UK General Election 2015

[Rollo]

http://www.bbc.com/news/politics/poll-tracker
Looking at the last poll results (19 Mar 2015) we get the following:

Labour 34%
Conservative 33%
UKIP 14%
Liberal Democrats 8%

If I then plug those numbers into my handy swing calculator (which you really do not want to see) I get:
Labour 349 seats
Con 249 seats
Lib Dem 23 seats
Others 29 seats,

Labour would be 23 seats above the required 326 to form government; so Ed Miliband would be the next PM.
The Lib Dems are facing their worst result since 1992 in terms of seats and their worst result in terms of popular vote since the 1935 election if the Liberal Party is taken as their ancestor.

The race that I want to see is South Thanet, which has Nigel Farage, Al Murray the Pub Landlord and Bez from the Happy Mondays running. That sounds like a total farce.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

I thought the SNP were expected to take all of Labour and Lib Dem seats in Scotland?

[Rollo]

I thought the SNP were expected to take all of Labour and Lib Dem seats in Scotland?

I had another play with my spreadsheet and looked at Scotland only.

Complete wipeout of Labour in Scotland would require them to pick up 56.8% of the vote on a uniform basis across the country; Labour would need a 16.7% swing against them; in addition to the Tories having a 25.5% swing against them.

If the SNP were to sweep the board in Scotland, under any possible scenario I can invent, they'd be the kingmakers in a hung parliament.

[driveace]

If Labour are in power in June ,then I think I should emigrate

[yodasarmpit]

A Labour government, under Miliband, is about the worst possible outcome I could imagine. Spend, spend, spend - throwing money we can't afford at everything won't fix the country, whereas a balanced approach of spending in the right places and introducing efficiencies where possible would be much more sustainable.

Fix the NHS, buy improving processes, remove waste and duplication, and reducing bureaucracy - Miliband on the other hand would just hand over several Billion more to be squandered.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

A Labour government, under Miliband, is about the worst possible outcome I could imagine. Spend, spend, spend - throwing money we can't afford at everything won't fix the country, whereas a balanced approach of spending in the right places and introducing efficiencies where possible would be much more sustainable.

Fix the NHS, buy improving processes, remove waste and duplication, and reducing bureaucracy - Miliband on the other hand would just hand over several Billion more to be squandered.

Both Labour and Conservative have said in one way or another that they will increase taxes and reduce spending.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Cameron has told the Queen that the election campaign has started. This basically means that the newspapers will be insufferable for the next 4 weeks, bombarding our minds with their bias and trying to tell us what to think.

My coverage of the election will be completely balanced. The options are:

The posh toff with the shiny forehead
The wimpy toff with a brother who would have been PM if it wasn't for the unions
A broken man who used to stick up for young voters but sold his soul for a sniff of power
The posh toff who hates foreigners, is best mates with the bankers and makes people think he's 'down to Earth' because he likes a smoke and a pint
Or if you're Scottish you'll be voting for a woman with unusually neat hair.

So with Parliament officially dissolved who is in charge of the country? Boris Johnson? Roy Hodgson?

[driveace]

The man still living in number 10 is still in charge .
Hope the guy who keeps saying "Let me tell you " Repeatedly ,and the Birmingham Labour lady who said "Erm" after every single word on TV the other night ,are banished
Can we afford as a country to go back to Labours borrow and spend at any cost days ?
The decider in lots of voters eyes is "Who gives us a vote on the EU" And can we afford to pay 50 million a day to the EU wasters ,or 0.7 % of our national income to Overseas aid ?

[D-Type]

It depends where you live. Generally you get the best deal if your local council is the opposite party to the government with a small majority. They have to show you they can run things better. And Central Government will be trying to regain control of the council.

if you are seriously interested, keep a log of which party makes the fewest U-turns and vote AGAINST them as they're being run by the spin doctors.

[Mark]

Parliament is dissolved which means there are no MPs any more. However official posts such as Prime Minister, Home Secretary etc are quite separate from that and continue to be held by the same people until new holders are appointed by a new government.

[Rollo]

Both Labour and Conservative have said in one way or another that they will increase taxes and reduce spending.

Good.
At the end of Q4 2014, UK gross government debt amounted to £1.51 tn or 88.1% of GDP.

Ideally, taxation rates on Dividends, Interest and Capital Gains should be brought into line with marginal taxation rates on Income Tax. That is, you should be paying tax on those things as you do all ordinary income. The fact that they're not is a giant rort.

You can't create surpluses and draw down debt unless taxation receipts exceeds government spending.

[Mark]

Good.
At the end of Q4 2014, UK gross government debt amounted to £1.51 tn or 88.1% of GDP.

Ideally, taxation rates on Dividends, Interest and Capital Gains should be brought into line with marginal taxation rates on Income Tax. That is, you should be paying tax on those things as you do all ordinary income. The fact that they're not is a giant rort.

You can't create surpluses and draw down debt unless taxation receipts exceeds government spending.

Quite agreed. The fact they are taxed differently has all sorts of tax evasion consequences. I believe it's quite regular for directors of companies, for example, to take a salary which puts them just below the higher rate, then take the remainder as dividends, which are taxed lower. It should of course be changed such that it doesn't matter how the money is delivered, it's all taxed the same anyway.

[driveace]

I was under the impression that the current Government is ,or has brought a law in that all Company Directors cannot be paid in Bonuses to avoid paying tax on all the money they get paid as remuneration .
I have a couple of members of my immediate family who own companies and they are talking Bonuses ,obviously to keep their tax bill down ,
IF this government hasn't outlawed it ,then it needs doing by the next Chancellor

[Mark]

I think bonuses are quite different to share dividends.

[Rollo]

I think bonuses are quite different to share dividends.

How so?

If they were both "ordinary income" they'd be taxed at the marginal rates. Someone collecting dividends whose income is £10,000 pays less on that next £1 than someone on £200,000.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

So all the major party manifesto's have been launched, and one thought springs to mind.

What a bunch load of incompetent, out of touch turd.

[steveaki13]

They are probably not incompetent.

Its just they have to tell people they are going to do something, make them believe it and they do all they can to cover up the fact they are not doing it.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

So who saw the debate last night involving all but Cameron and Clegg?

I think the absence of those two played into Milibands hands. He came across as fair and balanced.

The Plaid Cymru woman sounded like she was reading everything she was saying.
The Green woman has absolutely no charisma or idea about anything, why on earth is she a party leader?
The SNP woman debated her point of view very well, but she isn't even up for election so why is she representing them in these debates?
Nigel Farage predictably blamed everything on immigrants and the EU. He seems like an intelligent bloke, but is obviously just targeting people who are unable to or not educated enough to think of anything other than reactionary policies as solutions to complex political issues.

