By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Soleron on 06 June 2009
Edit Thread
SciFiBoy said:
...

from what ive read about old Labour, they were alot beter than New Labour, im not an expert on them though, i wasnt born till 1988, lol, they were gone by the time i followed politics.

not all taxes are bad, im an advocate of Progressive taxation personally, which generally is good for the average man or woman (average income is 22k or so, if i remember correctly) New Labour i agree have been bad on that, theyve been using reggressive taxation, that said, the Conservatives taxation policys are even more regressive from what i know of them, so take what you can get, i doubt someone on 22k a year would be better off under Cameron, 220k a year, now thats a different story, imo youre luck if you earn that though, its 10x the average wage.

Old Labour supported the working class and trade unions. There is no more working class, (everyone who is on benefits isn't; everyone who isn't can't be called poor any more.) Everyone, even the unemployed, can afford holidays and luxuries now, which wasn't the case in the past. There are no more trade unions - membership has fallen, and the power and idealism of trade unions have waned as they become more corporate. At the same time, working conditions are good enough so that they don't need to be reformed [except for too many hours worked IMO; we need to join the European Working Time Directive].

Old Labour has no purpose in a modern society. Who and what would they represent?

--

I dispute your tax thing. From my standpoint, everyone below 25k recieves so many benefits that they have the same purcahsing power as someone on 50k. Everyone on 50k is hit with every sort of tax while recieving no benefits. Cameron isn't much better, but at least he would give people on 22k a lifestyle appropriate to 22k. There should be an incentive to work harder and earn more. At the same time, the actual rich have got much richer under Labour because of all of the tax avoidance they can afford. It's the 30k-100k which are hit hardest (and my parents are on the low end of that).

Example: Since many parents are divorced, children live with the "poor" mother and get EMA and lots of benefits, while the "rich" dad on 50k and the kids recieve money from that. I know 30+ people in my year of 200 in this situation. When these kids go to uni, they get their tuition and many other things paid, as well as dad paying for their lifestyle, while I have to pay full tuition and will end up poorer during and with more debt after my time at uni.