Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
If so, why? If not, why?
yep. just to get it right up england before scotland sails off into a socialist utopia...
I am more loyal to that fact than to any other party.
And political parties' policies change.
Doesn't mean Robeson's point is closed-minded though. Especially given the fact he hasn't said `He never would` he's said `He can't conceive of doing so`. Very different.
It isn't dogmatic either. So not only have you made an insulting assumption as to Robeson's political decision-making process, you've used a word to describe it which isn't accurate.
Good work all round.
So I'm glad you've analysed it like this to show me the error of my ways.
in response to a heavily thissed post is "trolling", you go right ahead.
You'll be back in the saddle in no time.
of voting BNP.
Short of a serious head injury that drastically effected my personality and way of thinking.
If it were the Tories that changed they would have to move so far away from where they are now as to be unrecognizable as the Conservative Party of today and would have to completely alienate all of the current die hard Tory voters that I wish to have nothing to do with politically.
But thank you for your wise words that people change and political parties change. Most enlightening.
Because the members of the Conservative Society at my uni are the most detestable creatures on Earth (and I disagree with most Tory policies)
I had to live in halls with people like that...
I believe this makes a difference. There are too many fucking Tory students at mine...
I get the double joy of going to a shit uni and having them arrogant tosspots marauding around.
Otherwise, the student body doesn't have a very good ratio of relatable people from normal-ish backgrounds. Even the normal people themselves are mostly hard-working aspirational cuntflaps. I'm sort-of one myself, but I can't stand other people who are. The loneliness-thus-depression this often causes leads to a greater likeliness of failure, so actually you're better off going to shit uni...
Plus if you're are interested, you can always do a masters at a good uni anyway, if you get a 2:1. I wish I just did that instead...
please leave the boards
I honestly can't really be bothered voting anymore. It's always sewn up well in advance - last general election The Sun had Cameron on the front page, coloured like the Obama campaign, with "BRITAIN'S ONLY HOPE" as the headline. I took a look at the Bookies odds (you very rarely see a bookie getting things wrong) and he was the favourite. It was inevitable then, and there'll be an inevitable choice for PM next time too. Democracy!
I got decent money on a hung parliament as they didn't see it coming.
The Sun keeps a good eye on the polls, and makes sure to back whoever's going to win. They got behind Blair, but only when it was obvious he'd get in, likewise it was clear that a large number of people hated Gordon Brown's Labour, so it was easy for them to back Call Me Dave. Then they look like they're important and influential, when they're really following the tide.
Holyrood election 2007: http://i.imgur.com/pq7mcXz.jpg
Holyrood election 2011:
http://i.imgur.com/qWeySX5.jpg & http://i.imgur.com/vZ49po7.jpg
IT WAS THE SUN WOT WON IT!
A huge part of their business model is getting things wrong. No one would ever gamble otherwise.
(a) their policies are awful, short-termist, aimed at advancing a kind of society I want no part of, and usually cloaked in lies and rhetoric.
(b) they're bastards.
and can't understand what life is like for normal people (99% of the population). Anyone else who votes for them is just a sadistic traitor who wants to inflict the worst case scenario on their fellow citizen, and this is a matter of extreme joy.
Joe Public, or the majority of the "99% of the population" as you put it votes for whoever the media tells them to vote for. We get the government we deserve, basically.
That's just a leftie's way of justifying why their folks back in the Home Counties would ever do anything so evil as to vote for a right-wing political party.
Everyone knows papers like the Daily Mail spout bollocks - when was the last time you heard them spoke about in anything other than negative terms? Whether Labour or the Tories get in is usually a natural swing depending on the state of the world's economy and whether we're at war. Under Labour most will be happy but they'll piss the country's money up the wall. Under the Tories most will be pissed off but they'll probably keep the country ticking over financially. And could you honestly see Ed Miliband as a wartime leader?
I couldn't see any of the current party leaders as a wartime leader.
than it does me or mine, to be honest.
Not everyone knows papers like the Daily Mail spout bollocks - in any case, most of my friends/contemporaries read the red-tops.