[Mark]

Sturgeon isn't up for election herself of course but she is the leader of the SNP and it was a debate between party leaders so it makes sense she is there.

I do like Farage he comes across well enough it's just that is views are completely wrong!

[driveace]

His views are correct ,just not politically correct!
His views about tourists coming to use the NHS without paying into the system ,or paying anything for the service is correct
His views on Overseas aid is correct ,we give 0.7 % of our National Income to countries like India and Pakistan that have nuclear programes ,it needs to stop Charity begins at home .
He is correct on the "Barrett Formula " even the Labour peer who brought it in as a TEMPORARY measure says it is wrong and should be scrapped .
He says the right things ,and I agree with him that from the applause it appeared avery left wing audience last night.
I wish him and his party well ,even Milliband tried to lie last night to try and discredit Farage

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Sturgeon isn't up for election herself of course but she is the leader of the SNP and it was a debate between party leaders so it makes sense she is there.

I do like Farage he comes across well enough it's just that is views are completely wrong!

If Sturgeon really wanted rid of the Tories then she wouldn't be trying to her best to destroy the Labour vote in Scotland. She knows that the longer the Conservatives run the UK, the stronger the SNP becomes in Scotland.

[driveace]

I also think that Nicola Sturgeon is dangerous ,they have the advantage of the Barrett Formula ,where the Scotch get £400 more per head of population than the English do.They lost the vote for independance but now want to vote on English issues,and wreck our economy,Her parents live in an Ex council house which they bought for £30000,its now worth £150000,but she is against ,other council house tenants buying their house at a discount ,as her family did.
I have worked in Glasgow as a Driving Examiner,and the Scots hate the English with a vengance !

[Brown, Jon Brow]

It's the Barnett Formula.

[BDunnell]

I also think that Nicola Sturgeon is dangerous ,they have the advantage of the Barrett Formula ,where the Scotch get £400 more per head of population than the English do.They lost the vote for independance but now want to vote on English issues,and wreck our economy,Her parents live in an Ex council house which they bought for £30000,its now worth £150000,but she is against ,other council house tenants buying their house at a discount ,as her family did.
I have worked in Glasgow as a Driving Examiner,and the Scots hate the English with a vengance !

Do you know what? I couldn't care less. I'm all for the SNP influencing the outcome if it pushes a Labour minority administration leftwards. If that happens, it will have been on the basis of a democratic vote, and not a little influenced by the aftermath of the independence referendum. I was against Scottish independence, but the way English politicians have treated Scotland since — bearing in mind what a close-run thing the result was — has been utterly contemptible. So, too, is your last remark.

I note you can't even spell 'independence', which indicates the level of thought you've given to the matter.

[Rollo]

I also think that Nicola Sturgeon is dangerous ,they have the advantage of the Barrett Formula ,where the Scotch get £400 more per head of population than the English do.They lost the vote for independance but now want to vote on English issues,and wreck our economy,Her parents live in an Ex council house which they bought for £30000,its now worth £150000,but she is against ,other council house tenants buying their house at a discount ,as her family did.
I have worked in Glasgow as a Driving Examiner,and the Scots hate the English with a vengance !

The Scots should hate the English with a vengeance. It was the thieves in the city who sold every trophy in the cabinet for a fiver and most recently, expected to be bailed out by the taxpayer when they looked a bit dodgy; so that they could pay bonuses to them. Also, given the MP expenses scandal, Scotland has even more right to be ticked off.

The whole British economy has been redesigned over the pats 30 or so years to throw everyone off the boat who wasn't involved in shuffling around the big pile of money in the square mile.
What's this "our economy" you speak of? Are you part of the band of thieves running EC2?

[D-Type]

I don't want to see UKIP get any seats. Their value to the country is that they do an excellent job of stirring the proverbial about a limited number of issues - something which is easy to do if you don't have to make any decisions or compromises.
The SNP are riding the bandwagon for as much as they can get out of it but they risk finding that the result is an attempt to resolve the West Lothian question in a way detrimental to them.
Has any one managed to work out what the Green party are for? How do they intend to keep lights in our homes, the wheels of industry turning, etc?

[steveaki13]

Has any one managed to work out what the Green party are for? How do they intend to keep lights in our homes, the wheels of industry turning, etc?

They seem to base themselves on being a vote for all the hippies out there and anyone who has to support green issues, even though voting for them will not achieve any of these goals.

Failing that, the good old protest vote.

Still thats the nature of democracy. They are there and people are free to vote for them. Even if we dont really know what they stand for :p

[steveaki13]

Still nothing but SNP on the election news slots. Why is it so much about them?

We have the referendum and surely thats a once in a generation or two's thing. Annoys me.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

They seem to base themselves on being a vote for all the hippies out there and anyone who has to support green issues, even though voting for them will not achieve any of these goals.

Failing that, the good old protest vote.

Still thats the nature of democracy. They are there and people are free to vote for them. Even if we dont really know what they stand for :p

They have quite a few councillors, who like to turn residential areas into 20mph zones.

The Greens say that they'll spend £8bn over five years on 'walking and cycling'. Is that a free pair of trainers and push bike for everyone then?

[Mark]

Still nothing but SNP on the election news slots. Why is it so much about them?

We have the referendum and surely thats a once in a generation or two's thing. Annoys me.

Because they launched their manifesto today and it's quite likely they will be the third biggest party at Westminster after the election.

[steveaki13]

Which is a problem when a party focuses on only 1 of the 4 nations in the UK. Same goes for the Welsh party Plaid Cymru or English Democrats.

[Rollo]

Because they launched their manifesto today and it's quite likely they will be the third biggest party at Westminster after the election.

Hear hear.

+1

Based on the Sun's poll as at 17-Apr:

Lab - 287
Con - 278
SNP- 46
Lib Dem - 15
Dem Union - 8
Sinn Fein - 5
Plaid Cymru - 3
SDLP - 3
UKIP - 2
Grn - 1
Alliance - 1
Ind - 1

Assuming this is the result.

If the SNP and Labour form a Coalition, then they'd have enough seats to form government.
If the SNP and Labour form a Coalition, then they wouldn't have enough seats to form government and fall two seats short.

If the above isn't the result, then there might be a rainbow coalition in place if the swing against majors is sufficient. The SNP are important because they're likely to be kingmakers unless there's a WSOGMM group against them.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

If you were to place all of the manifestos in front of me, without knowing which one belonged to which party, I would probably end up picking the Lib Dems.

