Is Gransnet leaning more to the left?

MaizieD

petra

This might be a good time to link this clip.
Only a few words but sooooo true.

www.facebook.com/reel/29243663758585524

A man completely after my own heart

I've just listened to Trump, either on or off camera, not sure who he was addressing, explaining - didn't catch the first bit - how with the Dems, "you're gonna get Communism, that's what you're gonna get, Communism - where everybody gets healthcare".

Perish the thought, eh?

🤣 tops...

MrsQuigley

Thank you Cossy. I really appreciate that. Let’s agree to disagree.

Absolutely

I would imagine many in the US would like "to get healthcare"!

As we also have know in the UK wee have never had so there is no requirement to have a Communist's government either to achieve a National Health Service, free at the point of delivery service to all - even if the NHS is not perfect.

LemonJam

I would imagine many in the US would like "to get healthcare"!

As we also have know in the UK wee have never had so there is no requirement to have a Communist's government either to achieve a National Health Service, free at the point of delivery service to all - even if the NHS is not perfect.

I can see my typos increasing and grammar deteriorating on various threads - probably time to take a rest....🥱

MaizieD
How can any right minded person argue with that 🤷‍♀️

Meandrogrog

Dickens

Meandrogrog

I do not trust Labour and never have, .i simply do not understand why anyone would ever vote for them but .i do respect the rights of those who choose to do so. I would never display the amount of sheer vitriol I get back from voting Reform although I am leaning towards the Tories again as I do like Kemi.

Are you saying that you don't understand why anyone would vote Labour because you believe them to be untrustworthy, or is it because you can't fathom why anyone would vote for broadly left-wing policies?

If it's the former reason, what - in your view - makes them untrustworthy? I'm genuinely interested Meandrogrog, it's not a trick question.

I'm curious because, in spite of being more left-wing than centrist at the moment, I could in future vote for a Conservative government - in theory anyway. I'm thinking in terms of a post-war type Conservative government that rejected both 'hands-off' capitalism, and outright state socialism.

I can see why people vote Tory, and I can also understand the attraction of the Lib-Dem party - I can even somewhat 'get' why people would be attracted to the pre-Reform Nigel Farage when he was, circa 2006-ish, leader of UKIP.

But, forgetting the accusations of racism for the moment, what I cannot understand is anyone - especially any woman - voting for Reform after hearing the comments and observations, made by men, revealed in the undercover exposé. It isn't that what was said was 'offensive' as much as the fact it indicates a contempt towards women. And, at a time when violence against women and girls is increasing, the very last thing we need is men with such attitudes possibly getting anywhere near positions of authority. That's the bit that worries me.

Farage has got to condemn these men, and stop obfuscating about 'establishment stitch-ups' - he knows jolly well that these undercover operations are historically used by journalists across the political board; as I said in another post, a similar exposé was launched against Corbyn.

How do you feel about this? Please don't take this as an attack, it isn't, I want to understand why people can still support Reform after listening to - or hearing about - these recorded conversations and comments. I can only assume that it's thought such men are, ultimately, harmless braggards or are simply being vulgar 'lads'.

Dickens, .i will answer this in more detail but am going out for the day. I dont want to rush my response so will reply once back later today.

Hi Dickens

I have no pearls of wisdom, I am afraid! Its simply my own observations about what I feel is the way forward.

To me Labour is all a out state control, telling us all what to do whilst doing something different themselves so very hypocritical IMO. They are the party of tax and spend, when it is so much better to reward effort and small businesses. They seem to be against any kind of aspiration, again it comes back to too much state control.

I like Kemi and think she will steal votes from abolition of stamp duty, inheritance tax on main family homes and .i am hopeful she may reverse the disgraceful tax on family farms and private schools.

I could not afford private education for my children but have never envied those who could or feel any envy whatsoever for those who have more as the world has been ever thus.

I do agree that Reform should take action on those who bring the party into disrepute.

As .i said, no great pearls of wisdom, just my thoughts on what .i would like to see happen. If Labour rewarded aspiration .i would just as likely cote for them but they never have.