I'll concede re: what you say about the state of the world's economy, although we've been at war for the past two elections so that's a moot point.
The Tories definitely haven't kept the country "ticking over", as a matter of fact "we're" more in debt now than "we" were under Labour.
Out of the current crop, Miliband would make the best wartime leader, for sure.
they haven't won an election in almost 20 years, the coalition only narrowly scraped in at the height of disillusionment with Labour, everybody in the north hates them, and by all accounts small changes in the UK's ethnic make-up have basically made them non-competitive in many urban areas of the south now. Obviously there are ways they could reinvent themselves to be more appealing to the many parts of the country they've totally alienated, but given how much they've backslid from Cameron's Blair-lite charm offensive days, it's clearly not going to happen before the next election (as their hysterical 'worker's party' schtick demonstrates). If UKIP does succeed in splitting their vote, and disillusioned Lib Dem voters defect to Labour, it would be bloody hard work for them to win in 2015.
Part of that is because the Labour party have shifted so far to the right though. They governed in a way that, essentially, was more right-wing than the Heath and Macmillan administrations.
I mean, I couldn't agree more, but I want to use your opinion in case I'm in a situation where I want to attack or am confronted by right-wing people in the future. I'm not intelligent enough to improvise on my own.
You're only really allowed to say controversial things here if a couple of other DiSsers know you well enough personally to abandon their apparently strongly held principles.
but reading this was quite a relief, and I sort of take the sass thing as a compliment. Sort of.
You can either parrot the trendy internet bellends' rhetoric back to them and carve out a place on the boards, or you can join myself and MPBH in the sludge at the bottom of the DiS bucket who can nonetheless look themselves in the mirror first thing in the morning.
but with a name like this it's just too much to refuse the former.
Or maybe I can carve a new dimension between these two paths?
Everything this guy just told you is nonsense.
In terms of your mental wellbeing...
Winston got driven mental by Big Brother and all of that.
Hope it's Morpheus
"I'm not racist. Some of my favourite fictional characters are black..."
you're too REAL
This legion of doom's full-on political assault of just about everyone who isn't a Conservative MP isn't gonna be reversed any time soon, no matter who gets in- it'll at best be the new ground zero and at worst be just a taster.
Obviously I'll vote Labour but Ill not be alive with the glory of love about it.
Found out yesterday higher rate Tax is going to be for 31800 and above, felt a twinge of Tory, but no probably will still vote lib dems and hope for a different coalition
That's crazy low.
and at this salary you are really, really not rich - especially if the person earning this amount has any dependents (and moreso if they live in the south east).
So rich people pay more (in theory). Unless you're advocating a flat tax regardless of income level?
I just don't see what being "rich" has to do with it. I'm not "rich" so I shouldn't pay any tax? What?
31800 isn't rich enough to pay tax?
Higher than what? Higher than you'd pay on 10K? Because that seems fair to me.
just that the threshold for paying the higher rate should be higher than 31800?
I just wanted to know what paying tax had to do with being rich.
He can speak for himself you know.
At least that's the theory. That's what tax rates have to do with being rich. Pretty sure i'm being trolled here.
I think understand that!
But it still doesn't explain why you need to be "rich" to get into the higher tax band. It's a band. Where it falls has nothing to do with being "rich".
tied up in this sub thread for hours and now you've gone and scared them off.
I think you're fine, carry on
I genuinely don't know what he's talking about though. Why DO you need to be "rich" to pay the next band of tax? I can only hope he elaborates in full.
Why not introduce a higher 40% tax rate for anyone earning more than £5,000 a year (to pick an arbitrary figure)? Because that would unfairly affect the low waged, yeah? That's why where the banding falls has everything to do with what Government (and by extension, society I guess) sees as being 'rich'.
Why does the cut-off have to be "rich".
You haven't really explained that.
in relation to the level of income at that threshold.
this must be how you feel never!