And that is quite depressing. :(

[Bezza]

A vote for Labour is essentially a vote for the almost undoubted SNP/Labour Coalition.

Even though Ed Miliband has said he won't form a government with Nicola Sturgeon, Labour since 1997 have proven themselves to be a bunch of compulsive liars and addicted shoppers who don't know when to stop using their Credit Cards. Miliband, of course he will form a government with the SNP - anything to get in power ahead of the Conservatives.

For that reason alone, and there are many more viable reasons, I will not be voting Labour.

[Rollo]

A vote for Labour is essentially a vote for the almost undoubted SNP/Labour Coalition.


A vote for the Tories is essentially a vote for the SNP/Conservative Coalition though.

Almost certainly, anyone who forms government will have to do so with the SNP unless they're able to form one with a WSOGMM Rainbow Pick-N-Mix Coalition made up of everyone who isn't the SNP or the enemy.

[Malbec]

A vote for Labour is essentially a vote for the almost undoubted SNP/Labour Coalition.

Even though Ed Miliband has said he won't form a government with Nicola Sturgeon, Labour since 1997 have proven themselves to be a bunch of compulsive liars and addicted shoppers who don't know when to stop using their Credit Cards. Miliband, of course he will form a government with the SNP - anything to get in power ahead of the Conservatives.

For that reason alone, and there are many more viable reasons, I will not be voting Labour.

Given that both Cameron and Milliband both totally excluded the possibility of a coalition government with anyone and that neither are likely to have a majority, I think its safe to say that if we have either the Tories or Labour enter a coalition government on Friday or soon after we'll have started with the PM proving themselves to be an outright liar whichever side they come from.

Despite being a card carrying Tory I've voted Labour today. Any party that even flirts with the idea of leaving the EU and is anti-immigration cannot pretend to be pro-business. Nor can any humane party sanction further benefit cuts of the size that are needed without also addressing the way the wealthy benefit from lax taxation and tax policing. Its the 21st century and we claim to be the 7th largest economy in the world. Food banks should be banished to science fiction and Victorian era dramas not be a reality for a substantial proportion of the population.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

I went Lib Dem. Despite going back on their word on tuition fees I still think that they have limited the Tories ideologically driven austerity programme. The £4000 extra tax free I get now is thanks to Cleggy, so I'm sticking to my centrist beliefs.

My constituency was 50+% Conservative last time so meh.

[Malbec]

My constituency was 50+% Conservative last time so meh.

Likewise my area is so conservative labour haven't bothered wasting money campaigning there...

[odykas]

Exit poll

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CEbomt1WMAAah4d.jpg

[Brown, Jon Brow]

It looks like the Tories are gaining marginal seats from the Lib Dems and Labour are losing out to the SNP.

[rjbetty]

I didn't vote today, cos I've been away from my constituency of Reading West for a few days. Feel a bit bad for forgetting to do it by post/online or whatever.

Honestly don't really know who to vote for. I don't really want to vote conservative despite doing so last time (they seemed most willing to take responsibility for and deal with deficit etc), but very much agree with the poster who said Labour can't help themselves spending on a credit card so I won't vote for them.

I considered UKIP despite having mixed feelings. To be fair, I liked UKIPs proposal of no income tax for minimum wage workers.

[Rollo]

To be fair, I liked UKIPs proposal of no income tax for minimum wage workers.

It's actually no policy at all:

https://www.gov.uk/national-minimum-wage-rates
21 and over - £6.50

This works out to be:
£6.50 * 40 = £260.00
£260.00 * 52 = £13,520

https://www.gov.uk/income-tax-rates
The standard Personal Allowance is £10,600
Basic rate 20%

£13,520 - £10,600 = £2920
Assessed at 20% = £584

How many people on the minimum wage actually get a full 40 hours in a week though?

[rjbetty]

It's actually no policy at all:

https://www.gov.uk/national-minimum-wage-rates
21 and over - £6.50

This works out to be:
£6.50 * 40 = £260.00
£260.00 * 52 = £13,520

https://www.gov.uk/income-tax-rates
The standard Personal Allowance is £10,600
Basic rate 20%

£13,520 - £10,600 = £2920
Assessed at 20% = £584

How many people on the minimum wage actually get a full 40 hours in a week though?

I do 60hrs + a week on minimum wage! (also no night pay and no overtime but that's another story -would love a holiday)

I know it's prob a bit selfish of me, but I've been inspired by F1 team bosses. I was only considering UKIP though. There's plenty I'm not convinced about too. But I might have liked to do my little bit to send a message to the big parties by voting for a minority, plus I'd quite like to see their leader as an MP to put the cat among the pigeons a bit.

[Rollo]

382 of 650 seats in:
155 - Lab
148 - Con
53 - SNP
6 - Lib-Dem
8 - DUP
12 - Rabble

At this rate, if the Tories do win 316 as predicted, even with the Lib-Dems they still might not be able to form government without asking the riff-raff.

[Rollo]

326 Conservatives seats declared - Cameron remains PM

[D-Type]

Given the way it's panned out, I think the whole SNP 'thing' has been a red herring. Even if Labour had won every seat in Scotland they would still be 43 seats behind the Tories. It beggars belief that English voters would vote Tory because they feared a Labour/SNP coalition.

[Rollo]

It beggars belief that English voters would vote Tory because they feared a Labour/SNP coalition.

If you look at a map of where the seats fall, Scotland is Scotland, Ireland is Ireland, and England and Wales are mostly Tory except for poor areas across the north, central London and depressed areas of Wales who voted Labour.
The spread looks pretty identical to most of the gilded age elections where either Disraeli or Lord Salisbury led the Tories against a Liberal opposition.



The take home from this election though it what's not been highly publicised. Boris Johnson has won the seat of Uxbridge and South Ruislip and will not be contesting the London Mayoral election on 7th May 2016.
I fully expect that David Cameron who was already making noises about not wanting to lead the party will resign by about that time and Johnson will be made PM, virtually unopposed by the Tory caucus.

Boris Johnson - PM: May 10 2016

[rjbetty]

They have quite a few councillors, who like to turn residential areas into 20mph zones.

The Greens say that they'll spend £8bn over five years on 'walking and cycling'. Is that a free pair of trainers and push bike for everyone then?

I wouldn't mind a free bike and trainers. I should have voted for these guys!! :p

[rjbetty]

If you look at a map of where the seats fall, Scotland is Scotland, Ireland is Ireland, and England and Wales are mostly Tory except for poor areas across the north, central London and depressed areas of Wales who voted Labour.
The spread looks pretty identical to most of the gilded age elections where either Disraeli or Lord Salisbury led the Tories against a Liberal opposition.



