Balance: Jeremy Corbyn's tax return

Fretwired

CabbageCat said:

tabbycat said:

balance?

no, not really. not at all, in fact. but keep pretending and hiding in denial if the thought of a more equal society threatens your privilege bubble.

Personally I think Cameron and Corbyn have got more important things to do with their time than scour their accounts for something that furious internetties might preach about. Politics should be about whether you want a fairer society or, umm, a fairer society (depending on the lefty or righty definition of "fair"), not which politician has the grubbiest laundry.

What about trust and competence? Tax is an issue - the Tories have put up a lot of taxes, especially on property and cut others which have helped people at both ends of the spectrum. But if you're going to point the finger and claim the moral high ground over tax planning/evasion then you should at least check you don't have any skeletons in the cupboard. My issue with both Cameron and Corbyn is competence. Both seem to lurch from one crisis to the next - this is really a non-story which Cameron has stoked himself and which has now turned into an MPs witch hunt.

lloyd

Teetonetal said:

lloyd said:

I'm no Bullingdon club lover, not a tory, nor a lover of the over-privileged, but.....

Again, to bring politics and wealth into it like some kind of yardstick is fucking stupid.

Tony Benn-one of the most scrupled, well meaning and universally respected politicians out there was born to a Viscount and clearly fucking minted.

You don't have to be born poor to be a socialist nor do you have to be born rich to be a tory.

How many of you will look or have looked to minimise inheritance tax when you're going to be left the family home? How many of you have offered to pay cash to a tradesman? If you have then you're hypocrites, these are the tools of the working man to avoid tax, the rich dance to a different tune.

I think Cameron is a cunt BTW and think Corbyn has his heart, if not his head at times, in the right place.

I agree with all of that. 

But I am very worried about the thought of a prime minister who doesn't have his head in the right place, most of the time. JC just comes across as monumentally nieve..

Name me one PM (or a human being) that has his head in the right place all the time? This is not me defending JC in any way or advocating him as PM.

I'm not sure what people want from politicians, they are pretty much all useless/powerless fuckers that have an impossible job to do. 

The country as it is, costs more money to run than we pull in, the politicians trying to get into power have to lie about how they'd make it so much better by doing x, y, z, rather than a. b, c, the politicians in power have to lie about the lies they told to get into power and also have to point out the oppositions lies, while lying about what they are doing to make the country 'great again'

It's all bollocks and we argue over who is best and who didn't minimise tax, who didn't claim too many expenses, who didn't fuck their secretary etc, which is daft as all parties have skeletons in the closet.

Their hands are pretty much tied as to what they can do so they basically move a bit of spending about according to their leanings.

I'd be in favour of a rotational system where each main party has a few years in power then they pass the baton on, throw in some coalition and do away with the adversarial nature of the whole thing, which does nobody any favours and takes away time and money from what the Government is there to do-run the country.

I like PM's questions, you get some great lines and whatnot but it's a pretty embarrassing example of a political system in a first world country in 2016, as are the put downs across the benches during other debates. 

A final point is (not to bitch at anyone in here) that I find a lot of people who bitch and moan about politics do fuck all about it but bitch and moan about politics, if it's so shit they should get involved and make a difference themselves.

Cirrus

Troy;1035725" said:

More pits were closed under a Labour government compared to when Maggie was in power yet she got the brunt and Labour blaming her for the closures. 

True. Of course, Labour closed mines for sound economic reasons, and the Tories closed profitable mines to destroy a powerful union and employed underhand tactics like using the met as their private army and controlling the press for their own propaganda purposes, while bending laws and using the justice system to come down like a ton of bricks on any striker they could get away with wrongfully arresting. Oh, and pretended they weren't going to close mines that they, in fact, planned to close.

Perspective.

Fretwired

Cirrus said:

Troy;1035725" said:

More pits were closed under a Labour government compared to when Maggie was in power yet she got the brunt and Labour blaming her for the closures. 

True. Of course, Labour closed mines for sound economic reasons, and the Tories closed profitable mines to destroy a powerful union and employed underhand tactics like using the met as their private army and controlling the press for their own propaganda purposes, while bending laws and using the justice system to come down like a ton of bricks on any striker they could get away with wrongfully arresting. Oh, and pretended they weren't going to close mines that they, in fact, planned to close.

Perspective.

The mines that closed were not profitable - the miners had priced themselves out of the market as cheap Polish coal undercut them. Pure economics.

terada

lloyd said:

The country as it is, costs more money to run than we pull in, the politicians trying to get into power have to lie about how they'd make it so much better by doing x, y, z, rather than a. b, c, the politicians in power have to lie about the lies they told to get into power and also have to point out the oppositions lies, while lying about what they are doing to make the country 'great again'

It's all bollocks and we argue over who is best and who didn't minimise tax, who didn't claim too many expenses, who didn't fuck their secretary etc, which is daft as all parties have skeletons in the closet.