For me I thought the idea was that once your earnings take you to the level where any extra is a luxary then it is fair to take a bit more in tax. I don't think £32k is that level, withe the cost of houses/rent especially in the se
''I'm not "rich" so I shouldn't pay any tax? What?''
which wasn't what he was suggesting. he wasn' saying that you should pay no tax below the band. i was just confused by that part of your post.
or personal income?
Than now. Comes in next year. Seems low to me on the basis that the next jump in tax is another 110k. I reckon we should have more bands
I was surprised where it is now to be honest, thought it was at the 35-40 level. I think it is too low for London.
The average London wage? doesn't seem right that the average London worker is in the same tax band as the prime minister
I think there is one higher tax band at 45%, but yes I think it is quite average (for 30+ at least )
and DC earns like £142,000 or something (i think)
Ah ok, that is the taxband they should rinse (I'm also for a 100% inheritance tax)
Fuck me: are you a commie?
to divide the inheritance, but I'm sort of in favour of this.
I'm a socialist.
if you believe in social mobility.
Of course if you think your children are more objectively important than other people, you miht think differently (i.e. you're a massive choad).
And I am all for a one child policy. My family's income is less than £30,000 but we seem to cope better than families with more offspring but similar incomes. Not meaning to brag but we do.
I don't know why more families don't do this. I really don't. (Or just not have kids at all).
In the current climate especially, if I was earning that (I'm not yet) and got a 1% pay increase (£320) 40% of it gone straight away £190 left, then ni student loans pensions etc not left with much despite high inflation
that's a bit into "why, after I've spent all my money, there's hardly any left!" territory
Possibly, but it will be there for most people, meaning less disposable income, it's not excess luxary money up for grabs
"tax is gonna be 31800" - as in the current gov't is setting it, or what?
given how marginal tax works I'm not sure I particularly have a problem with this.
(side rant about how many people have reached adulthood and yet will still believe this means as soon as the earn 32k they'll have to pay top rate on the lot)
It's especially odd the papers report it that way. I think it us noticeable even though it is marginal, getting such a small pay rise and seeing almost half of it go
I think you have to just take tax as a given, and just see a 1k payrise as a small payrise. So if your employer really wanted to butter you up, they should've given you a bigger rise, given that they are well aware of how much will be taxed. IDK.
Without going full BITT I'd imagine the reason most papers report it that way is to stoke resentment of taxation in general.
Then it's the next 31,800 at 20%, then onto 40%, so it's really 41,800 and above.
It's not £42100 and above it is nothing on the first 10k, 20% on everything Between 10 and 31.8 and then 40% on everything above 31.8 (not sure when the 45% kicks in)
£0-£10k = 0%
£10k-£41.8k = 20%
£41.8k-£150k* = 40%
£150k*+ = 45%
*It's actually a bit less than £150k, because (I think) for every £2 over £100k you earn, you lose £1 of your £10k tax-free allowance.
but you gradually lose the £10k allowance above £110k, so it is £150k that the additional rate of 45% kicks in.
dont get how tax bands work. such a massive part of how tories appeal to voters is based on this misunderstanding. WHY SHOULD I BE PENALISED FOR EARNING MORE? as if being put over the tax threshold leaves you with less money than being under it
Think you are right, this renders all my posts in this thread null
I blame hmrc's website, it really isn't clear from the tables that the bands don't include the 10k
At least it means I'm not Tory for thinking 32k was too low, a full 10k lower than society deems ok
that's not what THIS table from HM revs and Customs says
Basic rate: 20%
£0 - £32,010
£0 - £31,865
Higher rate: 40%
£32,011 - £150,000
£31,866 - £150,000
have they just written it out in a stupid way? (which wouldn't surprise me)
Your £10k allowance is non-taxable pay. I agree it's not made clear though.
You take your income, deduct your tax-free allowance and any applicable reliefs and then calculate the banding on what's left (i.e. your taxable income).
where i'm unlikely to vote Conservative.
As for the general election, well, we'll see nearer the time once the manifestos have been published. It definitely won't be Labour, but the Conservatives don't automatically have my vote sewn up by default.