The take home from this election though it what's not been highly publicised. Boris Johnson has won the seat of Uxbridge and South Ruislip and will not be contesting the London Mayoral election on 7th May 2016.
I fully expect that David Cameron who was already making noises about not wanting to lead the party will resign by about that time and Johnson will be made PM, virtually unopposed by the Tory caucus.

Boris Johnson - PM: May 10 2016

So that's it. They're in power on their own; a bit of a surprise maybe. Well if they really want to encourage more people to work, they might do well to consider that abolishing of income tax for minimum wage folks.

[steveaki13]

An amazing few days.

A lot of parties have some thinking to do now. I mean Lib Dems have to find a leader and now have only 8 MP's to choose from. As they stated the leader will come from one of those.

Labour's candidates seem relatively unknown to me.

What will UKIP do now? Farage was a smarmy bloke, but seemed to have done well for that party over the years. nigh on 4 million people voted for UKIP.

He has not ruled out standing for leadership again i believe.

[Rollo]

So that's it. They're in power on their own; a bit of a surprise maybe. Well if they really want to encourage more people to work, they might do well to consider that abolishing of income tax for minimum wage folks.

Average hours in the UK is 43.6

This works out to be:
£6.50 * 40 = £283.40
£260.00 * 52 = £14,736

£14,736 - £10,600 = £4136
Assessed at 20% = £827.20

That works out to be an effective rate of taxation of just 5.61%
Last year, my effective rate of taxation was 18.383%
Admittedly, I don't live in the UK but, 5.61% seems like a fairly reasonable sort of rate to pay for the trappings of civilisation like roads, schools, hospitals, the defence forces, the judiciary and what not.

Also, abolishing of income tax for minimum wage folks isn't going to encourage more people to work. Income tax is an end cost; not an initial input driver in the equilibrium position of wages.

The best solution would be to set a rate on passive income (such as dividends, rents and bonuses) at something like 50%, which would change the nature of capital flows. Then have government directly employ more people, which would have effects on labour markets.

[rjbetty]

Hmmm maybe you're right. It's just the pressure and another long night talking...

[Malbec]

Well, leaving the EU is now a genuine risk, the Tory right wing will paralyse any attempt by Cameron to fight for staying in.

Also life is going to get very tough for anyone who relies on any form of benefits or tax breaks whatsoever. £12 billion of welfare savings isn't going to come from nowhere.

[rjbetty]

Well, leaving the EU is now a genuine risk, the Tory right wing will paralyse any attempt by Cameron to fight for staying in.

Also life is going to get very tough for anyone who relies on any form of benefits or tax breaks whatsoever. £12 billion of welfare savings isn't going to come from nowhere.

Yes I am rather concerned about this. It's good in some ways they want people to pull their socks up and get in to work, but some people genuinely are in situations where this would be unfeasible. For example, it is possible to be unwell yet not be able to get an official diagnosis (I know for a fact not every person is a faker).

It's a shame they won't be at all hard on the rich in any way...


As for the EU, I actually may not mind a moderate amount of distancing to happen as I do believe there is a lot of corruption in Europe.

[Starter]

The best solution would be to set a rate on passive income (such as dividends, rents and bonuses) at something like 50%, which would change the nature of capital flows. Then have government directly employ more people, which would have effects on labour markets.
Not sure how it would work there, but here that proposal would be devastating to retired people. For many, income from interest and dividends, from investments acquired over their working life, represent a substantial portion of their total income.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Not sure how it would work there, but here that proposal would be devastating to retired people. For many, income from interest and dividends, from investments acquired over their working life, represent a substantial portion of their total income.

I wonder if such a tax would dissuade people from saving at all?

[Rollo]

Not sure how it would work there, but here that proposal would be devastating to retired people. For many, income from interest and dividends, from investments acquired over their working life, represent a substantial portion of their total income.

The thing is though, if you exempt retirement funds from taxation, then that's where capital gets diverted. Capital is like water, it follows the path of least resistance.

The effects of that in Australia, have been that capital from retirement funds have flowed directly into the housing market. That's fine except that the price of a house in Sydney in particular has risen from 4.3 times average wage in 2000 to more than 10 times today.
First-home buyers account for less than 2% of home loans in NSW. I mean that's cool, provided you don't mind locking an entire generation from the housing market.

[Starter]

The thing is though, if you exempt retirement funds from taxation, then that's where capital gets diverted. Capital is like water, it follows the path of least resistance.

The effects of that in Australia, have been that capital from retirement funds have flowed directly into the housing market. That's fine except that the price of a house in Sydney in particular has risen from 4.3 times average wage in 2000 to more than 10 times today.
First-home buyers account for less than 2% of home loans in NSW. I mean that's cool, provided you don't mind locking an entire generation from the housing market.
OK, so who are you going to screw? The young or the old? Or, as is the case with most politicians, both.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

OK, so who are you going to screw? The young or the old? Or, as is the case with most politicians, both.

In the UK the old are more likely to vote, so it is usually the young that get screwed.

[Rollo]

OK, so who are you going to screw? The young or the old? Or, as is the case with most politicians, both.

I ask the question of who it's more ethical to extract taxation from - those who actually work for a living, or those who live off of the work of others?

In principle, all the income derived from dividends, interest and rent, all comes from the real work of people who actually do work. Despite what the financial sector would like to have us believe, their income comes about by the condensation of capital to the existing pile.
When bankers and financial institutions get paid millions and derive millions in profit, where did the actual work come from to derive that profit?

[Starter]

I ask the question of who it's more ethical to extract taxation from - those who actually work for a living, or those who live off of the work of others?

In principle, all the income derived from dividends, interest and rent, all comes from the real work of people who actually do work. Despite what the financial sector would like to have us believe, their income comes about by the condensation of capital to the existing pile.
When bankers and financial institutions get paid millions and derive millions in profit, where did the actual work come from to derive that profit?
That's a pretty socialist, almost communist, point of view. The "actual work" was performed by the retirees during their working years. They then used part of their wages to invest in various things thereby providing capital to start new business or expand existing business. They now live partially on the results of that investment. Had they not invested there would have been less opportunity for business to start and/or expand resulting in fewer job opportunities for those following them.

Your argument would pretty much assure that no one would invest for the future if the government were to take substantial portions of it for taxes. I can't think of one government or society of any size which has been successful over any real time frame with that model - absent military force to keep people in line (North Korea).

[Jag_Warrior]

I ask the question of who it's more ethical to extract taxation from - those who actually work for a living, or those who live off of the work of others?

