

It would make more sense for Corbyn to just back a Corbynite in Labour. Under the cost of living crisis we are beginning to see, I only see Socialism growing as a trend.

[Borchester]

The 98 percent rate only applied to unearned income, not earned income.

Which meant that dividents (which were classed as unearned income) were taxed at 90% while wages were taxed at a lot less. The idea was that investors would accept smaller dividends and keep their money in the company, thus increasing the actual investments. It did not of course, but every government God invented governments has told the electorate not to worry, the rich will pay. They don't of course, but there you go.

Tax policy is like ladies frocks. It doesn't need to make sense, just to be in fashion

[srb7677]

The not so obvious point you fail to make is young people who took advantage of Harold Wilson's free university education walked straight out of it into a world of Dennis Healey's 98% income tax including a special 15% for anyone who invested the extra income their education gave them in companies wishing to exploit that white heat.

Mind you, in those days the people who went to university studied subjects that were by and large needed for the careers they then followed.

Nobody in my street when I was an undergraduate paid any income tax let alone higher rate tax.

Nobody earned enough.

Nobody in that street collected any benefits though.

The huge amount of housing benefit handed to the private landlords of today's tenants in that street was never handed out nor collected from taxing the taxed as housing rent was legally controlled by rent tribunals and council housing was available to blue collar families so there was NOTHING like the housing pressure (or immigration) there is today.

This year, and for the next three or four and in fact until he is thrown out of number 11 Rishi is going to reel in Christ knows how much from the working population as pay rises push them into higher rate tax bands they only left thanks to the lib dems.

Sadly the link b dems other policy demands are a rather high price to pay for that one

The 98 percent rate only applied to unearned income, not earned income. The highest rate for earned income was 83 percent. You had to be a very high earner to pay that. Although in the interests of a fairer society, I advocate higher taxes on the wealthy and especially on their unearned incomes, I have never advocated income taxes that high. I believe it to be generally better to close down loopholes, crack down much more on tax evasion, and generally to tax immovable assets like land and property investments.

And the point you don't make is that far fewer people went to university in those days, hence their more glittering prospects, in spite of which they got it all for free.

I mostly agree with you re housing, where I believe we need meaningful rent control and much greater investment in social housing.

Rishi Sunak is a more traditional Tory, so yes he will end up reeling shedloads back in and it will mostly be from those with the least wealth or lowest earnings. It was ever thus under these scumbags. 

[johnofgwent]

The obvious point to make is this. Young people who achieve the same financial success as you as their life progresses will still be paying those same taxes you now pay. But they will on top also be paying a de facto extra income tax that you are insisting they pay, whilst not having to pay it yourself. It is still tantamount to you doing what you often accuse the left of - advocating higher taxes for others.

The not so obvious point you fail to make is young people who took advantage of Harold Wilson's free university education walked straight out of it into a world of Dennis Healey's 98% income tax including a special 15% for anyone who invested the extra income their education gave them in companies wishing to exploit that white heat.

Mind you, in those days the people who went to university studied subjects that were by and large needed for the careers they then followed.

Nobody in my street when I was an undergraduate paid any income tax let alone higher rate tax.

Nobody earned enough.

Nobody in that street collected any benefits though.

The huge amount of housing benefit handed to the private landlords of today's tenants in that street was never handed out nor collected from taxing the taxed as housing rent was legally controlled by rent tribunals and council housing was available to blue collar families so there was NOTHING like the housing pressure (or immigration) there is today.

This year, and for the next three or four and in fact until he is thrown out of number 11 Rishi is going to reel in Christ knows how much from the working population as pay rises push them into higher rate tax bands they only left thanks to the lib dems.

Sadly the link b dems other policy demands are a rather high price to pay for that one

[Thomas]

So what happened in 2019?

What happened to new labout in 2010 , and 2015 , and the majority of starmer failed by election defeats?

Why should steve or anyone else vote for a party that doesnt reflect their views?

[Thomas]

The Labour Party in any shape or form can only hope to be elected if it can turn ,liberal  Tories, and Lib Dems. The very people that will never turn for Corbyn, on his own.
The SNP, dangle an independence from English politics carrot. What would Corbyn, be dangling other than his dick?
It is Tory rags making mischief.  Deflecting attention from the ,(party going party.)
If Corbyn, feels he can hurt the party by starting one in competition for votes that do nothing other than split the existing vote , then he only keeps the Tories in power for the foreseeable future.This would be bowing to their most cherished wishes, and the real reason for this kind of report.  Only his ego forces him to do that no one else.

Bollocks. If the snp didnt dangle the carrot of indy and scotland didnt exist , i still wouldnt vote new labour and neither would millions of others.

[srb7677]

So you're right, I don't pay the same tax, I get nailed to the floor with tax, so excuse me: my heart bleeds purple piss.

The obvious point to make is this. Young people who achieve the same financial success as you as their life progresses will still be paying those same taxes you now pay. But they will on top also be paying a de facto extra income tax that you are insisting they pay, whilst not having to pay it yourself. It is still tantamount to you doing what you often accuse the left of - advocating higher taxes for others.

[Nick]

And the point remains that tuition fees act as a de facto tax on income for millions of mostly younger people. The point you cite about much of it never being repaid merely serves to reinforce my point that for many it is a higher tax rate for most of their working lives. Am guessing you don't pay this rate of tax? So again, are you not doing the very thing you love to accuse the left of doing? Advocating higher taxes for someone else?

It comes down to the same old Chestnut, do I we have a substandard service or do the end users pay for it? I get your point about it being a tax for others due to it not being paid back, but tell me something that isn't?

As for the tax that I pay / my company pay. Corporation tax, VAT, Employers NIC's, Employers pension contributions. And then I pay PAYE, NIC's, self assessment tax.
So you're right, I don't pay the same tax, I get nailed to the floor with tax, so excuse me: my heart bleeds purple piss. 

[srb7677]

Are you actually a home owner?

No, though I know plenty of people who are. I am also not a private tenant (I live in social housing) but again know plenty of people who are. And generally the latter are far worse off than the former and often paying much more for their housing. And landlords themselves buying up new builds are often pricing potential owner-occupiers out of the market, and then charging them extortionate rents.

Anyway (and there is no personal animosity at all) we are both pretty close to being the nearest thing this forum has to ideological opposites. We are never going to agree with each other on most things in a million years.

But this thread is not so much about the efficacy of such policies, but their potential appeal to a large element of the electorate. However much you might believe that rent control is unworkable, the fact remains it is a popular policy amongst millions of tenants. Abolition of tuition fees is also popular amongst millions of young people. So however much you moan about the unworkability of it, such an agenda has a measure of popularity that could provide some support for a Corbyn led party. And zero tuition fees and rent control work well enough in numerous other countries anyway.

And the point remains that tuition fees act as a de facto tax on income for millions of mostly younger people. The point you cite about much of it never being repaid merely serves to reinforce my point that for many it is a higher tax rate for most of their working lives. Am guessing you don't pay this rate of tax? So again, are you not doing the very thing you love to accuse the left of doing? Advocating higher taxes for someone else?