The slogan on this podium enrages me so much my heart wants to jump out of my chest and beat the guy to death. http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/2/25/1393291775670/The-Workers--party-That-s-009.jpg
What about us?
That slogan reads as a cut at the 'lazy unemployed' that our nation is full of according to the red tops.
Famously right wing.
In the next election, I'll probably be voting Yes.
In the next general election, I'll be voting who ever in my local constiuency is best suited for the job - it won't be tory.
Always a laugh,.
But I don't consider myself a nationalist.
They're just the most left wing option available.
But I'm still conflicted. A friend of mine called Plaid a racist party once. Tears.
for the bants
I'll be eligible to vote in the next general electoin. I probaly will be, even if scotland gets indpeendence because we won't have technically seceded form thwe UK by then. I don't know what I'd do with a westiminster vote. spoil my paper probably.
[throws ring in the canal]
The questoin is HOW. Do i dooble ciockls and balls all over it and say Gideon sucks baws, or maybe I just Scrawl, DEMOCRACY: SMELL YER MAW. Maybe I will eat the ballot paper!
Truly the indie choice
it's in the OP
I'm not xylopwn!
i will not be voting tory even a bit, you know.
I don't think they're evil and if you demonise people who vote right-wing, you won't understand them and if you don't understand them, you'll be stuck with right-wing governments for the forseeable.
Anyway. I hate what they're doing to education and the NHS and their general inability (to give them the benefit of the doubt) to understand exactly what it is the private sector is good at what the public sector.
Not that I think Labour are MUCH better on these issues.
I'm actually in favour of what Gove wants to do with schools (although I'm not sure about the feasibility of his plans). Our state education in general is pants and needs significant improvement. Admittedly it would be better to just copy Sweden, but this country is rammed too far up its own arse to get rid of its most exclusive and therefore best schools, which I believe would otherwise improve the overall standard for everyone else and therefore galvanise social mobility. I can't believe we're living in the 21st Century where stuff like this is still a big problem...
It's alright for 99% of parliament who went to Eton and got far in life via the unearned privilege of having rich parents. But I mean, it's not like anyone actually needs that much education in the first place...
and its clear he doesn't really have a clue.
just so I can then write to the losing Tory candidate saying "haha not really you mug, I was joking!" Seems crueller than simply voting against them, which is a good thing.
for all those people on here in 2010 saying, (I paraphrase, natch) "Oh you know, you can't judge the Tory party on how they were under Thatcher, stop being so kneejerk," and this isn't even a full Tory majority.
But i don't think there's been that big a move from people voting Tory > Labour.
I remember everyone saying "these people are total bastards" and then them actually surpassing expectations.
so maybe, without reading the rest of the thread, it should be "what ARE you voting Tory".
Also, apart from student fees and the destruction of the NHS, and the blaming of the poor, and the deaths of hundreds of disabled people, and THE LIE WE HAVE THE HIGHEST DEBT EVER, also the mass foodbank increases and homeless increases of late. OH this helps:
But I wouldn't mind sticking my cock up her arse...
And I miss some hardcore tax chat? Not fair. Not. Fair.
But when reading your (admittedly excellent) posts I was overcome with wistful melancholy. That could have been me talking about tax...
I'd vote UKIP.
but I probably would
such a tory thing to say lol
And if there was no Labour candidate, I'd stand.
Esther McVey is such a bitch
But I wouldn't mind sticking my cock up her arse...
cuntby | 27 Feb '14, 15:50 | ^ This | Reply
Simon Hughes is probably standing as the incumbent in Old Southwark & Bermondsey (my constituency), so I might as well not bother voting Lib Dem and just vote Tory.
Ultimately, I'm very different to most of you. I'm educated working class, but I'm also aspirational. The blues are most closely aligned with the idea of the society I want to live in; one that rewards risk-takers, aspiration and hard graft. I'm honestly not that bothered about equality. I want to live in a society that rewards the inspired rather than those mithering about at the bottom.
