Are the Unions damaging Labour's chance of election in 2015?

sodhat wrote:I'd like to think it was impossible because no-one would actually punch someone with down syndrome.

Obviously don't keep your findings to yourself.

sodhat wrote:Stop derailing the thread, Truss.

TopHat24/7 wrote:As with all statistics it is subject to sample bias though.  This was based on less than 1,900 people out of a voting population of, what, 50 million maybe??

And only 267 were from London, the city that's recovered the strongest/most from the recession (what recession?) and is basically bankrolling the rest of the country with the tax it pays.

Also, you still haven't explained why vote share is so important in a FTPT system as opposed to PR??

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:As with all statistics it is subject to sample bias though.  This was based on less than 1,900 people out of a voting population of, what, 50 million maybe??

And only 267 were from London, the city that's recovered the strongest/most from the recession (what recession?) and is basically bankrolling the rest of the country with the tax it pays.

Also, you still haven't explained why vote share is so important in a FTPT system as opposed to PR??

Polls have a habit of being right within a 3 point margin of error........

TopHat24/7 wrote:As with all statistics it is subject to sample bias though.  This was based on less than 1,900 people out of a voting population of, what, 50 million maybe??

And only 267 were from London, the city that's recovered the strongest/most from the recession (what recession?) and is basically bankrolling the rest of the country with the tax it pays.

Also, you still haven't explained why vote share is so important in a FTPT system as opposed to PR??

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I imagine the hospitals will be full too.......When Grandma can't afford to heat her house.....and has to decide between eating and being warm......

Let's hope it's not a cold winter........

Banker's bonuses went up 91% I see...........

But I agree with the Op on it being a hung parliament........

Not sure the Libs can go in with the Tories again though..........

Be a right wing revolt..........

TopHat24/7 wrote:really??

have you been to London recently?

every bar is busy, every restaurant has long queues or needs reserving weeks in advance, west end shows are all selling out, new businesses are starting up all over the places, hundreds a week at times, house prices are flying, wages on the up and up for a huge number of people, the list goes on......

TopHat24/7 wrote:Didn't realise the Winter Fuel Payment had been scrapped.....

jbeadlesbigrighthand wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:really??

have you been to London recently?

every bar is busy, every restaurant has long queues or needs reserving weeks in advance, west end shows are all selling out, new businesses are starting up all over the places, hundreds a week at times, house prices are flying, wages on the up and up for a huge number of people, the list goes on......

I work in London.

What you are pointing out doesn't actually mean much. They're all anecdotes which don't speak about the lives of the majority of Londoners. The crash saw income disparity increase (which is more noticeable in London than elsewhere) - this may well explain the various examples you've pointed to. The rich are richer while most people are struggling.

House prices, which you point to as a positive indicator, are actually harming Londoners. Those who can afford to buy (not many), are only able to buy shoe boxes. Those who rent privately are seeing their living standards fall due to the rising rental costs.

As for wages going up - I'm not aware of any data that says that. The most recent data I've seen from the ONS (up to 2012) suggests that the median income in London has been flat since 2009. This comes despite increasing household costs.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:Didn't realise the Winter Fuel Payment had been scrapped.....

You didn't realise the Tories had to be seven points ahead...That Unions come near to last in voting intention or that it's the Vote share that's most important when analysing polls..

Thank goodness you have me to educate you.

TopHat24/7 wrote:
Wow, this 'majority' must be absolutely bleeding huge then if such a tiny minority is managing to pack out every bar, club, restaurant and theatre in central London.

Or maybe it's back to that old chestnut of only being considered 'normal' if you're poor and hard-up.  That wonderfully modern-British reverse-snobbery towards hard work and success.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

jbeadlesbigrighthand wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:really??

have you been to London recently?

every bar is busy, every restaurant has long queues or needs reserving weeks in advance, west end shows are all selling out, new businesses are starting up all over the places, hundreds a week at times, house prices are flying, wages on the up and up for a huge number of people, the list goes on......

I work in London.

What you are pointing out doesn't actually mean much. They're all anecdotes which don't speak about the lives of the majority of Londoners. The crash saw income disparity increase (which is more noticeable in London than elsewhere) - this may well explain the various examples you've pointed to. The rich are richer while most people are struggling.

House prices, which you point to as a positive indicator, are actually harming Londoners. Those who can afford to buy (not many), are only able to buy shoe boxes. Those who rent privately are seeing their living standards fall due to the rising rental costs.