Their hands are pretty much tied as to what they can do so they basically move a bit of spending about according to their leanings.

I'd be in favour of a rotational system where each main party has a few years in power then they pass the baton on, throw in some coalition and do away with the adversarial nature of the whole thing, which does nobody any favours and takes away time and money from what the Government is there to do-run the country.

This makes a lot of sense to me, but I don't think anyone can really put into place any real change within a paltry 4 year period. It'd be a struggle even over 8.

Moreover, when the culture of politics is more about hating the opposition ipso facto rather than actually having a sensible thoughtful opinion/debate, all you'd end up with is subsequent governments undoing the pervious governments' work. The country would be chasing its tail.

A change in culture might be the answer, but how the hell could that actually be achieved?!

Cirrus

Fretwired said:

The mines that closed were not profitable - the miners had priced themselves out of the market as cheap Polish coal undercut them. Pure economics.

If we'd just waited 20 years we could have had those same Poles working *our* mines. 

I'd argue it wasn't pure economics though - when you've got things like secret service moles infiltrating unions, it starts to feel a little bit more like a war against people than a level headed economic decision.

However, I'm aware I might be making the thread veer off course here, so let me close by saying I like Corbyn's idealism but I'm convinced he'd make a terrible leader, because he's already making one.

CabbageCat

Fretwired said:

CabbageCat said:

tabbycat said:

balance?

no, not really. not at all, in fact. but keep pretending and hiding in denial if the thought of a more equal society threatens your privilege bubble.

Personally I think Cameron and Corbyn have got more important things to do with their time than scour their accounts for something that furious internetties might preach about. Politics should be about whether you want a fairer society or, umm, a fairer society (depending on the lefty or righty definition of "fair"), not which politician has the grubbiest laundry.

What about trust and competence? Tax is an issue - the Tories have put up a lot of taxes, especially on property and cut others which have helped people at both ends of the spectrum. But if you're going to point the finger and claim the moral high ground over tax planning/evasion then you should at least check you don't have any skeletons in the cupboard. My issue with both Cameron and Corbyn is competence. Both seem to lurch from one crisis to the next - this is really a non-story which Cameron has stoked himself and which has now turned into an MPs witch hunt.

The crises aren't real. They are irrelevant lint that anyone who exists outside the jungles of Borneo will have picked up on passage through life. The papers love them because the voting public love to hate politicians, which turns politicians into spin merchants who might, every now and again, get a spare five minutes to run the country. Trust and competence cannot be determined by the contents of the Daily Rag when they aren't interested in mentioning anything trustworthy or competent. We got the PM we deserved when we decided that public relations matters more to democracy than merit.

lloyd

terada said: lloyd said:

The country as it is, costs more money to run than we pull in, the politicians trying to get into power have to lie about how they'd make it so much better by doing x, y, z, rather than a. b, c, the politicians in power have to lie about the lies they told to get into power and also have to point out the oppositions lies, while lying about what they are doing to make the country 'great again'
It's all bollocks and we argue over who is best and who didn't minimise tax, who didn't claim too many expenses, who didn't fuck their secretary etc, which is daft as all parties have skeletons in the closet.
Their hands are pretty much tied as to what they can do so they basically move a bit of spending about according to their leanings.
I'd be in favour of a rotational system where each main party has a few years in power then they pass the baton on, throw in some coalition and do away with the adversarial nature of the whole thing, which does nobody any favours and takes away time and money from what the Government is there to do-run the country. This makes a lot of sense to me, but I don't think anyone can really put into place any real change within a paltry 4 year period. It'd be a struggle even over 8.Moreover, when the culture of politics is more about hating the opposition ipso facto rather than actually having a sensible thoughtful opinion/debate, all you'd end up with is subsequent governments undoing the pervious governments' work. The country would be chasing its tail.A change in culture might be the answer, but how the hell could that actually be achieved?!


How much do things actually change under different Governments though? I have noticed next to fuck all difference since turning 18 about 16 years ago. 

I have noticed zero change in anything between the two parties running the country, the big things that have affected us in the last 15 years are:

War on terror-Labour and Tory would have taken the same decision-possibly they'd have done it differently to Blair, but, we'd have invaded Iraq and Afghanistan regardless.

Financial crisis-Global financial meltdown the fault of no one party, Government bail out the banks, as would any political party.

Fox hunting-hardly a major deal but ok, tories in and it's probably stays legal for a bit more but HOL and public pressure makes it illegal a few years later.

