No party can be a perfect fit for how each individual thinks things should be, so it is unavoidable that there will be inconsistencies. I believe that Labour will protect the health service, police service and the environment better than the right which is at the moment trying to syphon off as much tax payers money into their own pockets as possible.
There’s certainly an inconsistency here. The right, as you see it (and ignoring the fact that on some of your views, you are on the right) has no interest in trousering taxpayers’ money, because that is the function of the left. The right naturally wants to avoid paying in as much tax as possible, because that is harmful to them and harmful to society too. Both the past two Labour leaders have trousered millions personally from the taxpayer, yet you’re more upset about a conspiracy theory. Starmer’s so rich he’s had to have his own personal legislation to permit the size of his pension. Oddly, Labour policy is to limit the size of everybody else’s pension, but his is not problematic.
I do believe that individuals should contribute to society - that means paying taxes. Don't like doing it and I would like the system to be fairer - e.g. stopping the super rich offshoring their wealth - but its necessary.
I think you have to decide what fair actually means, because your politics on rich people paying more tax has already happened to an extreme level, and the Tories have extended that much further than Labour did.
OK. The richest should pay much more tax than the poorest, but how much more? Twice as much? Ten times as much? What is the number you have in your mind that you think is fair?
The fact is that the top 5% of people by income (people earning slightly more than three times the median wages or five times minimum wage) do pay more than the bottom 5%…about 500 times more. What do you think about that? I honestly don’t think that when one group of people is paying 500 times more tax than another group that is fair, or good for society. The problem in this country is not that the rich are exploiting people, the problem is that most people are very, very unproductive and don’t pull their weight.
Regards to Labour crashing the economy - actually, that was a global financial crisis originating in the US housing market and exacerbated by the City.
That is not a valid understanding. Labour consistently overspent for a decade, including well before the crisis. For example, you can’t blame the US for the shambolic handling of PFI - which was Labour opening up the NHS to privatisation far more than the Tories later did, at massive ongoing cost even now. The losses to the UK were our own, they weren’t something from the US. A Labour chancellor publicly and personally praised over an extended period a man who thought a 16 billion unsecured loan to a Russian was a good investment. The worst of the financial crisis happened under Labour. RBS had the biggest corporate loss in the history of the world, including the Americans. Labour started in power with a national debt of about 35% of GDP and ended with one of about 85%, and a further 11% deficit each year. You cannot keep a straight face and say that the money was well spent or achieved anything.
The Tory party used it as an opportunity to impose austerity and run down the NHS so that they can open it up to privatisation.
Here you’re starting with a set of beliefs and forcing them onto a narrative, rather than forming your opinion around what actually happened. There never was any austerity. Public spending kept rising throughout.
Currently the main issue is the cluster F*ck of the Truss/ Kwateng 49 day disaster zone.
No it isn’t, that is a flagrant scapegoating, by those actually responsible for numerous serious errors. Truss/ Kwarteng had a tiny effect on anything.
The Tory parties lack of internal discipline currently renders it incapable of political leadership.
I agree that rural communities are a forgotten minority and democracy is not serving its needs at the moment. Farage is an amazing orator and he will say what ever he thinks serves his own needs. He is very good at providing simple solutions to complex problems and fading away when it comes to delivery.
If you think that last sentence doesn’t apply with greater force to Labour, then you’ve really got your head in the sand.
If countryside issues were the only thing I cared about, Reform might be worth considering, but he is currently engaged in popularist politics, making immigration a key policy point when there are other issues that are equally important that need addressing. At least the Labour had a fairly good record of reducing legal immigration by negotiating with the French to close down the Saungat camp under Blunket so I have a degree of faith in them getting to the root cause of the current cross channel migrant issue.
Eh? Net migration in 1997: 48,000. Net migration in 2010: 256,000. Explain to me how a 430% increase is actually a decrease. I’m having difficulty with your reasoning here.
At the end of the day, Labour are likely to form the next government so I think that it is important that we get a fair deal - it shouldn't be up to the largely rural shooting community to fund what is largely an inner city problem - so we should be working with our organisations and our MPs to get the message across.
And with our votes. Except, for some reason which eludes reason, you won’t.
