Clint Planet
Utter Cad.
Pay and wealth inequality is a bit of an elephant in that there room. It's a massive issue and it's worsening all the time. It cannont be ignored indefinitely.
The 2015 Popularity Contest (aka UK General Election )
- Thread starter rascal
- Start date
- Status
Pay and wealth inequality is a bit of an elephant in that there room. It's a massive issue and it's worsening all the time. It cannont be ignored indefinitely.
Basil Fawlty
Player Valuation: £35m
....I fear that a Tory majority will lead to introduction of some extreme measures under the smoke screen of austerity. There, I said it.
Basil Fawlty
Player Valuation: £35m
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/feb/04/ifs-50bn-pounds-spending-cuts-conservatives-election
Austerity
IFS predicts £50bn spending cuts if Conservatives win election
Institute for Fiscal Studies says UK austerity will be the toughest of all major economies, and warns of across-the-board tax increases in the early years of the next parliament
'Mr Osborne has perhaps not been quite such an austere chancellor as either his own rhetoric or that of his critics might suggest,' the IFS says. Photograph: Andy Rain/EPA
George Osborne’s austerity programme for the next parliament would see Britain enduring a tighter tax and spending squeeze than any other major economy if the Conservatives won the general election, according to tax thinktank the Institute for Fiscal Studies.
In its Green Budget, which analyses the choices facing the chancellor, the IFS compares the coalition’s spending plans with those of 31 other countries. The chancellor’s aim of achieving an overall budget surplus make his plans for Britain the toughest, it said.
The IFS said the drastic squeeze would require further cuts of 14.1%, or more than £50bn, to annual spending over the next five years.
Voters should brace themselves for across-the-board tax increases in the early years of the next parliament, it said, despite all the major parties insisting they can achieve their targets without major rises.
“History suggests that general elections tend to be followed by tax rises. The first year after each of the last five elections has seen the announcement of net tax rises of more than £5 billion per year in today’s terms,” the IFS said.
Labour’s fiscal target, of balancing the current budget as soon as possible in the next parliament, while allowing borrowing to fund investment, would require far less stringent cuts than the Tories’ plans, according to the IFS. Labour could meet its aim by cutting departmental spending by £5.2bn, or 1.4%.
The painful cuts planned by Osborne for the next parliament follow smaller-than-expected real terms cuts over the past five years than the coalition planned when it came to power.
Weak economic growth against the background of the eurozone crisis pushed the chancellor’s debt cutting plans off course but he decided not to make up the shortfall with deeper cuts. The IFS said departmental spending will have fallen by 9.5%, or £38.2bn, by the end of next year, instead of the 10.6% reductions pencilled into the chancellor’s “emergency budget” in 2010.
“Mr Osborne has perhaps not been quite such an austere chancellor as either his own rhetoric or that of his critics might suggest. He deliberately allowed the forecast deficit to rise as growth undershot in the early years of the parliament,” said Paul Johnson, the IFS’s director.
However, while the Conservatives go into the general election promising more pain to come, the sharp decline in oil prices means the economic outlook is rosier than for some time.
Oxford Economics, the consultancy that co-wrote the Green Budget, expects growth of 3% this year and zero inflation, with consumer spending supported by cheaper energy.
Andrew Goodwin, senior economist at Oxford Economics, said: “For UK households the collapse in the price of oil is the equivalent of a large VAT cut, a pre-election giveaway financed largely by the oil producers. This will provide a significant boost to households’ spending power”. “The public finances have a long way to go before they finally recover from the effects of the financial crisis,” Johnson said.
Pienaar's gloves
Player Valuation: £35m
And can you offer me your in-depth knowledge of their policies on: education, defence, welfare, the environment, public spending...?
Mate, UKIP would come down just as harshly on the disabled. I don't know anyone who would do the jobs that I see most un-skilled foreigners doing. We could do with more people in the UK with their attitude.
Basil Fawlty
Player Valuation: £35m
http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/...s-no-friend-of-the-working-class#.VOxs2fmsUSU
Farage’s self-promotion as an anti-Establishment figure who will champion the cause of the “white working class” obscures his true political identity. A public school educated former member of the Tory Party who followed his father into a lucrative career as a stockbroker is hardly likely to be a class warrior.
Farage is a French Huguenot name and so his ancestors are likely to have arrived in Britain as refugees fleeing persecution by a French Catholic elite massacring Protestants during the 16th and 17th centuries.