I hope you can respect that
are they actually aligned with that though, how many seem like they made it on their own merits rather than the luck of being born into affluence. im not saying there arent conservatives that built themselves up from nothing, but its not the norm. Nothing wrong with rewarding aspiration, but conservatives are more about preserving preexisting wealth
they're the absolute worst for cronyism and funnelling public money to the private sector for utterly dubious reasons.
while making sure that 99% of the population don't have any.
You actually have to allow people without wealth the opportunity and platform to take risks, and also to prevent those with wealth who fail, or atrophy, or gained their wealth, power and influence by luck, circumstance or inheritance from holding on to those assets.
You don't make an aspirational society by making the majority of people's lives shit and then preventing them from improving them.
on an stv ballot paper.
right at the bottom, after the communist, socialists, independent labour, and other assorted random independents. nestling just under labour and just above the christian anti-equal marriage candidate that gets the lowest and last ranking.
It's a statement, not apathy. The only statistic that matters on the day after we get the chance to exercise our democracy that one time every 5 years is how many people felt that that action had lost its meaning. Our political system= very far away from a working accountable democracy.
I'm not going to write down the arithmetic behind that here right now... suffice to say if you canvas the world for voting systems and the nature of their democracies, one would find the UK and US in lowly positions. 2 parties eternally in power aping each other into a malevolent orthodoxy is not a democracy.
when the support of 20% of the electorate shrinks to 2%, as long as they're still getting more votes than their rival candidates? If they think vast swathes of the population are apathetic about how the country is run, does that make them feel more accountable to the average voter, or less likely to run it in an underhanded way?
People just need to get out of the two-party mentality and bloody well vote for someone else.
We are not going to change our political system without masses walking the streets of London, and that my friend isn't going to happen for a while.
In the meantime, we place our voice on the record this way. Then when bombs are dropped on the next Iraq we get to say it wasn't in our name.
It's a political system that locks in the hegemony of the two main parties, and makes it almost impossible for a new or small party to break through. The constituency system means that any small or new party has to spread inconsiderable resources over all 600+ consituencies or settle for concentrated local influence in one constituency like the Greens do.
The argument goes that a spoiled or unadopted ballot goes that one step further towards exposing the ruling class as being as unrepresentative as a military junta in suits and smiles.
political apathy amongst voters breeds a ruling class that's detached and insulated, able to rely on their core and a small % of floating voters to achieve a legislative majority and something approaching a popular mandate.
I don't disagree with your points about the constituency system but you're also over simplifying how unified political parties can be. Governments can and do get defeated from within their own ranks.
Surely there's enough current non-voters, and enough potential furore through social media, that we could at least make a dent in the stranglehold Lab/Con have over this country. Let's be realistic, living in the UK is a bed of roses compared to the situation in the vast majority of the world, and I find it incredibly wasteful that people want to troll the polling station rather than use the modicum of power that we have left.
I think the main problem is the politically-minded youth's failure to communicate anything other than apathy (Brand) or obedient, fart-sniffing academic dissections on the merits of the current two-party system (these threads). Look at the AV referendum - been and gone, and for naught.
No...no..no.. this is not me being simplistic...
You may harbour beliefs of a meritocracy and believe that our welfare state may disincentivise people to work hard. Fairs fair, but that does not mean the Tory party is the answer.
We shall look the other way that half of them are enthralled with the military industrial complex, or racist or fundamentalist isolationist loons or all of the above.
This is the party that more than others is infatuated with privatisation, the disease that more than any other afflicts us now. (I fully understand that Blair and his minions took this mantle and banged their bishops at full pelt to it, but I refuse to see any Labour government being under-done by a Tory one on privatisation). They are a party of ill-educationalists... successive Tory governments have sought to mould education ideologically against all logic. They are a party who historically demonise the poor, and wilfully increase the gap between the rich and the poor.
You may say all manner of bad things about the Liberals and the people who abuse the name of the Labour party... but the havoc they will wreak will not be ideologically weighted to destroy northern England.