[Politics] Tony Blair doubts Labour can be 'taken back by moderates'

Weststander · Sep 9, 2018

Harry Wilson's tackle said:
What? Have I got this wrong? I looked it up and I am not wrong.

So I assume you think I'm an idiot for objecting to it.

Why?

A flat rate of tax means:

1.The more you earn the more you pay, in exact proportion to what you earn
2. There is no disincentive to earn more
3. If there can be no loopholes (and why not?), everyone must pay it
4. It is inexpensive to opperate

Today the rich pay little or no tax. This is because progressive taxation is inherently unfair so all governments, including lefty ones, allow schemes that let people minimise tax by charity donation, certain types of investments and various other complex weirdness in the business and investment sector. Progressive taxation therefore allows the rich to avoid paying tax

Progressive taxation must also be monitored, checked and managed. Governments invest far too little into this which is why so many people dodge tax. On the other hand we have a massive tax law industry, whereby people are paid to 'do' peoples' tax returns.

This is all feeble needless bollocks. A flat rate of tax with no exceptions would be an absolute wonder in my view, and arguments about fairness are false.

Let me say it again. Ten percent of ten is one. Ten percent of a hundred is ten. The more you earn, the more you pay. Twenty percent of a hundred is twenty, twice as much in percentage terms than ten percent. But ten is more than one. To argue as my brother does that ten per cent of 100 is not more than ten percent of 10 and is therefore 'unfair'and not 'progressive' is absurd. Whenever was ten not more than one? Whenever was penalising people for earning more 'fair'.

'Progressive' taxation, I suspect, is one of those deliberately counterintuitive jargon terms so beloved of political twisters. Ministry of truth. Orwellian.

I couldn't agree more, about having a single (it would be higher) rate of income tax. At the same time to do away with employees national insurance. The record of payments for accruing state pension etc, would be replaced by a record of income tax paid.

This would hugely simplifiy the UK tax system, which stretches to several volumninous texts. Saving great cost in collection.

It would also remove all the incentives for businessmen to only draw up to the upper level of tax bands, or making legitimate tax planning moves to keep below those thresholds such as paying large pension premiums.

Separately, all talk in this thread of increasing amounts of unpaid tax through useless HMRC, tax fraud and evasion is factually incorrect. HMRC in recent years have been raising multi £B of additional tax take by tackling non payment, fraud/evasion and dubious tax avoidance schemes. The figures are published. They've had so much success that many rich individuals and their advisors, plus some anti HMRC posters on NSC, have cried foul about Governments/HMRC being too heavy handed.

drew · Sep 9, 2018

Weststander said:
I couldn't agree more, about having a single (it would be higher) rate of income tax. At the same time to do away with employees national insurance. The record of payments for accruing state pension etc, would be replaced by a record of income tax paid.

This would hugely simplifiy the UK tax system, which stretches to several volumninous texts. Saving great cost in collection.

It would also remove all the incentives for businessmen to only draw up to the upper level of tax bands, or making legitimate tax planning moves to keep below those thresholds such as paying large pension premiums.

Separately, all talk in this thread of increasing amounts of unpaid tax through useless HMRC, tax fraud and evasion is factually incorrect. HMRC in recent years have been raising multi £B of additional tax take by tackling non payment, fraud/evasion and dubious tax avoidance schemes. The figures are published. They've had so much success that many rich individuals and their advisors, plus some anti HMRC posters on NSC, have cried foul about Governments/HMRC being too heavy handed.

Wouldn't necessarily argue against a flat rate tax provided it had the safeguards of a relevant tax allowance so as not to penalise the low paid. I assume the rate of income tax would also be the same as any rate of corporation tax. Do you have links for the hmrc figures as would be interested to see those.

pastafarian · Sep 9, 2018

Wardy's twin said:
All Blair is doing is trying to defend the party he rebuilt and the people who are now much derided - the blairites or as the new left would call them closet Tories...

There are those of course who would argue that Blair bastardised the Labour movement with his rebuilding.
Perhaps it is time for a split, with one side remaining or staying faithful to party roots and the Blairite/Tory lite brigade moving into a more centrist position where they clearly feel more comfortable, especially as there will probably be a call for a pro big business -pro EU party post Brexit and the Lib Dems dont look like they can cut the mustard

Bozza · Sep 10, 2018

Genuinely interested to know how many of those who always vote Labour regardless, did vote for Blair and/or did celebrate a Labour government finally returning to power.

I would be surprised if many of them didn't, although some may now pretend they didn't, although I'm not sure why as the unravelling of Blair happened long after he triumphantly entered Number 10 for the first time.

In short, I think many of the blinkered Labour sorts we have on here are very much guilty of after-timing, to borrow the phrase of one of them, with regard to their current views on Blair.

drew · Sep 10, 2018

Bozza said:
Genuinely interested to know how many of those who always vote Labour regardless, did vote for Blair and/or did celebrate a Labour government finally returning to power.

I would be surprised if many of them didn't, although some may now pretend they didn't, although I'm not sure why as the unravelling of Blair happened long after he triumphantly entered Number 10 for the first time.