Hundreds of thousands of Huguenots sought refuge in neighbouring Protestant countries, including Britain.
Lucky for Farage’s ancestors there was no Ukip or Daily Mail at the time to screech on about a mass influx of European immigrants coming to Britain to take jobs away from British serfs and threatening to ruin the traditional 17th century British way of life.
Ukip seeks to plug an electoral void that ought to be filled by a Labour Party offering a socialist programme.
Fundamentally Ukip offers the chance for a protest vote against the three main parties who have little to offer the majority of British people.
Even a casual glance at Ukip’s policies in their 2010 manifesto reveals their anti-working class nature.
A proposed flat tax rate of 31 per cent will benefit the wealthy and plans to cut state spending to 1997 levels, with a loss of potentially two million public-sector jobs, does not sound altogether different from what the Tories are currently doing.
An increase in military spending, with plans to “buy three new aircraft carriers and 50 more Lightning fighter jets,” sits alongside plans to scrap jobseeker’s allowance and incapacity benefit. The 2010 Ukip manifesto also proposes that GPs’ surgeries and hospitals are auctioned off to the highest bidding charity or private enterprise.
A five-year freeze on immigration, an end to the promotion of multiculturalism, more prisons and longer prison sentences, the scrapping of the Human Rights Act, a ban on schools showing Al Gore’s film An Inconvenient Truth which portrays the destructive effects of climate change, plans to hold all asylum-seekers in secure units, as well as other related ideas to make the average bigot orgasm are also thrown into the manifesto.
As for the party’s public image, Godfrey Bloom, a former banker and until recently a Ukip MEP, adds a flavour of misogyny with comments such as “no self-respecting small businessman with a brain in the right place would ever employ a lady of child-bearing age.”
Despite the protest vote popularity that Ukip currently enjoys, if it ever came to power as part of a coalition government it would be quickly exposed to the electorate at large as just another party which serves the interests of the ruling class.
Ukip’s chance of picking up more than a handful, if any, parliamentary seats in the next general election is slim. However, its main threat is two-fold.
The threat of losing votes and seats in Parliament could result in the Tory party lurching further to the right as they try to outdo their Ukip rivals with reaction, bigotry and callousness.
More worryingly, there is the risk that a section of the leadership within the Labour Party might erroneously imagine that Ukip/right-wing Tory policies are those that appeal to the electorate and try to keep up with Cameron and Farage.
Second, Ukip uses fear and reaction to mesmerise voters who might otherwise have voted for a Labour Party with policies that serve the interests of the working class.
For this reason, the Labour Party ought to offer voters a real alternative by returning to its original principles, namely Clause 4 of the 1918 text of the Labour Party constitution which states: “To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service.”
A socialist solution to the problems of global capitalism by returning to the core values of the Labour Party would give the British working class, be they Labour members or not, ideals to rally around, a voice in Parliament and hope for a better future.
A socialist solution to the crisis is needed — houses for the homeless, jobs for the jobless, a redistribution of wealth, decent pensions and public services, the revival of the manufacturing industry, common ownership of the banks and the largest 100 companies would be a good start.
Chicago-based activist Paul D’Amato wrote in his 2006 book The Meaning Of Marxism: “The memory of the working class can only be embodied in organisations that are capable of carrying on the tradition.”
Capitalism has outlived its historical usefulness. Rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic does not offer the stricken passengers a way off the boat.
The transition to a system run by the majority in the interests of all — one based on emulation not competition and co-operation not competition — is needed now more than ever.
Farage’s self-promotion as an anti-Establishment figure who will champion the cause of the “white working class” obscures his true political identity. A public school educated former member of the Tory Party who followed his father into a lucrative career as a stockbroker is hardly likely to be a class warrior.
Farage is a French Huguenot name and so his ancestors are likely to have arrived in Britain as refugees fleeing persecution by a French Catholic elite massacring Protestants during the 16th and 17th centuries.
Hundreds of thousands of Huguenots sought refuge in neighbouring Protestant countries, including Britain.
Lucky for Farage’s ancestors there was no Ukip or Daily Mail at the time to screech on about a mass influx of European immigrants coming to Britain to take jobs away from British serfs and threatening to ruin the traditional 17th century British way of life.
Ukip seeks to plug an electoral void that ought to be filled by a Labour Party offering a socialist programme.
Fundamentally Ukip offers the chance for a protest vote against the three main parties who have little to offer the majority of British people.
