to think for this alone we should all vote labour?

[HyperThread]

Ed Miliband promises not to back down on tax avoidance, and promises to put UK tax havens on blacklist unless they end their system of secrecy

www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/feb/06/ed-miliband-tax-avoidance-business-labour

This will make a huge difference to our economy, and unlike Cameron who has completely ignored the issue, and instead of making these multi billionares pay their fare share of taxes, he wants to bring cuts to benefits, when normal people are really struggling as it is.

We really need to get rid of the Tory government, whose policies have mainly been just to make the rich richer. Miliband might not have the charisma and charm that people want to see in a leader, but at least he'll get rid of Cameron and his super rich cronies.

I wonder how many people on this thread have a stocks and shares ISA, probably invested in companies that minimize their tax liability, or any ISA on which they don't pay any tax...

When I don't pay any tax, quite legally, it's fine (of course) - but when Amazon or Google or Gary sodding Barlow does it....oooh....

mywholelifeisaheadache Sat 07-Feb-15 19:11:25Why is it ridiculous?That is an option in this country. You are entitled to run as an independent mp if you so wish. Al Murray and Martin Bell to name two

You seem to be confused, I said ridiculous not impossible.

Labour, noway! run this country into the ground.

amicissimma. Despite being asked that question several times (how is he going to do it) none of the EM/Labour supporters can answer that. Because he can't.

Despite having it explained by several of us, people still don't seem to get it.

It's a sound bite in an attempt to make other parties look bad, when frankly, all it does is make him look even more stupid than normal, and that takes some doing.

I don't agree with zero hour contracts. But I hate the sneery way Labour looks at anyone whose business is making money. I haven't made up my mind who I'm voting for but it won't be Labour. Sick to death of them. They had 13 years to make everything wonderful. They didn't.

Justanotherlurker nope, just genuinely thought when I saw the title that was what it was about. Think it was on the news today. 'Partisan bollocks' you say... is it not true then?

labour left country right up shit creek. they will never get my vote

Viviennemary that's quite interesting because you said upthread you think we should tackle tax havens, and now you say zero hours contracts are a bit shit (= we should ban them?)

But you also say Labour are business bashing. Now to me, 'business bashing' is code for 'abolishing tax havens and zero hours contracts'... but obviously you have something else in mind.
Would be interesting to know what - I am not v familiar with Labour's manifesto. If it's published yet?
(Although am well aware that parties can have plans not in their manifesto, still gobsmacked by the Tories' massive NHS rearrangement fuckup, five years on)

I am not v familiar with Labour's manifesto

Neither is Labour!

Think it was in the news today

I think you have just proved my point with that reply, whataboutry isn't discussing the topic at hand.

Labour would be an economic disaster, just like they always are. Any 'improvements' they'd make would be too expensive and unsustainable.

There is nobody to vote for in this election.

I would not vote for The Millipede under any circumstances.

justanotherlurker, I will cough to not adding to the debate, it was just a throwaway comment really. You never opened a thread thinking, this must be about X! and it was about Y?

Although now I am slightly tickled that since I posted two hours ago, no-one is refuting the allegation that George Osborne has now borrowed more than all the Labour governments since 1900 added up.

But several non-RTFTers have jumped in to say that Labour destroyed the economy with their reckless borrowing. I guess you hear what you want to hear.

Given that you are slightly tickled Boulevard, can you clarify if your claim re. borrowing is an actual amount, or borrowing as a % of GDP? And if you have adjusted for inflation?

Is Ed Balls still planning on building thousands of new homes with our private pension funds or is that genious idea shelved? I'm sure nothing could ever go wrong with such a plan... Labour have such a sound economic background and really know how to run an economy after all .

I'm sure they'll do an even more wonderful job this time. Ed is such an inspiring statesman isn't he? I for one will be proud to see him tripping over his feet and gurning on the world stage.

No, your still trying to derail the thread with partisan politics.

No one is going to discuss the current twats borrowing more than the last twats because that isn't what the discussion is about, also as I mentioned earlier if you want to get into that you need to look into who left office with a deficit and who left with surplus and under what long term deals was inherited.