In short, I think many of the blinkered Labour sorts we have on here are very much guilty of after-timing, to borrow the phrase of one of them, with regard to their current views on Blair.

I voted for Blair but wouldn't vote for someone like Foot or Corbyn. The Iraq was is what he will be remembered for but I'd stake my house on the fact that had the Tories been in power they would have also taken us into that war. Same with the 2008 recession.

drew · Sep 10, 2018

pastafarian said:
There are those of course who would argue that Blair bastardised the Labour movement with his rebuilding.
Perhaps it is time for a split, with one side remaining or staying faithful to party roots and the Blairite/Tory lite brigade moving into a more centrist position where they clearly feel more comfortable, especially as there will probably be a call for a pro big business -pro EU party post Brexit and the Lib Dems dont look like they can cut the mustard

Bastardised is one word, another is electable! I would however agree that there should be a split. Not sure the electorate are split along party lines as rigidly as they were 40 years ago.

pastafarian · Sep 10, 2018

drew said:
Bastardised is one word, another is electable! I would however agree that there should be a split. Not sure the electorate are split along party lines as rigidly as they were 40 years ago.

Electable yes, certainly agree, but at what expense to those who would class themselves as old school Labour. I really can see a split happening. Like it or not Brexit after we have left the EU is still going to play a big part in politics. Tory split is about 40-60 IN/OUT, Labour split 65-35 IN/OUT, Lib Dems split 70-30 IN/OUT.
Im sure someone is calculating the numbers and realising there is scope for a New Labour party along Blairite thinking, that is centrist and pro close alignment with Europe that could pick up numbers from the lib dems and some Tories as well like Blair did, and comfortably sit themselves in the mix, quite where this leaves the left along Corbyn lines is anyones guess, would those ex blairites that now embrace Corbyn stay with him or jump ship back to more of a middle position.
There is also the matter of the damage a split would do initially, some voters could be put off all together with both split sections, at least until the turmoil died down.
Perhaps a split and a re positioning of the electorate is just what the country needs to actually settle the country down with less in party fighting and more of a focus back to policy.

Mental Lental · Sep 10, 2018

drew said:
The Iraq was is what he will be remembered for but I'd stake my house on the fact that had the Tories been in power they would have also taken us into that war. Same with the 2008 recession.

Of course they bloody would've. America says "jump" UK says "how high"? To lay that war on Blair is an easy scapegoat, any other leader would have gone into that war as well.

Mo Gosfield · Sep 10, 2018

attila said:
Should be on trial at The Hague, no credibility to talk about anything, a total disgrace that the media still give him airtime. Responsible for an illegal war, the facilitation of ISIS, a nauseating globalisation culture which decimated our communities and paved the way for a ' *Labour*' government to relax rules which allowed the Archering of our financial system by profiteering scum in 2008 - exactly the same mindset that nearly destroyed our club. Utter filth. Nothing to do with socialism, nothing to do with the Labour Party of today. End of. He and his ideas are finished.

Totally agree.
......and to add....allowed annual freedom of movement into this country of unaccountable hundreds of thousands on an unprecedented scale for calculated and cynical political reasons, which has unstabilised this country and done irreparable damage. Adopted a disgraceful attitude to the education of our young by annually ' massaging ' the exam figures, to ensure more and more higher grade passes and therefore more and more university places. The damage to this generation is irreparable. To surround himself with savvy, odious slimeballs, PR crazy and determined at all costs to continue to make Labour electable, at whatever cost to the country.
Oh...they were New Labour alright.

Mo Gosfield · Sep 10, 2018

Mental Lental said:
Of course they bloody would've. America says "jump" UK says "how high"? To lay that war on Blair is an easy scapegoat, any other leader would have gone into that war as well.

Doesn't exactly wipe his slate clean though, does it.

Gwylan · Sep 10, 2018

Mental Lental said:
Of course they bloody would've. America says "jump" UK says "how high"? To lay that war on Blair is an easy scapegoat, any other leader would have gone into that war as well.

Harold Wilson refused to commit any troops to Vietnam - despite constant pressure from the US. PMs don't always have to jump to the American tune

Harry Wilson's tackle · Sep 10, 2018

drew said:
I voted for Blair but wouldn't vote for someone like Foot or Corbyn. The Iraq was is what he will be remembered for but I'd stake my house on the fact that had the Tories been in power they would have also taken us into that war. Same with the 2008 recession.

This. Completely.

But [MENTION=6886]Bozza[/MENTION] meant how many 'no compromise with the electorate' 'militant' 1980s lefties voted for Blair and celebrated the win. Like him I would suggest the answer is most of them. I don't recall the 'hard left' ever getting antsi about Blair until long after the Iraq war, when that 'poor man' was 'killed by Blair and the secret service' over being 'forced to lie over the illegal war' and all the rest of that utter old bollocks.

Herr Tubthumper · Sep 10, 2018

Bozza said:
Genuinely interested to know how many of those who always vote Labour regardless, did vote for Blair and/or did celebrate a Labour government finally returning to power.