Even a casual glance at Ukip’s policies in their 2010 manifesto reveals their anti-working class nature.
A proposed flat tax rate of 31 per cent will benefit the wealthy and plans to cut state spending to 1997 levels, with a loss of potentially two million public-sector jobs, does not sound altogether different from what the Tories are currently doing.
An increase in military spending, with plans to “buy three new aircraft carriers and 50 more Lightning fighter jets,” sits alongside plans to scrap jobseeker’s allowance and incapacity benefit. The 2010 Ukip manifesto also proposes that GPs’ surgeries and hospitals are auctioned off to the highest bidding charity or private enterprise.
A five-year freeze on immigration, an end to the promotion of multiculturalism, more prisons and longer prison sentences, the scrapping of the Human Rights Act, a ban on schools showing Al Gore’s film An Inconvenient Truth which portrays the destructive effects of climate change, plans to hold all asylum-seekers in secure units, as well as other related ideas to make the average bigot orgasm are also thrown into the manifesto.
As for the party’s public image, Godfrey Bloom, a former banker and until recently a Ukip MEP, adds a flavour of misogyny with comments such as “no self-respecting small businessman with a brain in the right place would ever employ a lady of child-bearing age.”
Despite the protest vote popularity that Ukip currently enjoys, if it ever came to power as part of a coalition government it would be quickly exposed to the electorate at large as just another party which serves the interests of the ruling class.
Ukip’s chance of picking up more than a handful, if any, parliamentary seats in the next general election is slim. However, its main threat is two-fold.
The threat of losing votes and seats in Parliament could result in the Tory party lurching further to the right as they try to outdo their Ukip rivals with reaction, bigotry and callousness.
More worryingly, there is the risk that a section of the leadership within the Labour Party might erroneously imagine that Ukip/right-wing Tory policies are those that appeal to the electorate and try to keep up with Cameron and Farage.
Second, Ukip uses fear and reaction to mesmerise voters who might otherwise have voted for a Labour Party with policies that serve the interests of the working class.
For this reason, the Labour Party ought to offer voters a real alternative by returning to its original principles, namely Clause 4 of the 1918 text of the Labour Party constitution which states: “To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service.”
A socialist solution to the problems of global capitalism by returning to the core values of the Labour Party would give the British working class, be they Labour members or not, ideals to rally around, a voice in Parliament and hope for a better future.
A socialist solution to the crisis is needed — houses for the homeless, jobs for the jobless, a redistribution of wealth, decent pensions and public services, the revival of the manufacturing industry, common ownership of the banks and the largest 100 companies would be a good start.
Chicago-based activist Paul D’Amato wrote in his 2006 book The Meaning Of Marxism: “The memory of the working class can only be embodied in organisations that are capable of carrying on the tradition.”
Capitalism has outlived its historical usefulness. Rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic does not offer the stricken passengers a way off the boat.
The transition to a system run by the majority in the interests of all — one based on emulation not competition and co-operation not competition — is needed now more than ever.
Basil Fawlty
Player Valuation: £35m
Whilst Farage has recently tried to distance himself from the 2010 manifesto, describing it as “drivel”, there has been little mention of what concretely would be in the 2015 manifesto, other than the UKIP silver bullet of withdrawal from the European Union – a panacea that is supposed to solve all the problems facing ordinary British people.
An interview with Bloom, one of the leading figures behind UKIP’s economic policies, however, highlights the real programme that workers can expect from UKIP: a flat tax rate of 25%; abolition of inheritance tax and National Insurance; a 100% cut in overseas aid and significant cuts to education, welfare, and the public sector in general; and, of course, the elimination of all payments to the EU.
“...public sector jobs...are taking money out of the economy and wealth creation. I hope hundreds, thousands of jobs will be lost...You will never understand UKIP until you understand this point. Public spending takes money out of the economy, it doesn’t put it in.” These words of Bloom’s represent the real voice of UKIP: the distinctly anti-working class voice of the most reactionary, libertarian, pro-free market section of the capitalist class.
Attacks on workers
To distract from these blatantly pro-capitalist policies, Farage and Bloom happily partake in a bit of banker bashing, trying to tap into the anti-banker sentiment that has been bubbling away in society since the beginning of the crisis. Alongside this, Farage cleverly aims his anti-EU arguments against the technocrats and bureaucrats in Brussels, crying crocodile tears about the austerity in southern Europe and blaming this EU-induced austerity for the immigration of Greeks and Spaniards to Britain.