You hear what you want to hear applies across the political spectrum, no one is side is better than the other in that regard.

boulevard it is not that simple and you know it. Labour inherited a sound economy and Spunked every penny against the wall during the boom years. How much are we going to end up paying for their PFI fuck up alone? Either they were criminally incompetent or they knew it was going to cost the taxpayer dearly but they went ahead anyway. How anyone could consider voting for them is beyond me.

I have always voted Labour because we have a good longstanding incumbent Labour MP. This is the first year where I don't care how good my Labour MP is. I am voting Tory, even if their candidate is a baby-cheeked child.

Although now I am slightly tickled that since I posted two hours ago, no-one is refuting the allegation that George Osborne has now borrowed more than all the Labour governments since 1900 added up

I ignored you because it's not what we were discussing.

If you want to discuss that, why not arm yourself with some actual information and start a thread. Or find one of the million where it's already being discussed. Derailing this one isn't the answer.

Have a look at Scottish politics and you'll lose any sense of respect for the Labour party. Maybe because its a smaller arena or because a lot more people here are involved and
interested in politics after the
referendum but it seems a lot clearer
that they're just as self serving as the
Tories. Jim Murphy keeps saying
things that sound great but can't be
done and puts on a Scotland football
top and talks about class if he's
challenged on it. He's not doing this
of his own bat - EM is just a bad, its
just harder to see.

I'd argue that its not that Labour/Tories/Libdems are better or worse for the country right now its that the whole Westminster system of first past the post, expenses, subsidised food and drink, second homes, PPE career path is does nothing for any one not actually in it and that needs to change.

Floating voters can only work out which they think us the best of a bad bunch really.

And I think Labour certainly isn't anywhere near adequate at the moment.

Votes should be for policies not personalities. No way would I vote Tory or for any right wing party. Anyone who thinks they are any use to any average working people must be an idiot.
Labour are the only viable left wing party so failing an alternative I would have to vote for them.

Although now I am slightly tickled that since I posted two hours ago, no-one is refuting the allegation that George Osborne has now borrowed more than all the Labour governments since 1900 added up

As Chipping said that's not what the thread was about, but since you tried to deflect the discussion I'll answer you.

The difference with the borrowing (apart from the effects of inflation when comparing historical amounts) is how that borrowing is being used as part of the overall economic policy. You are being far too simplistic in picking out numbers that suit your own political perspective, and if you want to raise the matter in a separate thread I suggest you study the subject thoroughly. You might then discover why the borrowing was/is necessary to sort out the Brown/Balls-up that left us all in the shite.

Davsmum No way would I vote Tory or for any right wing party.

As the Daily Mail contingent seem to be deserting the Tories en masse for UKIP, the Conservatives seem to be a more attractive prospect, even to a recovering socialist like me.

The Labour party are just as elitist and uncaring as the Austerity Conservatives [whose offences are myriad], and yet, and yet...

It was NOT the Conservatives who were in charge when a largely defenceless middle-eastern country was invaded and occupied, with hideous loss of life, NOR were they in charge when said policy came home to roost on the buses and underground in 2005, taking the life of somebody I once knew.

Nor we they in pockets of the people who wrecked the economy in 2006-2008, and then claimed hubristic credit for 'fixing it' at our expense.

Just sayin'

I don't know if I am the only one to have noticed this, but the OP talked about cuts to benefits, when ordinary people are struggling enough as it is.

This idea that ordinary people should be on benefits is one of the greatest evils that our society has to cope with in my opinion. Thank you New labour for creating a society dependant upon the munificent state.

They created jobs all right!! Bureaucrats, petty Bureaucrats and assistant petty Bureaucrats.

Thank you New labour for creating a society dependant upon the munificent state.

Not of their creation.

It's a commonly-held belief that socialist governments are in favour of extensive and expensive welfare systems - not true.

Or if they are, they aren't socialist.

A goal of socialism is full employment, a job whether you want one (or can do one) or not. Paying someone to stay at home to do nothing at all is not socialism, never has been.

Unemployment, benefits, tax credits are a function of capitalism. It enables the capital-owning, profit-seeking classes to drive down the biggest drain on profits.

Paying employees a living wage.

This is only about the 500th time I've had to explain this on a forum. I'm sure it won't be the last. Its basic A level economics, sorry if it sounds unduly hostile