As for wages going up - I'm not aware of any data that says that. The most recent data I've seen from the ONS (up to 2012) suggests that the median income in London has been flat since 2009. This comes despite increasing household costs.

Wow, this 'majority' must be absolutely bleeding huge then if such a tiny minority is managing to pack out every bar, club, restaurant and theatre in central London.

Or maybe it's back to that old chestnut of only being considered 'normal' if you're poor and hard-up.  That wonderfully modern-British reverse-snobbery towards hard work and success.

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:
Wow, this 'majority' must be absolutely bleeding huge then if such a tiny minority is managing to pack out every bar, club, restaurant and theatre in central London.

Or maybe it's back to that old chestnut of only being considered 'normal' if you're poor and hard-up.  That wonderfully modern-British reverse-snobbery towards hard work and success.

But it's central London.  Of course they are packed, it still doesn't mean it is representative of the majority.  I'm sure the bars in central Liverpool/Manchester/Birmingham/Leeds are all pretty full, it is not representative of the rest of those cities though.

No-one is saying you have to be poor or hard-up to be normal, but neither are the people frequenting these packed out bars 'normal' either.

Poor post, TopHat.  You're better than that.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:
Wow, this 'majority' must be absolutely bleeding huge then if such a tiny minority is managing to pack out every bar, club, restaurant and theatre in central London.

Or maybe it's back to that old chestnut of only being considered 'normal' if you're poor and hard-up.  That wonderfully modern-British reverse-snobbery towards hard work and success.

But it's central London.  Of course they are packed, it still doesn't mean it is representative of the majority.  I'm sure the bars in central Liverpool/Manchester/Birmingham/Leeds are all pretty full, it is not representative of the rest of those cities though.

No-one is saying you have to be poor or hard-up to be normal, but neither are the people frequenting these packed out bars 'normal' either.

Poor post, TopHat.  You're better than that.

Disagree on that point, plenty on here certainly do. Truss being a prime example.

But yes, it was a crudely made point, borne out of frustration of the backwards modern attitude towards financial success.  No wonder drive and positivity are proving so hard to instill in kids when anything from good grades to being a higher-rate tax-payer is so heavily stigmatised.  All this does is polarise communities further.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I never said that............You're saying a lot of b*****t to try to dig yourself out of a hole.....

Sad. pitiful misrepresentation and very predictable.

Middle classes feel the squeeze.............Elections are won with middle class votes......

jbeadlesbigrighthand wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:
Wow, this 'majority' must be absolutely bleeding huge then if such a tiny minority is managing to pack out every bar, club, restaurant and theatre in central London.

Or maybe it's back to that old chestnut of only being considered 'normal' if you're poor and hard-up.  That wonderfully modern-British reverse-snobbery towards hard work and success.

But it's central London.  Of course they are packed, it still doesn't mean it is representative of the majority.  I'm sure the bars in central Liverpool/Manchester/Birmingham/Leeds are all pretty full, it is not representative of the rest of those cities though.

No-one is saying you have to be poor or hard-up to be normal, but neither are the people frequenting these packed out bars 'normal' either.

Poor post, TopHat.  You're better than that.

Disagree on that point, plenty on here certainly do. Truss being a prime example.

But yes, it was a crudely made point, borne out of frustration of the backwards modern attitude towards financial success.  No wonder drive and positivity are proving so hard to instill in kids when anything from good grades to being a higher-rate tax-payer is so heavily stigmatised.  All this does is polarise communities further.

Again, this is completely fallacious reasoning. How can you talk about a 'backwards attitude towards financial success' (which is an extremely value-laden way of phrasing it), in a society where inequality is growing? How are higher rate tax payers stigmatised?

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:That is a statement you can't backup.........and couldn't If you could.......

I could say you are a racist..........You've made statements before blah blah blah...

Have I told you labour's lead is double in marginals........= 12 points..

But like I said it's the share not the lead..........

TopHat24/7 wrote:

jbeadlesbigrighthand wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:
Wow, this 'majority' must be absolutely bleeding huge then if such a tiny minority is managing to pack out every bar, club, restaurant and theatre in central London.

Or maybe it's back to that old chestnut of only being considered 'normal' if you're poor and hard-up.  That wonderfully modern-British reverse-snobbery towards hard work and success.

