sign the petition

[millmoormagic]

It wouldn't do for us all to beleive the same thing.

Has the gap between rich and poor risen shockingly?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...e-pensions-ons

I have noted the comment from the Equality Trust (wonder what their agenda is?) that 'the UK remains one of the most unequal countries outside the developing world', but have not been able to find anything to support that.

Of course, the real inequality in the world is between us and the third world, but I'm really not sure how much appetite there is on the Left to address that - Roly once defined poverty as including not being able to have one good holiday per year, or similar, which suggests that he at least is more focused on 1st world problems.

No government has waged an 8-year war on the poorest in society. Why would they do that? What they have done is sought to address the huge budget deficit that the country is running, because it has to be addressed. The interest payment on the national debt this year is going to be around £50bn (some of it to the Mineworker's Pension Fund). Imagine what that sort of sum would do for the NHS (enable them to employ a new level of management and find novel ways of working inefficiently, probably). The steps to address the deficit have hit the poorest the hardest, because the poorest rely on public spending far more than the better off.

You refer to austerity killing people. I accept that possibility. The question that people have to ask, however, is what Labour would do to address the issues facing the poorest in society.

For the reasons set out within this thread -ad nauseum- a rise to Corporate Tax rates will result in job losses. That won’t help the poorest – it will just create some more.

There are various estimates about, but £7bn per year is probably about right for the cost of the tuition fee bribe (probably less as the reality is that Labour would end up cutting university funding). That sort of money would do a lot for public services. The tuition fee bribe will do nothing.

Of course, ‘doing something’ about pre-existing student debt - as hinted at, but not defined, during the election campaign - would cost a hell of a lot more. And would do nothing to help the poorest in society.

The cost of nationalising the utilities and Royal Mail – again, there are various estimates floating around. The Centre for Policy Studies puts it a minimum of £176bn - or £6500 for every household in the UK. Will that do anything for the poorest in society? No it won’t. It probably just means that their post start turning up late.

So what about benefits? I confess that I haven’t sought to analyse the Labour manifesto myself, but someone has:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...ion-foundation

and

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a7739471.html

So there you have it. Labour are willing to spend a fortune buying votes and pursuing ideologically driven nationalisations, but bugger all to actually directly assist the poorest in society.

Same old waffle, shall we start with the rise in billionaires/millionaires since 2010, coinciding with the rise in homelessness and foodbanks, the rise in in-work poverty? hows that for a bit of inequality.

How about making the richest in society actually pay their taxes instead of dodging them, i'm sure there's a few billion right there, every year, i'll let you do the links....

Shall we get to the national debt then, following your party's unfounded skill at all things economic, why is it reaching the 2 trillion mark, more than double what it was when the tories came to power......

Labour arent willing to spend a fortune buying votes, they're willing to spend to mend, the country is rapidly dropping onto it's knees, you don't see it because you don't want to, you're alright, jack, arent you, the poorest in society are being shafted and you don't give a shyte mr lawyer, the NHS is being sold to the highest bidder, bit by bit, but you don't give a shyte mr lawyer, because you're alright jack, the welfare state and the schools are at breaking point, but geuss what mr lawyer, yeh, you're alright, jack.

One more thing we should do to get some cash to mend the country, get rid of trident, and don't spend 100b on a new trident, rather spend it on the things i care about to be honest.

[KerrAvon]

Same old waffle, shall we start with the rise in billionaires/millionaires since 2010, coinciding with the rise in homelessness and foodbanks, the rise in in-work poverty? hows that for a bit of inequality.

How about making the richest in society actually pay their taxes instead of dodging them, i'm sure there's a few billion right there, every year, i'll let you do the links....

Shall we get to the national debt then, following your party's unfounded skill at all things economic, why is it reaching the 2 trillion mark, more than double what it was when the tories came to power......

Labour arent willing to spend a fortune buying votes, they're willing to spend to mend, the country is rapidly dropping onto it's knees, you don't see it because you don't want to, you're alright, jack, arent you, the poorest in society are being shafted and you don't give a shyte mr lawyer, the NHS is being sold to the highest bidder, bit by bit, but you don't give a shyte mr lawyer, because you're alright jack, the welfare state and the schools are at breaking point, but geuss what mr lawyer, yeh, you're alright, jack.

One more thing we should do to get some cash to mend the country, get rid of trident, and don't spend 100b on a new trident, rather spend it on the things i care about to be honest.

Ok. Start with the rise of billionaires/millionaires since 2010. Have you any figures? Do you disagree with the Guardian article that I linked to? I carefully chose that paper as it is not, apparently, a member of the MSM.

Of course, tax evasion and avoidance are present in every society and not just by the richest - have you never been offered a 'cash in hand job' or a lowered price for cash? I have. The problem that you have is that it costs money to address evasion and avoidance and if it costs £1.01 to collect £1 then clearly there is no net gain (there are, of course, other arguments for doing it regardless). The costs of collection is a particular problem for this country, which is rated as being one of the best in the world at collecting taxes. In other words, all the 'low hanging' fruit has gone.

The Tories are not my party. If you are concerned about the growth in the national debt since 2010, perhaps you could indicate what further cuts you would have made to cut the deficit more quickly?

Labour were willing to spend £7bn per year buying votes with the Tuition Fee bribe. It was there in black and white in their manifesto. How would that do anything to address the ills you describe?

What are your views on Labour planning to spend billions on the bribe and nationalisations whilst declining to reverse the benefits cap on the grounds of cost?

I agree with you on Trident, but Labour policy is to retain it (or at least that's what they told the electorate).