However, whilst highlighting the irresponsibility of the bankers and the austerity of the EU technocrats, Farage and UKIP fail to talk quite so loudly about their own pro-business programme of austerity and attacks on workers’ wages and conditions. Whilst nominally speaking out against big business, the UKIP leader happily champions himself as the defender of small and medium enterprises by promising to abolish “regulations”, i.e. workers’ rights – again, “regulation” that is “imposed” on the good people of Britain by the evil bureaucrats of the EU.
As the Institute of Employment Rights (IER) demonstrate, UKIP’s less promoted policies are aimed at the abolition of a whole host of worker and trade union rights, including: an end to statutory maternity, paternity, and adoption pay; the repeal of much employment rights legislation; “an end to most legislation regarding matters such as weekly working hours, holidays…overtime, redundancy or sick pay”; and the mandatory introduction of “very short employment contract” templates. As the IER correctly state, “Many voters who chose UKIP as a vote against the ‘political class’ might be surprised at what they have planned for the working classes.”
For all the bluster and criticism by Farage of the EU and the austerity it imposes on workers in southern Europe, it seems that UKIP would be all too happy to impose similar brutally exploitative conditions on workers (of all ethnicities, religions, and nationalities) here in Britain. Far from being an anti-business party for the hard working people of Britain, it is clear that Farage and co. would make the people of Britain work even harder for the sake of the profits of the capitalists.
Exposed by power
Despite the protest-vote-popularity that UKIP currently enjoy, if they ever came to power - as part of a coalition government or in local government - they would quickly be exposed to the electorate at large as just another party which serves the interests of the ruling class.
The chance of UKIP picking up more than a handful, if any parliamentary seats, in the next general election is slim. However, the party poses a threat to the Tories, who could lose votes and seats in parliament to UKIP. Hence sections of the Tory Party are putting pressure on Cameron to move further to the right as they try to outdo their UKIP rivals with reaction, bigotry and callousness.
Worryingly, a section of the leadership within the Labour Party also panders to the anti-immigration rhetoric whipped up by UKIP and the Tory backbenchers. Rather than explaining the real causes for the lack of jobs, housing, and public services – that is, the crisis of capitalism – the Labour leaders all too frequently try to out flank the Tories in terms of their “hardness” on the question of immigration.
Labour must offer a socialist solution
The Labour Party ought to offer voters a real alternative by returning to its original principles, namely Clause 4 of the 1918 text of the Labour Party constitution which states:
“to secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service.”
A socialist alternative to the crisis is needed: houses for the homeless; jobs for the jobless; and decent pensions and public services – all funded through the democratic and public ownership of the banks and major monopolies. Such a solution to the problems of global capitalism would give the working class ideals to rally around, a voice in parliament, and hope for a better future. Such an alternative to austerity would present a real choice to the electorate - one between two distinct sets of policies, rather than between the different shades of grey that are being offered to working class by the current main political leaders.
Capitalism has outlived its historical usefulness. Rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic does not offer the stricken passengers a way off the boat. The transition to a system run by the majority in the interests of all is needed now more than ever.
http://www.socialist.net/farage-and-ukip-anti-establishment-or-anti-working-class.htm
An interview with Bloom, one of the leading figures behind UKIP’s economic policies, however, highlights the real programme that workers can expect from UKIP: a flat tax rate of 25%; abolition of inheritance tax and National Insurance; a 100% cut in overseas aid and significant cuts to education, welfare, and the public sector in general; and, of course, the elimination of all payments to the EU.
“...public sector jobs...are taking money out of the economy and wealth creation. I hope hundreds, thousands of jobs will be lost...You will never understand UKIP until you understand this point. Public spending takes money out of the economy, it doesn’t put it in.” These words of Bloom’s represent the real voice of UKIP: the distinctly anti-working class voice of the most reactionary, libertarian, pro-free market section of the capitalist class.
Attacks on workers
To distract from these blatantly pro-capitalist policies, Farage and Bloom happily partake in a bit of banker bashing, trying to tap into the anti-banker sentiment that has been bubbling away in society since the beginning of the crisis. Alongside this, Farage cleverly aims his anti-EU arguments against the technocrats and bureaucrats in Brussels, crying crocodile tears about the austerity in southern Europe and blaming this EU-induced austerity for the immigration of Greeks and Spaniards to Britain.
