How thick is Starmer

[srb7677]

Reads a bit like: The operation was an amazing success, everybody said so, but unfortunately the patient died...

Rubbish. Polling showed that the 2017 policies were themselves very popular. That Labour lost is therefore clearly in spite of them and not because of them, and for other reasons I have previously listed. Which is logically obvious. After all, things people love do not lose elections. It is other things that they don't like which do that.

All of this is logically obvious to anyone whose personal interests or ideological assumptions do not interpose blinkers.

[srb7677]

So, to repeat my question, what election did the Labour party win with a tax rate of 50% on its manifesto ?

It won with much higher tax rates in it's manifesto in pre-Blair times

And I repeat my previous response in the no doubt vain hope that you might take your fingers out of your ears this time. Labour dod not lose an election because of that policy. It was one of the things people liked.

Sorry to break it to you.

It stands to reason that to win the left needs to promise such popular policies whilst working to change the things people didn't actually like.

Ditching the things people liked because Tory lovers insist on believing in their unpopularity because that's what they want to believe is logically idiotic.

To win the left needs to double down on those things people liked and try instead to focus on changing the things people didn't like. That too is logically obvious.

[patman post]

None in recent times

But he may be right. This from 2019 regarding a yougov poll on the subject.

https://www.accountancydaily.co/uk-voters-want-hike-tax-top-earners

If course 2019 had far more useful things to do. Drowning Labour traitors insistent on ignoring the people being just one

People may say and agree to many good and sensible and worthwhile things in theory, but when it comes to voting for them and putting themselves in the firing line, they often shy away from making the commitment...

[johnofgwent]

So, to repeat my question, what election did the Labour party win with a tax rate of 50% on its manifesto ?

None in recent times

But he may be right. This from 2019 regarding a yougov poll on the subject.

https://www.accountancydaily.co/uk-voters-want-hike-tax-top-earners

If course 2019 had far more useful things to do. Drowning Labour traitors insistent on ignoring the people being just one

[Borchester]

That policy never lost us an election. Some two thirds of the electorate were in favour of it according to polling. We lost in spite of policies like this - and for other reasons - not because of them.

Which reality scares you so much that you have to deny it, I know

So, to repeat my question, what election did the Labour party win with a tax rate of 50% on its manifesto ?

[patman post]

That policy never lost us an election. Some two thirds of the electorate were in favour of it according to polling. We lost in spite of policies like this - and for other reasons - not because of them.

Which reality scares you so much that you have to deny it, I know

Reads a bit like: The operation was an amazing success, everybody said so, but unfortunately the patient died...

[Nick]

When I was in the Labour party we were advocating a top rate tax of 50% on incomes over 100k. I'd go along with that, plus a property tax and increased taxes on second homes, sufficient to raise the billions necessary to build the social housing we need.

Labour brought in the 50% tax in 2010, it did nothing and lasted 3 years. 


The person you've just hit with 50% tax will most likely have a big mortgage, reasonable car and have 2 weeks in the Sun. He is no way rich, just has a reasonable lifestyle which is what you're attacking. Not content with hit his salary you want to attack his house which he has paid for with money he's already paid tax on.

As for building more social housing, how about getting rid of the people that shouldn't be in the country and lowering the burden on social housing?

Im sorry Steve but everything you post on this subject points to hitting the more well off until they bleed. 

[srb7677]

Of course you did Steve.

And which elections did you win?

That policy never lost us an election. Some two thirds of the electorate were in favour of it according to polling. We lost in spite of policies like this - and for other reasons - not because of them.

Which reality scares you so much that you have to deny it, I know

[Borchester]

When I was in the Labour party we were advocating a top rate tax of 50% on incomes over 100k. I'd go along with that, plus a property tax and increased taxes on second homes, sufficient to raise the billions necessary to build the social housing we need.

Of course you did Steve.

And which elections did you win?