In principle, all the income derived from dividends, interest and rent, all comes from the real work of people who actually do work. Despite what the financial sector would like to have us believe, their income comes about by the condensation of capital to the existing pile.
When bankers and financial institutions get paid millions and derive millions in profit, where did the actual work come from to derive that profit?

When one imposes onerous taxes on one economic class or another, in order to arrive at a "socially beneficial" result (however you want to define that), it's important to carefully consider any potential, unintended consequences. With the Affordable Care Act, Americans and our clueless politicians are now learning ALL ABOUT unintended consequences. One example, if you tax providers of capital too heavily, while you might benefit the working class short term, what work will they perform when the "capital class" (we'll call them) reduces capital availability or moves it elsewhere? I collect rents from buildings and houses I've built or bought in years past. Yes, the rent is paid by those who work. But I paid workers to build the houses and buildings. Without my capital, the contractors would have had fewer jobs and the tenants would have had fewer housing options. And I'm just a teeny, tiny player - plus I work too. I have no (practical) off-shore options, as the real money men do. With our globalized economies, moving capital from high tax environments to lower tax environments isn't all that hard for those who (truly) have the means.

We're on a racing board. Think about how many F1 drivers take up residence in Switzerland or Monaco once they start getting the fat paychecks. Having a convoluted tax system, as we have in the U.S. (that rewards those at the very top, gives pat-on-the-head credits to those at the very bottom and squeezes those in the great middle), is not working very well. We now have the lowest labor participation rate since the early 1970's. Our society is as broken as our tax system.

But to your point, I agree that allowing private equity managers to categorize their incomes as "carried interest" and be taxed at a low rate in the U.S., when it's really salary income, not much different than what I get in salary and bonuses, is indeed unfair and laughable. There is unfairness in various countries' tax systems that needs to be addressed. But I believe that in addressing that, and working to find solutions, one has to be careful not to toss the baby out with the dirty bath water.

[Rollo]

The "actual work" was performed by the retirees during their working years. They then used part of their wages to invest in various things thereby providing capital to start new business or expand existing business. They now live partially on the results of that investment.

That explains the chunk of capital which was built up, but it certainly does not explain where the money which pays for the rewards of that capital comes from now.


Had they not invested there would have been less opportunity for business to start and/or expand resulting in fewer job opportunities for those following them.

I live in a nation where 10 of the top 20 companies by market capitalisation are financial institutions, 7 of them are dirt farmers, 2 are supermarkets and the last of the 20 is a telco.
Capital is accumulating faster to existing chunks of capital than wages growth which has pretty well much been going backwards in real terms.



Your argument would pretty much assure that no one would invest for the future if the government were to take substantial portions of it for taxes. I can't think of one government or society of any size which has been successful over any real time frame with that model - absent military force to keep people in line (North Korea).

I reject your fantasy and replace it with history.

During the biggest period of prolonged economic growth the world has yet seen from 1945-1975, the United States had top marginal rates of 70% and greater (including 92% for tax years 1952 and 1953)?

The United States GDP in 1945 was $202m in 1975 it was $1,689m; which is an average of 7.33% for 30 years. That's never been heard of in the history of the world before or since.


That's a pretty socialist, almost communist, point of view.

Socialism! Argh, run for the hills!

Nevermind the fact that also during the period of 1945-1975 the world's single biggest piece of public infrastructure was started, The Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways.
Without that, I bet that the United States would cease to function the way it does.

[Starter]

That explains the chunk of capital which was built up, but it certainly does not explain where the money which pays for the rewards of that capital comes from now.
That's a straw man argument.


I reject your fantasy and replace it with history.

During the biggest period of prolonged economic growth the world has yet seen from 1945-1975, the United States had top marginal rates of 70% and greater (including 92% for tax years 1952 and 1953)?

The United States GDP in 1945 was $202m in 1975 it was $1,689m; which is an average of 7.33% for 30 years. That's never been heard of in the history of the world before or since.
A false comparison. True that those rates were for the top incomes, but they did not apply to the vast majority of people who invested for the future through savings. mutual funds, and stocks,




Socialism! Argh, run for the hills!
Dern tootin. It'll be the death of ya. :p

[Lousada]

Not sure how it would work there, but here that proposal would be devastating to retired people. For many, income from interest and dividends, from investments acquired over their working life, represent a substantial portion of their total income.

Where I live (not Britain) the income you put in your pensionfund is tax exempt. Then when you retire the income you receive from the pension fund is taxed as regular income.

[Starter]

Where I live (not Britain) the income you put in your pensionfund is tax exempt. Then when you retire the income you receive from the pension fund is taxed as regular income.
And if that "regular rate" is 50% or higher? Which prompted my original post in this thread.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

And if that "regular rate" is 50% or higher? Which prompted my original post in this thread.

Well if you're in the financial position where your income will put you into the 50% tax rate (45% is the highest here) then you're hardly going to find it 'devastating' as you posted earlier.

[Malbec]

When one imposes onerous taxes on one economic class or another, in order to arrive at a "socially beneficial" result (however you want to define that), it's important to carefully consider any potential, unintended consequences. With the Affordable Care Act, Americans and our clueless politicians are now learning ALL ABOUT unintended consequences. One example, if you tax providers of capital too heavily, while you might benefit the working class short term, what work will they perform when the "capital class" (we'll call them) reduces capital availability or moves it elsewhere? I collect rents from buildings and houses I've built or bought in years past. Yes, the rent is paid by those who work. But I paid workers to build the houses and buildings. Without my capital, the contractors would have had fewer jobs and the tenants would have had fewer housing options. And I'm just a teeny, tiny player - plus I work too. I have no (practical) off-shore options, as the real money men do. With our globalized economies, moving capital from high tax environments to lower tax environments isn't all that hard for those who (truly) have the means.

While I agree with you in principle the political scene in the UK is almost entirely dominated by the need to cater for the international super-rich. They're attracted to London by some structural factors that I do not have a problem with, EU membership, relatively lax employment regulations, a good cultural and social scene for entertainment. On top of that however successive UK governments of all persuasions have wooed them with minimal taxation if they qualify for non-domicile status.

The argument for doing so is exactly as you've sketched out. Its wealth, it could go elsewhere so best attract it to London where some of it will trickle down.

The problem is that I see few benefits for the normal Londoner. These people do not spend that much time in the capital (otherwise they'd stop being non-doms and have to pay as much tax if not more than their cleaner) and thus while they have a massive impact on raising property prices they do not contribute much to economic activity in the city through personal expenditure. The rising property prices are strangling the city to the extent that a couple with normal jobs like policing, teaching or nursing cannot afford to even dream of owning their own property. Those that cannot afford to buy their own property are stuck paying rent that can increase by 5-10% per year ensuring they cannot save for a deposit.