Sorry about the misspells! Did in a hurry.

Meandrogrog

Sorry about the misspells! Did in a hurry.

I’m curious as to why you think LP don’t want or encourage aspiration?

I do agree that what we used to call “Champagne Socialists” can be hypocrites of the very worst kind.

Meandrogrog

I appreciate you taking time to reply - when I've been out for the day, all I want to do when I get home is just relax!

OK, now the nitty-gritty, please don't think I'm attacking you - we are, I think, just exchanging opposing views, in other words, debating which is the whole point of these N&P threads really.

Whilst I agree that business is our life-blood and shouldn't be stifled by unnecessary financial or regulatory burdens - Burnham has promised to cap Corporation Tax at 25% for the duration of the parliament. That allows for future planning, and he, the LP, are going to keep those highly valuable business 'incentives', a temporary measure (Labour has promised to make it permanent) introduced by the previous Tory government as part of their pro-business and growth strategy which, without going into long-winded tedious detail, means in effect that companies can save on their tax-bill, and that cash is instant - businesses don't have to wait years to redeem it. I'd argue that's a pretty good start - not to mention the fact that economically, we are outperforming France and Germany at the moment. Maybe Labour are not quite as anti-business as you think?

I'd also argue that closer ties with Europe which might lead to businesses having to deal with less red-tape in the export process, would also be a good thing. Business needs to export, it can't rely solely on domestic consumption.

There's so much more to debate, but, it's the fag end of the day, so maybe let's continue another time?

... you might already have your feet up

@meandrogrog

They (Labour) are the party of tax and spend, when it is so much better to reward effort and small businesses.

The government spends a great deal of money into the UK's economy.

It spends on
Roads, railway infrastructure and some rail operations
The police
The courts system
Prisons
Education
Defence
Intelligence
Welfare (including state pensions)
It grants money to local authorities to top up what is raised locally
It administers the driving licencing system; vehicle registration, company registrations, tax collection and passports
It pays for all elections
It pays for the agencies which monitor and regulate the environment, water, telecoms, energy
It funds the maintenance of the Houses of Parliament and Ministry buildings, pays all our legislators and their staffs. And, of course, the civil service, without which the running of the country would fall apart in chaos.

As a result, it pays the salaries of many thousands of people. who subsequently spend their money into the economy buying goods and services from private businesses. It buys everything it needs from private enterprises because it doesn't make anything.

(It undoubtably pays for a lot more than I have listed but it looks like quite a long list to me.)

Which of these things would you like it to stop doing or to massively cut back on?

How would businesses survive without the money they make from government spending?

Which of these things would you like it to stop doing or to massively cut back on? (MaizieD Thu 22-Oct-26 22:28:59)

You got there before me but exactly that.

"As a result, it pays the salaries of many thousands of people. who subsequently spend their money into the economy buying goods and services from private businesses. It buys everything it needs from private enterprises because it doesn't make anything"

It's a myth that internal employment gives a net gain for GDP, it does contribute but a significant part of wages are not spent in the economy and taxed, domestic property in particular, gets taxed very little, black/grey market purchases, tax free investments, holiday spending all reduce the contribution to revenue.

It could contribute more but not with the current tax regime there are far too many give aways, particularly for those above average wealth.

I would say the 'far too many give aways' are in the realm of welfare spending, which has to be curbed.
Wages are money earned through work, and tax paid on them.
Some people earn more than others, for a variety of reasons, it was ever thus, and this creeping generalisation that 'the wealthy' should contribute more for that money to be squandered on benefits is of no practical help to the economy.
I have a low opinion of Burnham as a self-serving politician but he is not a fool. Simply, he is following the Labour pattern of tax and spend with today's money, then borrow; pay back with tomorrow's money or leave the next government to deal with the debt.

Austerity came about following Blair's government which inherited a secure economy but departed leaving an empty treasury and Liam Byrne's facetious message saying sorry, no money left.
Strangely, when haranguing the Tories for 14 years of misrule, this fact is neglected.

eazybee good bit of rewriting history going on there in your post. 7.51.