EU exit-this is possibly the one that is played out differently between parties, however no one party have got the balls to go either way so pressure from within or pressure from the public would probably force some kind of referendum anyway.

The main problem for me with politics is that it's so adversarial, it's you against them, there's winners and losers. It's evident in this thread. I liken it to people excusing their footballer player for diving then cheering their own when he dives for a penalty. It's stupid. 

A roomful of independents would be best, how anyone can commit to a party is beyond me, my views are too fluid on a range of issues.

Skipped

I think we have all learned something from the past 2 weeks.
It seems to me that there are 2 options for a party which wishes to show that they are being led by someone who is decent, honest, has integrity.
1. Choose anybody you like and then Spin them as being a Pretty Straight Kind of Guy.
2. Choose someone who is decent, honest, has integrity.

Option 2 looks much more likely to succeed in the long term. (Personal Data Leaks seem likely to become more common. Not less common).

I am not saying that the Media will never find any Sleaze or Dirt on Jeremy Corbyn........ because there isn't any.
But his ex Wife is saying that.

Fretwired

CabbageCat said:

The crises aren't real. They are irrelevant lint that anyone who exists outside the jungles of Borneo will have picked up on passage through life. The papers love them because the voting public love to hate politicians, which turns politicians into spin merchants who might, every now and again, get a spare five minutes to run the country. Trust and competence cannot be determined by the contents of the Daily Rag when they aren't interested in mentioning anything trustworthy or competent. We got the PM we deserved when we decided that public relations matters more to democracy than merit.

I might agree were this Cameron's first banana skin but it isn't. I personally think he's incompetent - the case for the prosecution includes:

Telling people he'll be standing down - the knives will be out with the likes of Boris jostling for the leadership. He's a lame duck PM.

EU referendum - why now? The EU is toxic for the Tories and is taking up most of MPs time as a civil war gets under way. What happens if he loses and people vote for out?

EU renegotiation - promised a lot and delivered bugger all and we're now told by senior MEPs that it's not binding.

Add to that junior doctors strike, disabled benefits U-turn, looming teachers strike, poor initial response to a steel crisis they knew was coming and most of this is post the 2015 election.

Jalapeno

I think it's flipping brilliant news and clearly demonstrates the eventual outcome in the race to gutter politics.

Ad Hominem attacks have always been a Left Wing attack of choice, but the glass houses adage has caught them out, again ! There'll no doubt be a Labout apologist on shortly to bleat about talking about the issues rather than personalities.

CabbageCat

Fretwired said:

CabbageCat said:

The crises aren't real. They are irrelevant lint that anyone who exists outside the jungles of Borneo will have picked up on passage through life. The papers love them because the voting public love to hate politicians, which turns politicians into spin merchants who might, every now and again, get a spare five minutes to run the country. Trust and competence cannot be determined by the contents of the Daily Rag when they aren't interested in mentioning anything trustworthy or competent. We got the PM we deserved when we decided that public relations matters more to democracy than merit.

I might agree were this Cameron's first banana skin but it isn't. I personally think he's incompetent - the case for the prosecution includes:

Telling people he'll be standing down - the knives will be out with the likes of Boris jostling for the leadership. He's a lame duck PM.

EU referendum - why now? The EU is toxic for the Tories and is taking up most of MPs time as a civil war gets under way. What happens if he loses and people vote for out?

EU renegotiation - promised a lot and delivered bugger all and we're now told by senior MEPs that it's not binding.

Add to that junior doctors strike, disabled benefits U-turn, looming teachers strike, poor initial response to a steel crisis they knew was coming and most of this is post the 2015 election.

Who was the last PM to never do anything that was criticised. Do you think that there ever will be one?

Heartfeltdawn

lloyd said:Why are people insisting on making this a political divide? 

Because they are idiots. 

Fretwired said:

My issue with both Cameron and Corbyn is competence. Both seem to lurch from one crisis to the next - this is really a non-story which Cameron has stoked himself and which has now turned into an MPs witch hunt.

I don't think they have. Some people perceive them going from crisis to crisis based on newspaper reports. It's been quite clear that the newspapers and media in general have become far more polarized in the last year. Vested bastard interest as ever, which also explains the way everyone's chickenshitted their way out of the Whittingdale/escort story until now. 

Skipped

Jalapeno said:

Ad Hominem attacks have always been a Left Wing attack of choice, but the glass houses adage has caught them out, again ! There'll no doubt be a Labout apologist on shortly to bleat about talking about the issues rather than personalities.

The concept of the Ad Hominem attack which is relentless, clinical, against a carefully chosen individual, utilises the 24 hour Media, and is the Main Political Strategy :-O  for the 5 year Parliament is an invention of the modern Tory Party.