We've turned London and some other parts of the UK into an extremely efficient distillation device to siphon wealth off from the poor and give it to the wealthy. Most of the Tory policies in their manifesto are clearly written to worsen this situation, forcing councils to sell off more of their housing stock to investors and potential landlords and reducing supply of cheap housing for those in dire need of it. Those close to retirement now have the freedom to liquidate their pension funds and use the money on other things. Whilst IMO this will result in a few people wasting their pensions on frivolous purchases it will also result in many people putting the money on the one thing guaranteed to generate instant returns, you've guessed it, property.

If you're under 30 and living in the UK without wealthy parents then the state is doing all it can to pull the ladders up so you cannot work towards achieving a quality of life that matches your parents, let alone exceeds them. Everything from higher education, accommodation or childcare that young people need has become and will become even more scarce and expensive.

I am in one of the highest tax brackets and a few % extra will hit me in the pocket but the sacrifices I will have to make if that happened can very safely be filed under the title 'first world problems'. I certainly cannot say the same for those out of work or those in the lowest income brackets who will be squeezed hard until their pips squeek by the Tories. We know from leaks that they will target the disabled, young parents, the working poor. In a way its not their fault of course, the easy welfare cuts have already been made and further cuts would always be painful. It is however IMO negligent to make those cuts whilst specifically excluding measures to increase tax income on the higher tax brackets (or anywhere else for that matter).

[Starter]

Well if you're in the financial position where your income will put you into the 50% tax rate (45% is the highest here) then you're hardly going to find it 'devastating' as you posted earlier.
My original post was in response to Rollo's:

The best solution would be to set a rate on passive income (such as dividends, rents and bonuses) at something like 50%, which would change the nature of capital flows. Then have government directly employ more people, which would have effects on labour markets.
There was no mention of any graduation of that rate based on income, just a straight 50% on all passive income. When you are not extremely wealthy and you are retired, that said income is a substantial portion of your living income and therefore can indeed be devastating.

[Rollo]

That's a straw man argument.

Is it?

If I deposit $5000 in the bank, they then lend out that money to people who then pay their debt to the bank with interest. That interest doesn't magically fall out of the sky, it's paid back with money gained from real work.
Ultimately, ALL money is derived from real work or the production of goods and services. That's pretty well much what the definition of money is, a medium of exchange which allows people to store and trade goods and services.

If you think that it is a a straw man argument, then please explain where you think that the money generated to pay for interest comes from.

[odykas]

So Farage resigned but remains UKIP leader due to public demand

What a circus :laugh:

[Rollo]

One example, if you tax providers of capital too heavily, while you might benefit the working class short term, what work will they perform when the "capital class" (we'll call them) reduces capital availability or moves it elsewhere?

In the case of the property market in London, or where I live in Sydney then... goodbye!

Capital would leave, which would lead to a softening and maybe a relaxing of property prices and expected property yields, which would lead to a hold on rents.

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/apr/29/just-43-homes-on-the-market-affordable-for-first-time-buyers-in-london?CMP=share_btn_tw
There are only 43 potentially suitable homes in London currently available that would be “affordable” for the typical young family buying their first property, according to research by Shelter.
- The Guardian, 29th Apr 2015

I applied the same tests as The Guardian did to Sydney and found that there were 15 properties for sale with at least two bedrooms; assuming that the household had an income of A$77,030 a year (USD 66,766)

[BDunnell]

Americans attempting to comment on British politics — no, please no.

[Starter]

Is it?

If I deposit $5000 in the bank, they then lend out that money to people who then pay their debt to the bank with interest. That interest doesn't magically fall out of the sky, it's paid back with money gained from real work.
Ultimately, ALL money is derived from real work or the production of goods and services. That's pretty well much what the definition of money is, a medium of exchange which allows people to store and trade goods and services.

If you think that it is a a straw man argument, then please explain where you think that the money generated to pay for interest comes from.
You're kind of overlooking the fact that the original $5000 deposited in the bank was earned from "real work". What follows downstream of that is up to the person/s who did the real work. If they are wise enough to invest it toward their retirement and old age so that they won't have to live in reduced, sometimes dramatically reduced, circumstances after working for forty or so years, why would you wish to tax it at those kind of rates?

[Rollo]

You're kind of overlooking the fact that the original $5000 deposited in the bank was earned from "real work". What follows downstream of that is up to the person/s who did the real work. If they are wise enough to invest it toward their retirement and old age so that they won't have to live in reduced, sometimes dramatically reduced, circumstances after working for forty or so years, why would you wish to tax it at those kind of rates?

No I'm not. The original $5000 deposited in the bank was earned from "real work" and has already been subject to regular taxation rates. The interest that it then goes on the generate is passive but is paid for by someone else's real work.
I'm not suggesting taxing capital but taxing passive income.

[rjbetty]

I have been doing a lot of thinking over the last few days.

I am suddenly very worried about where things could be going.

Within days of getting into sole power, the Conservatives are announcing changes and policies. The fox hunting ban is now being repealed, despite something like 80%, including myself, being against it. Theresa May announces moves towards all emails and online browsing being monitored: Though it may not be that extreme straight away, I am quite sure it will get to that point soon, in the name of 'security' or something.


Benefit Cuts
Benefits are being cut for people who desperately need them. I could only possibly agree with this if they were painful austerity measures we all MUST go through to get free. However, what is happening to the people higher up? They are recording higher profits than ever apparently, all enjoying their lives, holidays, golfing, and now fox hunting. It appears this is the basis for claiming the uk is doing well, even though most people lower down are in for an increasing world of pain. Would I absolutely be paranoid to wonder "what gives"?

Benefits are being cut. While this supposedly gets rid of wasters who are totally able to work, pensioners and other people can not see a way out, and suicides are increasing. Could it be that some people actually do need some financial assistance, and some are actually telling the truth?

A little of my own situation too
I am worried as I myself am becoming ill from overwork. I do 60hrs a week, nights, only sent home whenever a manager says so, regardless of scheduled finishing time, regardless of what you need to do during the next day before your next 10/12hr + night shift again and again, minimum wage, NO night pay, NO overtime pay. I spent the last few years painstakingly getting myself out of debt, going without enough food for a prolonged period (2yrs+), still reeling from my last relationship which caused me a lot of problems. I am now up to £0 but can't break above as stuff keeps happening. The fact is, this has taken it's toll on my once healthy and fit body, now quite skinny and getting wracked.