[srb7677]

2 aspects to this, first being that you still haven't given any indication of what a little bit is and at what level the little bit would be applied.

When I was in the Labour party we were advocating a top rate tax of 50% on incomes over 100k. I'd go along with that, plus a property tax and increased taxes on second homes, sufficient to raise the billions necessary to build the social housing we need. 

[srb7677]

Do you think the UK could/would adopt the Nordic Model (often referred to by the euphemism "democratic socialism" because of the way it combines both globalisation and the welfare state)?

After all, these two approaches to government are mostly seen as irreconcilable opposites — especially by the Left. So who is going to push for it, and how is it going to be sold?

Nordic cultures developed over centuries. During this time, citizens there developed a high degree of trust in their governments, brought about by a history of working together to reach compromises and address societal challenges through democratic processes — a situation often claimed to be wanted by the Left here, but seldom worked for by it.

As you cite the importance of taxation, I guess you realise that The Nordic model is paid for by some of the highest tax rates in the world — eg, tax revenues as a percentage of GDP are approximately 46.3% in Denmark, 39.9% in Norway, and 42.9% in Sweden.

And tax rates in these countries are relatively high on nearly all income, not just that of wealthy people — Sweden's top personal income tax rate is around 57.3%, Denmark's 55.8%, and Norway's 46.6%.

What facets of British culture do you see would need to change to adopt the Nordic Model, and how long is it going to take — one government, two governments, three, four...?



It would take decades in a two steps forward and one step back kind of way because sometimes parties will get elected seeking to reverse some of it in the interests of the wealthy elites.

We cannot become Norway or Sweden in a single term. But the popular policies of Labour's 2017 manifesto - or something like them - would be a good first step, and if completed successfully could be built on going forwards.

[patman post]

I'm quite familiar with Kent and it is quite affluent however the original inhabitants are less than impressed with the incomers from london and their attitudes.

Kent is not the whole of the southeast. But it is large and, I suppose, therefore easy to ignore problems not staring one in the face.

But local authorities do keep their eyes on such things as deprivation — if only to claim for more resources or help.

I doubt the situation will have improved much in Kent since this report — especially during the pandemic...

* There are 901 Lower Super Output Areas (LSOAs) in Kent. A total of 555 remained within the same decile for IMD2019 as they were in IMD2015. This accounts for 62% of all Kent LSOAs.

*  The number of Kent LSOAs that are within the 10% most deprived LSOAs in England between the IMD2019 and the previous IMD2015 remains at 51.

* The level of deprivation in nine out of 12 Kent local authority districts has increased since IMD2015 relative to other areas in England.

https://www.kent.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/7953/Indices-of-Deprivation-headline-findings.pdf

[cromwell]

Whatever points are trying to be scored, rural poverty is real — and it is to be witnessed in the southeast of England. Even some habitations on the outskirts of rural towns are deprived.

Jobs are scarce. Transport is abysmal. Broadband is patchy. Schooling is often not local.

So whoever wins this contest to be Tory leader will need to address these real hardships, in addition to the "more popular" problems...

I'm quite familiar with Kent and it is quite affluent however the original inhabitants are less than impressed with the incomers from london and their attitudes.

[patman post]

Touche' but only a bit    I was refering to his "I took money from deprived urban areas" how nice and he tried to wriggle out of it which is why I said what I did.

Whatever points are trying to be scored, rural poverty is real — and it is to be witnessed in the southeast of England. Even some habitations on the outskirts of rural towns are deprived. 

Jobs are scarce. Transport is abysmal. Broadband is patchy. Schooling is often not local. 

So whoever wins this contest to be Tory leader will need to address these real hardships, in addition to the "more popular" problems...

[cromwell]

You quoting things that someone didn't actually say Mr C? Based on the view you gained by reading between the lines?
Hope you never pull anyone up for doing that 😉

Touche' but only a bit    I was refering to his "I took money from deprived urban areas" how nice and he tried to wriggle out of it which is why I said what I did.