I would be surprised if many of them didn't, although some may now pretend they didn't, although I'm not sure why as the unravelling of Blair happened long after he triumphantly entered Number 10 for the first time.

In short, I think many of the blinkered Labour sorts we have on here are very much guilty of after-timing, to borrow the phrase of one of them, with regard to their current views on Blair.

I voted for, and celebrated Blair, but it was as much about getting shot of the Tories as it was Labour getting in. He did a lot of good but tuition fees and Iraq ruined it for me. I think he also lost touch with working class voters like myself. As an open-minded voter, who hasn’t always voted Labour, I changed my mind on him.

Peteinblack · Sep 10, 2018

Blair, Mandelson, etc, are stuck in the 1990s, their policies (many of which were a continuation of Tory policies) contributed to many of the problems facing Britain today, and which contributed towards Brexit.

Blair, New Labour, and the Tories (assisted by the spineless Lib Dems) all pursued policies which have led to obscene levels of inequality (with many CEOs paid £millions while their employees are on the breadline, and reliant on welfare top-up benefits to survive poverty wages), unaffordable housing for the younger generation, exorbitant rents charged by parasitic buy-to-let landlords, students incurring £10,000s of debt for a university education which used to be free, public services being run as businesses and taken over by Serco, G4S, and their ilk (almost every week, their incompetence and financial losses are becoming more apparent, yet still they are being showered with taxpayers’ money in contracts to run prisons, etc), zero hours contracts (‘labour market flexibility’), and much of our economy being sold-off or taken-over by foreign firms and governments - not ‘taking back control’, but happily giving it away in accordance with free-market ideology.

I liked Blair in 1997, but now despise him and the other New Labour whingers - they had their chance, but blew it.

drew · Sep 10, 2018

Harry Wilson's tackle said:
This. Completely.

But [MENTION=6886]Bozza[/MENTION] meant how many 'no compromise with the electorate' 'militant' 1980s lefties voted for Blair and celebrated the win. Like him I would suggest the answer is most of them. I don't recall the 'hard left' ever getting antsi about Blair until long after the Iraq war, when that 'poor man' was 'killed by Blair and the secret service' over being 'forced to lie over the illegal war' and all the rest of that utter old bollocks.

They probably did but to be fair, with the electoral system we have a lot of people vote tactically. In Mid Sussex a labour vote was always a waste so the next best thing to get rid of Soames seemed to be to vote Libdem although that seems to be changing as in 2005, labour only got 6k votes and 3k in 2010 but in 2015 that went up to 7k and then in 2017 15k!

Mo Gosfield · Sep 10, 2018

Gwylan said:
Harold Wilson refused to commit any troops to Vietnam - despite constant pressure from the US. PMs don't always have to jump to the American tune

Now that was proper leadership.

mejonaNO12 aka riskit · Sep 10, 2018

Gwylan said:
PMs don't always have to jump to the American tune

What if it's Mr Brightside?

Pretty pink fairy · Sep 10, 2018

herr tubthumper said:
i voted for, and celebrated blair, but it was as much about getting shot of the tories as it was labour getting in. He did a lot of good but tuition fees and iraq ruined it for me. I think he also lost touch with working class voters like myself. As an open-minded voter, who hasn’t always voted labour, i changed my mind on him.

"working class voters like myself"...………... oh please i've just pissed myself :laugh:

regards
DR

spring hall convert · Sep 10, 2018

Bozza said:
Genuinely interested to know how many of those who always vote Labour regardless, did vote for Blair and/or did celebrate a Labour government finally returning to power.

I would be surprised if many of them didn't, although some may now pretend they didn't, although I'm not sure why as the unravelling of Blair happened long after he triumphantly entered Number 10 for the first time.

In short, I think many of the blinkered Labour sorts we have on here are very much guilty of after-timing, to borrow the phrase of one of them, with regard to their current views on Blair.

I'm not sure it's a totally fair comparison. In '97 The Tories had a completely ineffective leader, were being torn apart by Europe and couldn't go a week without someone having to resign for some scandal or other. They were pretty much unelectable.

Oh, I think I get your point.....

nwgull · Sep 10, 2018

drew said:
Apologies. I am refering to your second example, ie the more you earn the higher the 'rate' of tax you pay. So in this country we have a tax free allowance, a base rate then the another rate and finally a rate for those over £150k. If we had a better tax collection regime then maybe there would be more money to spend on public services and bring them up to scratch.

There is also a bizarre region at 100K - 123.7K where your personal allowance is eroded by £1 for every £2 earned, meaning that the effective tax rate is 60%. I imagine that that's quite a dissinsentive to work much harder if you're fortunate enough to be at the £100K threshold.

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[Politics] Tony Blair doubts Labour can be 'taken back by moderates'

Well-known member

Drew

Well-known member

You can change this

Drew

Drew

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Harry Wilson's Tackle

Well-known member

Well-known member

Drew

Well-known member

Well-known member

Banned

Well-known member

Well-known member

Share this page