However, whilst highlighting the irresponsibility of the bankers and the austerity of the EU technocrats, Farage and UKIP fail to talk quite so loudly about their own pro-business programme of austerity and attacks on workers’ wages and conditions. Whilst nominally speaking out against big business, the UKIP leader happily champions himself as the defender of small and medium enterprises by promising to abolish “regulations”, i.e. workers’ rights – again, “regulation” that is “imposed” on the good people of Britain by the evil bureaucrats of the EU.
As the Institute of Employment Rights (IER) demonstrate, UKIP’s less promoted policies are aimed at the abolition of a whole host of worker and trade union rights, including: an end to statutory maternity, paternity, and adoption pay; the repeal of much employment rights legislation; “an end to most legislation regarding matters such as weekly working hours, holidays…overtime, redundancy or sick pay”; and the mandatory introduction of “very short employment contract” templates. As the IER correctly state, “Many voters who chose UKIP as a vote against the ‘political class’ might be surprised at what they have planned for the working classes.”
For all the bluster and criticism by Farage of the EU and the austerity it imposes on workers in southern Europe, it seems that UKIP would be all too happy to impose similar brutally exploitative conditions on workers (of all ethnicities, religions, and nationalities) here in Britain. Far from being an anti-business party for the hard working people of Britain, it is clear that Farage and co. would make the people of Britain work even harder for the sake of the profits of the capitalists.
Exposed by power
Despite the protest-vote-popularity that UKIP currently enjoy, if they ever came to power - as part of a coalition government or in local government - they would quickly be exposed to the electorate at large as just another party which serves the interests of the ruling class.
The chance of UKIP picking up more than a handful, if any parliamentary seats, in the next general election is slim. However, the party poses a threat to the Tories, who could lose votes and seats in parliament to UKIP. Hence sections of the Tory Party are putting pressure on Cameron to move further to the right as they try to outdo their UKIP rivals with reaction, bigotry and callousness.
Worryingly, a section of the leadership within the Labour Party also panders to the anti-immigration rhetoric whipped up by UKIP and the Tory backbenchers. Rather than explaining the real causes for the lack of jobs, housing, and public services – that is, the crisis of capitalism – the Labour leaders all too frequently try to out flank the Tories in terms of their “hardness” on the question of immigration.
Labour must offer a socialist solution
The Labour Party ought to offer voters a real alternative by returning to its original principles, namely Clause 4 of the 1918 text of the Labour Party constitution which states:
“to secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service.”
A socialist alternative to the crisis is needed: houses for the homeless; jobs for the jobless; and decent pensions and public services – all funded through the democratic and public ownership of the banks and major monopolies. Such a solution to the problems of global capitalism would give the working class ideals to rally around, a voice in parliament, and hope for a better future. Such an alternative to austerity would present a real choice to the electorate - one between two distinct sets of policies, rather than between the different shades of grey that are being offered to working class by the current main political leaders.
Capitalism has outlived its historical usefulness. Rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic does not offer the stricken passengers a way off the boat. The transition to a system run by the majority in the interests of all is needed now more than ever.
http://www.socialist.net/farage-and-ukip-anti-establishment-or-anti-working-class.htm
toffee matt
Player Valuation: £60m
The green party leader has came across terribly in all the interviews she's done today.
Anyone even thinking of voting for that lot need to listen to the LBC interview.
http://www.lbc.co.uk/incredibly-awkward-interview-with-natalie-bennett-105384
peteblue
Welcome back Wayne
Just wondering what type of demographic this belongs to...
In an interview with The Independent on Sunday focusing on the Great Grimsby seat, he said: “There is no chance we'll lose Grimsby, even if we selected a raving alcoholic sex paedophile we wouldn't lose Grimsby”
Mrk
Player Valuation: £40m
Good god - it's almost comical.
Basil Fawlty
Player Valuation: £35m
Maybe it's for the best if they're left out of the TV debates for their own sake. Car crash radio that. Very little research done into one of their major policies. She said she was full of cold though and your brain can get foggy when you get a cold sometimes. I hope that's the case, if not that's shocking.
Milk
Udderly delicious
Mrk
Player Valuation: £40m
It's not the first time she's done this, she was easily taken apart by Andrew Neil a few weeks ago.
It's typical of the Green party - promising the world without understanding how they'll pay for their promises. The fact that some people take them seriously astounds me - they're even more ludicrous than UKIP.
- Status
Welcome
Join Grand Old Team to get involved in the Everton discussion. Signing up is quick, easy, and completely free.
Shop