Wow! Ed Miliband closes his eyes at the exact moment that he hands a few coins to a beggar in the street!
Er......No he doesn't. It was 100% bullshit. The other 499 images captured in  Burst Mode were immediately detroyed to enhance the market price of the Gotcha shot.

Unfortunately.....or fortunately.......What goes around, Comes around. The target is wounded. It seems very likely that the target did not work 7 paper rounds to pay his Eton fees. Step 2 is for everyone to kick him whilst he is on the ground. The sleaze is showing and the shit is showing. That would explain why his nickname is Shit Show Dave.

Heartfeltdawn

Jalapeno said:

Ad Hominem attacks have always been a Left Wing attack of choice, 

Or if you exist in the same world as I do and keep your eyes open, it's used by all sides. The two examples which stick out from the right-wing perspective over the last year would be DC describing Corbyn as a "terrorist sympathiser" and the way Ed Milliband's father was described as a traitor. 

It's not a leftie thing. It's not a rightie thing. It's a political thing. 

digitalscream

Skipped said:

Jalapeno said:

Ad Hominem attacks have always been a Left Wing attack of choice, but the glass houses adage has caught them out, again ! There'll no doubt be a Labout apologist on shortly to bleat about talking about the issues rather than personalities.

The concept of the Ad Hominem attack which is relentless, clinical, against a carefully chosen individual, utilises the 24 hour Media, and is the Main Political Strategy :-O  for the 5 year Parliament is an invention of the modern Tory Party.

I'd say that's a pretty tough sell given that wherever you look on social media, you see Labour supporters wishing murder, disease and personal tragedy on Tories (and not just the politicians, either - I've been a victim of it just for saying "Hang on a minute, be fair..." about personal attacks)...when it's extremely rare to see it the other way round.

lloyd

Heartfeltdawn said:

Jalapeno said:

Ad Hominem attacks have always been a Left Wing attack of choice, 

Or if you exist in the same world as I do and keep your eyes open, it's used by all sides. The two examples which stick out from the right-wing perspective over the last year would be DC describing Corbyn as a "terrorist sympathiser" and the way Ed Milliband's father was described as a traitor. 

It's not a leftie thing. It's not a rightie thing. It's a political thing. 

This is something that turns me right off politics and in particular watching them debate stuff out. 

Get your point across without the name calling and telling us what their party did bad 15 years ago, no-one gives a fuck, answer the fucking question honestly you cunt.

Except they can't because their party will tell them off/cancel that promotion and lose out in eleection results.

Adversarial shit is what's wrong with politics, focus on the issues and make the country better rather than calling each other nasty names.

Fretwired

CabbageCat said:

Who was the last PM to never do anything that was criticised. Do you think that there ever will be one?

The PM will always be criticised - if they're Tory the Guardian and Mirror will attack them and if they're a left-learning leader like Corbyn the right-wing press will be after you. The difference this time is that both men are attracting serious flak from the papers that you would expect should be supporting them. The Daily Mail and Telegraph have published lots of negative press about Cameron and a number of Tory grandees have openly criticised him. Perhaps the Tory faithful don't see Cameron as a real Tory in the same way the left didn't see Tony Blair a true Labour leader.

Heartfeltdawn

digitalscream said: I'd say that's a pretty tough sell given that wherever you look on social media, you see Labour supporters wishing murder, disease and personal tragedy on Tories (and not just the politicians, either - I've been a victim of it just for saying "Hang on a minute, be fair..." about personal attacks)...when it's extremely rare to see it the other way round.

Social media is a bit of a shitstorm for the Tories in this country. On the other hand, social media is the media form which helped UKIP rise to prominence and is also doing a whizzbang job for Master Trump in the US right now. It isn't automatically anti-right wing. 

On the other hand, the Tories don't really need social media when they have so much backing traditionally within the printed press. Newspaper who delight in stories damning immigrants, public sector workers, junior doctors, teachers, unions, the BBC, anything vaguely left-wing. Conservative supporters don't have to jump on Twitter to batter the left: they have enough newspaper friends to do it for them. 

I'm sure someone will come back mentioning the Grauniad and the Mirror and I'll give my usual response: check out the latest ABC circulation. 

Jalapeno

digitalscream said:

The concept of the Ad Hominem attack which is relentless, clinical, against a carefully chosen individual, utilises the 24 hour Media, and is the Main Political Strategy :-O  for the 5 year Parliament is an invention of the modern Tory Party.

I'd say that's a pretty tough sell given that wherever you look on social media, you see Labour supporters wishing murder, disease and personal tragedy on Tories (and not just the politicians, either - I've been a victim of it just for saying "Hang on a minute, be fair..." about personal attacks)...when it's extremely rare to see it the other way round.

Wis'd