The fact is, I do need a rest. I have tried and tried to continue, and always will, but I do need a brief rest. Yet anyone calls me a faker, lazy etc. I am worried about people in worse situations than me who like me, APPEAR able and well (only because you HAVE to stay strong) but truthfully simply can't carry on and in reality just need a little support for a short while so they can get on their feet.

People who are sick and disabled are now being made to work. There is a story of a man who was given an extremely simple physical test by his doctor, that basically anyone can do, and on that basis forced to work there and then. He died of a heart attack on his 6th day in work.

But that's ok as long as a few fakers are maybe weeded out? Is that really the way the deficit is going to be dealt with

If austerity is what it takes to get free from debt/deficit, so be it, but what about the Tory friends getting richer? Does this stack up?


An interesting Map
I was shown a map yesterday of planned Tory budgets for councils un the uk, which ones will receive cuts and which will receive increases. I was quite surprised to see that map compared to a map of uk councils. The cuts are almost entirely for labour and other run councils, while many of the increases go to Tory and rich places which least need it.

Even a breakdown map of London showed almost a perfect alignment of the biggest cuts/smallest increases being in labour and other run councils while Tory councils will get it best. Surely it could only be a crackpot conspiracy theory to suggest something isn't right here...?

Surely it must be crazy to suggest this could be to stop Labour or any other party ever getting back in. Surely the Conservatives will not run a campaign in years to come saying look how bad the opposition councils have done (because they can't as their funding has been taken and diverted elsewhere)? Surely it would only be a crazy freak conspiracy person who would suggest the Tories are trying to undermine the opposition to stop them ever getting back into power?

I will try to find this map to post when I have more time.


Moving towards a totalitarian government? Maybe crazy now, but in 10 yrs?
I tend to very much dislike conspiracy theories in general, so tend to be hesitant towards going there. But what I would like to know, hypothetically, is what assurances do we have that eventually things are not moving towards the common people being helpless and the government of the future being able to enforce themselves over us, eventually bringing to life the horror of George Orwell's 1984 (in the name of security against terrorism, economy etc)?


BTW, I was a conservative guy all my life, but they will never have my vote again*. I fear this is too little too late however.

*Unless new people are able to rise up in that party, causing change and revolution into the good guys or something.

[Rollo]

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/may/12/tories-not-at-war-with-bbc-says-business-secretary
Asked about newspaper headlines on Tuesday which said the Tories were had “gone to war on the BBC”, Javid told Radio 4’s Today programme: “Not at all.
“There is a bit of over-excitement in those headlines. First of all, John Whittingdale is an excellent choice for culture secretary. He is someone who is hugely experienced.”
...
It quoted a Tory insider as saying: “This isn’t about the wholesale destruction of the BBC – far from it – but it’s about requiring the corporation to take a long, hard look at itself, the job it is doing, the way it is funded and whether it is fit for purpose.”
But the Telegraph said the move would be seen as a “declaration of war” on the corporation, saying senior Conservatives were “furious at the BBC’s coverage” of the election.
A leader in the Sun – like the Times, owned by Rupert Murdoch – said it was “payback time” for the BBC after “decades of BBC bias against the Tories, subtle and blatant”.
- The Grauniad, 12th May 2015

Not gone to war with the BBC eh?

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1996/feb/15/broadcasting#S6CV0271P0_19960215_HOC_414
Some have argued in the past that the BBC should be forced to earn its living in the private sector in the same way as many other state-owned companies have been forced to do. My support for the principle of privatisation is second to none. I strongly believe that it is not the business of government to own and attempt to run commercial enterprises engaged in the supply of products for consumers, be they television programmes, motor cars or telecommunications, but the BBC is primarily not a commercial body.
- John Whittingdale (MP for Colchester, South and Maldon) in the House of Commons, 15th Feb 1996.

Whittingdale would later propose a bill to privatise the BBC before the end of the term of the Major government and he's rattled around Whitehall for the past twenty years, just waiting to get his way again. Now that he's been appointed as Culture Secretary in an age where there's not very much left in the family silverware cabinet (because Thatcher, Major and Blair sold it all off) what's he going to suggest that should be sold off next, in the name of addressing debt and deficit?

A leopard very rarely changes its spots and a rabid leopard with a 20 year grudge isn't going to either.

[rjbetty]

I just don't know what to make of things at the mo...

Btw, I should have said I am not at all against being rich in itself, as long as it is earned and fairly done. I'm not really a fan of super-socialism as I believe someone who has worked 10 times harder is entitled to a bit more than a truly total waster with a bad attitude who wants it all for free and is perfectly able.

[Starter]

No I'm not. The original $5000 deposited in the bank was earned from "real work" and has already been subject to regular taxation rates. The interest that it then goes on the generate is passive but is paid for by someone else's real work.
I'm not suggesting taxing capital but taxing passive income.
I never suggested it shouldn't be taxed. It's the rate you proposed which I questioned.

[Starter]

I just don't know what to make of things at the mo...

Btw, I should have said I am not at all against being rich in itself, as long as it is earned and fairly done. I'm not really a fan of super-socialism as I believe someone who has worked 10 times harder is entitled to a bit more than a truly total waster with a bad attitude who wants it all for free and is perfectly able.
The problem with governments is that the conservative ones want to preserve wealth regardless of the cost to others and the liberals want to fleece the rich and middle and give it to the poor (keeping their own incomes of course). Both want to stay in power at any cost. A pox on them both.

[Jag_Warrior]

Americans attempting to comment on British politics — no, please no.

Your system of government is quite different from ours. In my case, though I don't follow the ins & outs of British politics religiously, I do admire the fact that people in the UK are not slaves to a defined, locked, two party system. Yes, you also have your two major parties. But a significant enough portion of the UK voting public will cast votes for lesser known parties. And in my opinion, that is something to be proud of. I wish that more of our citizens were less sheepish in that way.

[Malbec]

So Farage resigned but remains UKIP leader due to public demand

What a circus :laugh:

I thought Farage did an excellent job actually. I have no time for his political beliefs but he deserves an award for what he managed to get done.

He's established essentially a far right political party, erasing the BNP and the EDL from the political landscape. He's kept violence out of his party completely and managed instead to appeal to people who were previously put off by the link such parties had with thugs. Despite having pretty low quality inexperienced staff to work with who did more harm than good with often bizarre tweets and interviews he's actually managed to engage with a huge chunk of the electorate, not just right wing Tories but labour voters too. In fact he did more damage to Labour than the Tories which is something noone expected.

Hats off to him. UKIP would be lost without him which is no doubt why they didn't accept his resignation.

