Jump to content

Ed Miliband Is The New Labour Leader

Recommended Posts


Bell positive over working with Labour leader Miliband


THE Isle of Man will be able to build a positive working relationship with the new Labour leadership, Economic Development Minister Allan Bell MHK says.

The minister met briefly with the Labour Party's new leader, Ed Miliband, as well as a number of key members of the shadow cabinet while he attended the Labour Party Conference in Manchester this week.


"Not a bad suite I suppose. The restaurant was good and expensive - but hey!"


"Elbowed my way to the front. Managed to touch Ed's fingers as he glad-handed the mob on his way back to his car. Sorted."


"Buttonholed some folks wearing red rosettes (they just must be important!) in the bar this pm. After I had dealt with their misconstrued idea of our whereabouts and explained that we weren't actually opposite Southampton they seemed to lose interest..."


"Got in some serious shopping. Doesn't Xmas come around earlier and earlier? Hey ho."


"Oh well, back to the club..."

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 69
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

the answer as to who will pay is the poor, as they always have to pay when the Tories are in power.

Edited for truth.

Oh look, another LOONY LEFTY.


Labour have had the poor paying through the nose for the last 13 years. They have just been delaying your repayment!

Oh look, one from the RABID RIGHT!

Don't worry, I'm sure Osborne will find some national assets to flog that the previous lot missed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the answer as to who will pay is the poor, as they always have to pay when the Tories are in power.

Edited for truth.

I find it almost impossible to have a rational argument with people about these sorts of issues. Frankly its complicated and reducing it to stereotypes etc isn't much use. Look, NuLabour wasn't any better than Maggie at improving the lot of the poor, and the reason there is austerity now is because Nulabour used borrowing to expand the state to be larger than can be afforded and it has to be cut - that is going to hurt, and how the Tories do it is important - but historically they aren't any different from nulabour. The IFS figures PK has latched onto are NOT complete - they ignore Duncan Smith's reforms, and are projections not facts PK - well have to wait and see. I hope welfare reform will work!


I believe that the state has to be there for those in need - "there but for the Grace of God go I" is an important political principle, as is noblesse obligue. The rich have a moral obligation to help the poor and not the other way round!


Now lets look at the figures P.K. has linked to - you need to delve into the PDF document which explains the Press Release he linked to.


People are concentrating on Taxes and saying they are progressive or regressive or whatever.


But that is only looking at one side of the equation - people recieve benefits as well - the issue has to be overall who recives more or less once BOTH taxes and benefits are looked at.


You can look at the basic cash amounts:


The Lowest Quintile recieves £12,746 in Direct and Indirect Benefits, Health Care etc and pays £4,132 in Direct and Indirect Taxes. Meaning on average they recieve £8,614 paid for by Taxation.


For all the quintiles the figures are


Quintile 1 £12,746 - £4,132 = Recieve £8,614

Quintile 2 £14,013 - £6,115 = Recieve £7,898

Quintile 3 £11,756 - £9,362 = Recieve £2,394

Quintile 4 £8,609 - £14,377 = Pay £5,768

Quintile 5 £5,675 - £ 25,609 = Pay £19,934


If you only look at one side of the equation there are madnesses in the figures - the poorest quintile recieve less benefits than the second poorest - but when you look at the net - the poorest recieve the most, the richest pay the most with steps inbetween.


Now how should you look at these figures in order to understand how "progressive" the figures are.


The Government Statiticians, and good old Mr Murphy look at it as a proportion of Net earnings PLUS Cash Benefits.


I find that a rather odd measure - tax is calculated on Gross income, and when you add in Cash Benefits you are including a government benefit as a given in the figures. Wierd!


I suspect they are doing it because the basic Tax system is massively regressive for the lower quintiles and it is only when you add in the cash benefits they recieve that you get any thing which looks like a fair system!


Lets start where P.K started - with income where the richest quintile earns 15 times more than the poorest quintile (this is net income after tax has been paid - its what actually arrives in your bank account after tax has gone) - on average for every £ that comes into a 1st quintile household from working or their savings (if any!) £1.73 arrives from the Government. They are subsidized by 173%.


For all the quintiles the figures are:


Quintile 1 Earn £1 recieve £1.73

Quintile 2 Earn £1 recieve £0.66

Quintile 3 Earn £1 recieve £0.10

Quintile 4 Earn £1 pays £0.15

Quintile 5 Earn £1 pays £0.27


Is this fair or not? How are you to quantify it?


When Terse says the poor are going to pay what he really means they are going to recieve less. If after reforms the lowest quintile earns £1 and recieves £1.50 are people really going to say they are PAYING more?


That is twisting the issue, if you ask me.


The 1st, 2nd and 3rd quintile recieve more in benefits than they pay in taxes. In the report it breaks it down by deciles and the figures are even more frightening - even the average member of the 6th decile pays NO net taxes, after you've taken health, education and benefits into account.


Its complicated, but I for one really respect Duncan Smith for really trying to reform the benefits system. Its difficult and will be costly in the short term, which means he's having to fight with Osborne to try and get it done. I hope he succeeds - the welfare trap has to be reformed. Labour had a chance to do it, and didn't, with welfare dependency getting worse.


I really hope in the long term the benefits will be outweigh the short term costs and the Treasury will relent.


But its going to be difficult and the atmosphere isn't good. Basically I just don't see how these figures are acceptable - the poor have to be enriched by working more and recieving less. We cannot further impoverish the most vulnerable in our society, overall incomes have to be improved, but the balance between benefits and their own income has to be changed. I can't see how the status quo can continue given these types of figures.


It's damaging to society to have such large proportions being net welfare recipients.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course the IFS figures are projection - by their very nature they can't possibly be anything else! But the IFS do tend to make accurate projections so you ignore them at your peril!


I agree about too much from the state though, which is why I won't vote Labour. Well, not yet anyway.


From a previous thread:


I approve of some of the Labour policies like the work they have done to alleviate child poverty. But the reason I don't and won't vote for them is because of the way they expand the state to be all-encompassing as far as caring for the less fortunate goes. Every society (except Maggies of course) should care for it's disadvantaged citizens. But I think Labour take it so far they don't really help the disadvantaged to move on and up. Their policies seem to encourage social exclusion and discourage self-esteem. Basically why get off your arse and get a job when you don't have too?


But a poorer society with less of a rich elite would be perfectly acceptable to me and those like me with a social conscience as long as those on the bottom rung had things like decent housing, healthcare, education, life expectancy and so forth because currently they do not.


Getting the balance right is very tricky. Labour at least have a go at it. The Tories just don't seem to care...


Edited for a fuckup typo.

Edited by P.K.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Do enlighten me as to your meaning of jokey clique.


My point which you don't seem to have grasped is that the man hs only been elected for a couple of days and is already being slagged off by the Scottish Sun so

They don't seem to like him?


Well as you pointed out, I meant cliche. Why the edit?


post-46-001554400 1285788452_thumb.jpg



Yeah, I gathered the point you were making. And I was making the additional point that you are as bad, if not worse than them. Hardly a post goes by with you trotting out one of your stupid little nicknames - Arkwright, Broon, Daily Wail etc. Gosh it's getting old hat.



To quote the local phrase


Ps Try using the seach engine before you apprortion credit for certain tems

But you won't you inadequate little wanker

PS Feel free to theaten all sorts of action - legal or otherwise



Feel free to tell me your view and debate the point face to face

But you won't




Should have said


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you drunk?

No ***

Just fed up of annonymous little non event turds

Hence the invite for a RT discusion

But it won't happen

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Create New...