As please poll says - what we r saying seems to be escaping you. It's not their ideological differences that is why they aren't similar. It's that Corbin is a man of principle, to a fault, whereas farage says one thing and does another, is great for sound bites but you couldnt really trust him on anything - such as when he passionately said he'd resign if he didn't win his seat, and then quietly went back on it.
Yeah I wasn't sure about his tax ideas either. I agree with him on tax havens, corporation tax and inheritance tax, but income tax is a strange one. When he had that interview on Channel 4, he was suggesting that there doesn't need to be a limit on income taxation. I understand that, in principle, higher taxes would benefit society as a whole as there would be better infrastructure, public services, education etc, but if, say, the threshold was at something like 75% for wealthier people (not necessarily millionaires), where's the incentive for them to work harder if a significant amount of their money is being taken away by the government? Surely, in that hypothetical situation, it would be better to earn less and be under a lower tax threshold? It would end up leading to stagnation. A tax which is based on an ability to pay it and a progressive taxation policy seems fair enough. I guess different people will have different definitions of where to draw the line, though. How much is too much and how little is too little?
You only pay a higher rate on the amount that you earn over each threshold, so you'll never be worse off. You don't pay anything on your first £10k no matter who you are, IIRC. Then you pay 20% for the next £20k and 40% for £100k above that, then 45%. If you were to earn £155k pa, then you'd be paying the highest amount on about £5k. I do agree that you start to disincentivise people after a while, though. That's where accountants start to become creative, unfortunately.
Which still begs the question; how much is too much and how little is too little? People end up getting annoyed one way or another because there are different perceptions of what is 'fair'.
I've been really really clear with what I was saying, or so I thought! Farage was often spoken about with comments like "you might not like what he has to say, but he puts forward his opinions and ideas" "you might disagree, but at least he has opinions" that trail of thought. And this was often used as a positive thing about him. That he was willing to put forward his ideas. But people who don't like his ideology, like many on here would never have thought it was a good thing that he was putting forward actual ideas, because they disagree with his ideas. Now Corbyn supporters have been saying similar things. A few comments in this thread, for example "What he stands for is currently running a distant second to the fact he actually does stand for something" or "you may not agree with what he says, but at least he is saying it clearly". It's like a copy and paste of the exact same point made about Farage during the general election, but by people who would never have said the same about Farage. And likewise I'm sure many who would have said it about Farage wouldn't about Corbyn, despite the argument being made for both being the same. I took some amusement in that similarity between the two and how the comments are made by people at opposite ends of the spectrum. As I've said already I think politics needs more Corbyns and Farages.
I don't think anyone would knock politicians for speaking their minds, but I don't think that's what Farage does. It's certainly been the spin on what he does, as is his bloke-down-the-pub-with-a-pint bullshit, but I'm sure that you can see the difference between the two. Someone with Farage's politics that genuinely said what he believed would be unelectable.
I've never understood why someone who has galvanized and impassioned a splintered and demotivated party, while attracting a record number of supporters to the party and encouraging people back from the SNP (based on the success of his rallies in Scotland), Greens (me for one) and UKIP (based on polls in London at the very least) is unelectable. Yet 3 Blairites (though Kendall is more a RedTory) who follow policies and personality politics that have seen a steady and dramatic decline in popularity in the last decade, and two atrocious election results with massive numbers defecting to other parties looking for something else - these 3 are obviously 'electable' and will strongly challenge the next election.
Again-there's the irony. Honest politicians don't win elections because they state views that some, perhaps many, disagree with. 'Career' politicians such as Kendall, Burnham and Cooper (sounds like a dodgy law firm) manage to stay vague about the key issues in order that they can appeal to a wider electorate. I stated in an earlier post that I thought this event was 'farcical'. I am now coming to the view that it would be a good thing if Corbyn won-not because I agree with his policies-I don't in a lot of cases-but because I feel that politics in this country needs a firm boot up the arse. It does appear that the tories are wary of him and when Blair, Brown and Campbell are all spinning against him, you have to think he's doing something right.....
To be fair I don't think any of the others are particularly good candidates. My comment that Corbyn won't win an election doesn't mean I think any of the others would I just don't think the general public will go for him as he is too far to the left.
It's why we need proportional representation, so people can actually vote for the things they believe in rather than all the watered down, samey rubbish we get served up with because they're all too scared to upset anyone.
Having the media dictate what the "right" policies are isn't helping, either. Burnham's suggestion that Blair did as he was told and blocked the Hillsborough inquest for years is a little too on the money, for me.
I'm not sure if it's been mentioned already on here, but listening to Radio 4 earlier, they were reporting that Corbyn is attracting a lot of support from UKIP supporters. I don't know how they have measured that, or on what particular issues they are rallying round him on, but it's an interesting and unexpected development. BTW, who here will be voting in the leadership election ? I'm still an member of UNISON, so I get an affiliated member vote.
I never thought I'd join labour (even tho I've voted for them on a 'lesser of two evils' basis) but I have to say I identify strongly with Corbyn and am excited about him. I'm voting so is the missus.
That's not a millions miles from the truth, I mean he did say that 'If Corbyn wins we'll get annihilated (in 45 minutes)'. LOL I like the way flip flopper Burnham is going from slagging off Corbyn, to saying the others should stop the negative attacks, to then slagging off Cooper, to saying everyone should stop attacking Corbyn because it's splitting the party, to then attacking Corbyn again. Nice and consistent behaviour from the Blairite!
This guy is showing Schitzo behavior, which makes him perfect to become Britain's new PM! Back to Corbyn, before they announce his Labour victory, hopefully he would have had the biggest plate of beans imaginable, and then get Blair in a room with him and let rip, while they crown him leader.