[Jag_Warrior]

In the case of the property market in London, or where I live in Sydney then... goodbye!

Capital would leave, which would lead to a softening and maybe a relaxing of property prices and expected property yields, which would lead to a hold on rents.

Capital leaving probably would soften the property market. But since capital does not place itself into just one category, it's also likely that other markets would soften... like the labor market. And if the people, who would be more able to afford properties at lower prices, do not have access to the capital necessary to buy those properties (even at lower prices), then what?

I'm just not aware of any economy which has grown over time, while chasing capital away. On the question of taxation, what I would suggest is a better balance here - I have no idea how Australia's tax system is structured.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

New leader of the Labour Party, anyone?

Why not give it to Nigel Farage?
:D

[Rollo]

Your system of government is quite different from ours. In my case, though I don't follow the ins & outs of British politics religiously, I do admire the fact that people in the UK are not slaves to a defined, locked, two party system. Yes, you also have your two major parties. But a significant enough portion of the UK voting public will cast votes for lesser known parties. And in my opinion, that is something to be proud of. I wish that more of our citizens were less sheepish in that way.

The Westminster System which exists in the UK is not that much different to the Congress. The biggest differences are that the Executive of a Westminster style parliament is made up of members of the parliament. The Queen does hold some reserve powers that the President of the USA does in that she's the one who signs off on legislation and she's also ultimately head of the armed forces. The Prime Minister, who is head of the Cabinet, appoints ministers in the same way that the President of the US does.

There was a French political scientist called Maurice Duverger who observed that for single member constituencies there is a tendency towards two-party politics but in multi-member constituencies there is a tendency towards multi-party politics. Duverger's Law is named

Australia which also uses a Westminster System elects members to the House of Representatives in the same way that the UK elects members to the House of Commons and this also tends towards two-party politics but the Australian Senate which appoints 12 Senators per state has a far greater number of minor parties.


I wish that more of our citizens were less sheepish in that way.

I think it's perfectly rational.

The United States mainly uses First-Past-The-Post voting for Single Member Constituencies. I think that it's a worst of all possible cases scenario because it encourages voters to vote for the two majors rather than wasting a vote on a losing candidate.
The thing is though, is that it's in the major parties best interests to keep the system as is. Hence the reason why both Labour and the Tories supported the "No to Alternative Vote" campaign when that went to a referendum in the UK.

[Starter]

The United States mainly uses First-Past-The-Post voting for Single Member Constituencies. I think that it's a worst of all possible cases scenario because it encourages voters to vote for the two majors rather than wasting a vote on a losing candidate.
I wouldn't say the worst, but certainly far from the best. By golly, we actually agree on something. :eek:

[odykas]

Jeremy Corbyn has been elected leader of the Labour party.

The British Tsipras :rolleyes:

I guess Cameron is celebrating

[Rollo]

Jeremy Corbyn has been elected leader of the Labour party.

The British Tsipras :rolleyes:

I guess Cameron is celebrating

Corbyn is probably the first genuine leftist leader of the Labour Party since James Callaghan and the "Winter of Discontent".
Cameron might be celebrating but he and his party are probably going to be put on notice because 2020 might very well spell the end of this term of Tory Government.

Corbyn, I suspect intends to shirt Labour back towards the left; this was mentioned by him in the run up to the leadership spill:

http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/man/lab45.htm
The great inter-war slumps were not acts of God or of blind forces. They were the sure and certain result of the concentration of too much economic power in the hands of too few men. These men had only learned how to act in the interest of their own bureaucratically-run private monopolies which may be likened to totalitarian oligarchies within our democratic State. They had and they felt no responsibility to the nation.
- Labour Party Manifesto: 1945 Election

Given what we've seen over the last 10 years, with the Global Financial Crisis and banks being bailed out by the state, then having bankers bonuses paid out to them, I think that the 1945 Manifesto is probably as relevant in 2015 as it was then... except that under Thatcher, everything was sold off to the criminals which now run and own the City and by inference, the country.

[odykas]

Jeremy Corbyn has been elected leader of the Labour party.

The British Tsipras :rolleyes:


A day after the election:

That's all Labour needs: Now ex-Greek finance minister Varoufakis offers to help Corbyn draw up his economic blueprint (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3232870/Ex-Greek-finance-minister-Varoufakis-offers-help-Corbyn-draw-anti-austerity-economic-blueprint.html)

The worst clown in the world's economic scene offers his services. I would be worried

[Lousada]

Corbyn is probably the first genuine leftist leader of the Labour Party since James Callaghan and the "Winter of Discontent".
Cameron might be celebrating but he and his party are probably going to be put on notice because 2020 might very well spell the end of this term of Tory Government.

How can you be genuine left and at the same time support islamists, hamas, ayatollahs, extremists and also Putin???


Jeremy Corbyn, friend to Hamas, Iran and extremists

If Jeremy Corbyn wins, Labour will be in the extraordinary position of having a leader with among the most extensive links in Parliament to terrorists
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11749043/Andrew-Gilligan-Jeremy-Corbyn-friend-to-Hamas-Iran-and-extremists.html

[Rollo]

How can you be genuine left and at the same time support islamists, hamas, ayatollahs, extremists and also Putin???


The American left/right and what the definitions of conservative/liberal are, bear no relation to the sense which the rest of the world uses.
This weird terminology seems to be leaking out of America across the internet. It's like the word "check" for "cheque" and thinking that Fox News is "fair and balanced".

The left right scale is an economic scale, with leftist politics advocating collectivism (usually with government ownership of things); whilst the right is concerned with Laissez-faire economics and the belief that markets and prices should be left alone.

Gandhi and Stalin both advocated leftist politics, though they would have totally disagreed on Authoritarian/Libertarian grounds.
Putin as an ex-officer in the KGB, did live in a leftist authoritarian climate and he if anything, has shifted Russia back northwards. The USSR was both leftist and authoritarian.

This might be instructive: http://www.politicalcompass.org/

Also: http://www.politicalcompass.org/uk2015
Nominally, Corbyn's election is a reflection that Labour wants to move in a southwesterly direction on the compass.

Politics is far more complex than just shouting three word slogans at each other (we've just had a change in premiership in Australia because our last PM didn't realise that) and if you'd actually bothered to read the article you posted you would have seen that:

In his talk, entitled “The Case for Iran,” he called for the immediate scrapping of sanctions on the country, which had not then promised to restrict its nuclear programme, attacked its colonial exploitation by British business and called for an end to its “demonisation” by the West.

That's a move away from a more authoritarian stance and Corbyn's wishes to re-nationalise the railways and re-open some mines, is a shift towards the left.