But it's central London.  Of course they are packed, it still doesn't mean it is representative of the majority.  I'm sure the bars in central Liverpool/Manchester/Birmingham/Leeds are all pretty full, it is not representative of the rest of those cities though.

No-one is saying you have to be poor or hard-up to be normal, but neither are the people frequenting these packed out bars 'normal' either.

Poor post, TopHat.  You're better than that.

Disagree on that point, plenty on here certainly do. Truss being a prime example.

But yes, it was a crudely made point, borne out of frustration of the backwards modern attitude towards financial success.  No wonder drive and positivity are proving so hard to instill in kids when anything from good grades to being a higher-rate tax-payer is so heavily stigmatised.  All this does is polarise communities further.

Again, this is completely fallacious reasoning. How can you talk about a 'backwards attitude towards financial success' (which is an extremely value-laden way of phrasing it), in a society where inequality is growing? How are higher rate tax payers stigmatised?

If you can't see the social stigma then you're blind to it.  It's a bit like how the DM used to find a way to blame literally anything and everything on immigrants etc, nowadays literally every societal ill is blamed on 'the rich' and in particular 'bankers' which is a horrendously ignorant phrase born out of bone-idle ignorance.  It's never "well I could do this better or that better or maybe I should try this or that to improve my situation", it's always "bloody bankers have ruined it for everyone, I can't do anything because nobody is handing me it on a plate, if only the rich paid more in taxes we'd all be better off".

The rich are paying more now than they ever did under Labour, but still that's insufficient poundage of flesh.  Someone could be dirt poor and everyone is full of sympathy for them and wants to fight their battles.  That person comes up with an idea, executes it, builds a business, ends up a 6 figure CEO and then maybe sells it for millions and suddenly they're lumped in with the 'evil rich'.  

See the aforementioned example of the three mothers who just lost the benefit cap court case.  £35k pa for doing nothing and they claimed it would leave them destitute??!!

TopHat24/7 wrote:It would stand up to scrutiny if I could find the newspaper article that quoted the ONS/HMRC statistics on it.  The top 1% pays both a larger amount of tax AND a higher proportion of total tax receipts now than they ever did under Labour.

Your response actually reinforces my point.  Even when you tacitly accept the above point, you still bash them for not paying enough.

Also, I've specifically avoided equating hard-work with financial reward in my last few posts after it was picked up on and have restricted myself to the phrase 'financial success'.

TopHat24/7 wrote:It would stand up to scrutiny if I could find the newspaper article that quoted the ONS/HMRC statistics on it.  The top 1% pays both a larger amount of tax AND a higher proportion of total tax receipts now than they ever did under Labour.

Your response actually reinforces my point.  Even when you tacitly accept the above point, you still bash them for not paying enough.

Also, I've specifically avoided equating hard-work with financial reward in my last few posts after it was picked up on and have restricted myself to the phrase 'financial success'.

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:It would stand up to scrutiny if I could find the newspaper article that quoted the ONS/HMRC statistics on it.  The top 1% pays both a larger amount of tax AND a higher proportion of total tax receipts now than they ever did under Labour.

Your response actually reinforces my point.  Even when you tacitly accept the above point, you still bash them for not paying enough.

Also, I've specifically avoided equating hard-work with financial reward in my last few posts after it was picked up on and have restricted myself to the phrase 'financial success'.

Just give up, you lost the debate.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:It would stand up to scrutiny if I could find the newspaper article that quoted the ONS/HMRC statistics on it.  The top 1% pays both a larger amount of tax AND a higher proportion of total tax receipts now than they ever did under Labour.

Your response actually reinforces my point.  Even when you tacitly accept the above point, you still bash them for not paying enough.

Also, I've specifically avoided equating hard-work with financial reward in my last few posts after it was picked up on and have restricted myself to the phrase 'financial success'.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/consumertips/tax/10368203/Top-earners-to-pay-third-of-all-income-tax-despite-rate-cut.html

jbeadlesbigrighthand wrote:The rich are paying more now than they ever did under Labour, but still that's insufficient poundage of flesh."

Then how do you explain increasing inequality? Perhaps they are paying more, but they're doing so from a bigger share of the pie. That's the real issue.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:It would stand up to scrutiny if I could find the newspaper article that quoted the ONS/HMRC statistics on it.  The top 1% pays both a larger amount of tax AND a higher proportion of total tax receipts now than they ever did under Labour.

Your response actually reinforces my point.  Even when you tacitly accept the above point, you still bash them for not paying enough.

Also, I've specifically avoided equating hard-work with financial reward in my last few posts after it was picked up on and have restricted myself to the phrase 'financial success'.

Just give up, you lost the debate.

Have to give him credit though for trying........

If Richie woodhall was his brother it would be 114-114........a draw.  

TopHat24/7 wrote:The top 1% pays both a larger amount of tax AND a higher proportion of total tax receipts now than they ever did under Labour.

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:It would stand up to scrutiny if I could find the newspaper article that quoted the ONS/HMRC statistics on it.  The top 1% pays both a larger amount of tax AND a higher proportion of total tax receipts now than they ever did under Labour.

Your response actually reinforces my point.  Even when you tacitly accept the above point, you still bash them for not paying enough.

Also, I've specifically avoided equating hard-work with financial reward in my last few posts after it was picked up on and have restricted myself to the phrase 'financial success'.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/consumertips/tax/10368203/Top-earners-to-pay-third-of-all-income-tax-despite-rate-cut.html

jbeadlesbigrighthand wrote:The rich are paying more now than they ever did under Labour, but still that's insufficient poundage of flesh."

Then how do you explain increasing inequality? Perhaps they are paying more, but they're doing so from a bigger share of the pie. That's the real issue.

jbeadlesbigrighthand wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:The top 1% pays both a larger amount of tax AND a higher proportion of total tax receipts now than they ever did under Labour.

Other things being the same, the one would equate to the other. Of course, other things aren't the same. The combined share of income of the richest 1% is at its highest since about 1930, and is on its way up. In 1997 the average income of the top 0.1% was £650k. By 2007 that doubled to £1.2m For the top 1% that increase was £250k to £450k. Meanwhile the average of the bottom 90 percentiles increased from £10k to £12k.

You are trying to argue that richer people are being stigmatised based on their tax bills. However, as the link you've provided shows, they are actually paying LESS in tax as a proportion of their incomes. The increase in total take is purely due to the increase in inequality (or perhaps a decrease in avoidance).

TopHat24/7 wrote:

jbeadlesbigrighthand wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:The top 1% pays both a larger amount of tax AND a higher proportion of total tax receipts now than they ever did under Labour.

Other things being the same, the one would equate to the other. Of course, other things aren't the same. The combined share of income of the richest 1% is at its highest since about 1930, and is on its way up. In 1997 the average income of the top 0.1% was £650k. By 2007 that doubled to £1.2m For the top 1% that increase was £250k to £450k. Meanwhile the average of the bottom 90 percentiles increased from £10k to £12k.

You are trying to argue that richer people are being stigmatised based on their tax bills. However, as the link you've provided shows, they are actually paying LESS in tax as a proportion of their incomes. The increase in total take is purely due to the increase in inequality (or perhaps a decrease in avoidance).

It doesn't just describe total take though.  It shows proportion of total take.  How much should the top 1% pay of the country's total tax bill? They pay 30% now, something like 20% under Labour (without back-checking the article). 50% maybe? 100% so that none of the rest of us have to pay anything at all??

At some point the Laffer Curve concept will always kick in.

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

jbeadlesbigrighthand wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:The top 1% pays both a larger amount of tax AND a higher proportion of total tax receipts now than they ever did under Labour.

Other things being the same, the one would equate to the other. Of course, other things aren't the same. The combined share of income of the richest 1% is at its highest since about 1930, and is on its way up. In 1997 the average income of the top 0.1% was £650k. By 2007 that doubled to £1.2m For the top 1% that increase was £250k to £450k. Meanwhile the average of the bottom 90 percentiles increased from £10k to £12k.

You are trying to argue that richer people are being stigmatised based on their tax bills. However, as the link you've provided shows, they are actually paying LESS in tax as a proportion of their incomes. The increase in total take is purely due to the increase in inequality (or perhaps a decrease in avoidance).

It doesn't just describe total take though.  It shows proportion of total take.  How much should the top 1% pay of the country's total tax bill? They pay 30% now, something like 20% under Labour (without back-checking the article). 50% maybe? 100% so that none of the rest of us have to pay anything at all??

At some point the Laffer Curve concept will always kick in.

Are you arguing that the super rich's tax bill has increased and the reason is NOT because the gap between the rich and the poor has gotten wider resulting in the super rich having more income that can be taxed?