What is a countries money for, if not to spend on the people of that country?

eazybee

I would say the 'far too many give aways' are in the realm of welfare spending, which has to be curbed.
Wages are money earned through work, and tax paid on them.
Some people earn more than others, for a variety of reasons, it was ever thus, and this creeping generalisation that 'the wealthy' should contribute more for that money to be squandered on benefits is of no practical help to the economy.
I have a low opinion of Burnham as a self-serving politician but he is not a fool. Simply, he is following the Labour pattern of tax and spend with today's money, then borrow; pay back with tomorrow's money or leave the next government to deal with the debt.

Austerity came about following Blair's government which inherited a secure economy but departed leaving an empty treasury and Liam Byrne's facetious message saying sorry, no money left.
Strangely, when haranguing the Tories for 14 years of misrule, this fact is neglected.

You post mixes some legitimate economic arguments with historical inaccuracies, political rhetoric and assumptions about welfare, taxation and public debt that need to be properly examined.

I can loudly hear the overlaying “I've worked hard all my life” too - that grab for moral superiority. Your narrative seems to be that people who earn their money through work are being unfairly penalised to fund people who don't work, and that Labour governments are inherently irresponsible with public money. That narrative can resonate emotionally, but it isn't the same thing as an accurate account of the British economy.

We really need to understand about your podt is what what is factually true, what is misleading, and what is a matter of political opinion. Each of those exist in this post.

Maremia

What is a countries money for, if not to spend on the people of that country?

It should be spent on maintaining or improving the productivity of the nation, the clue is in Gross Domestic Product, increase that and prosperity increases

Maremia

What is a countries money for, if not to spend on the people of that country?

It seems that it has to be spent on the ^right* people. Certainly mot on a load of workshy layabouts who live the life of Riley on state handouts

I mean the wealthy, of course, who have all sorts of tax benefits, who put their money into 'investments' which gain them more unearned income by way of high interest rates and dividends. inflated asset prices, rents and any other way they can get their money to 'work' for them.

Thomas Pikety has this to say with regard to France's current problems, but it can equally apply to any neoliberal economy (which is most Western economies):

To justify the inadequacy of education funding, and in particular the decrease in spending per student, the government and its supporters argue that France cannot afford to invest more. They are making two reasoning errors.
Public debt has indeed risen from 20% of GDP in 1970 to 120% today. But at the same time, private wealth has grown much more dramatically: It has gone from 300% to 600% of GDP, with extreme concentration among the wealthiest financial fortunes. In other words, France’s national wealth – the sum of private and public assets minus private and public debts – has never been so high, not only in absolute terms but also as a percentage of GDP (which itself has never been higher).
In other words, France has never been richer. The problem to solve is simply one of distribution.

It's not just France it's exactly the same in the UK there is far too much private wealth that is not used to benefit the UK, it just enriches the individual and their family. Many tax incentives have allowed too much gain for individuals.

In my view, those who can work, should work. Those who struggle to find sustainable decent jobs should be helped and retrained wherever and whenever possible.

Those who simply cannot work due to their own, or their family circumstances should be allocated support to assist them to get into a situation where they can work.

Those who cannot work due to caring responses, disabilities or life long conditions, should be well looked after by the state with decent housing, access to services, assistance with day to day living and without any stigma.

Those unwilling to even seek work, are the only group here I’d even think about penalising.

I’d ensure that this group had a chance, during a long and in depth meeting to try and ascertain if there were any real and genuine reasons for not looking for work, if there is, assist to fix, if there’s not then put onto courses, training, voluntary work and set up paid work interviews, 5 days a weeks. Failure to completely comply = zero benefit. The only caveat here is this will work for single people, what happens if there are children involved?

David49

It's not just France it's exactly the same in the UK there is far too much private wealth that is not used to benefit the UK, it just enriches the individual and their family. Many tax incentives have allowed too much gain for individuals.

👏👏👏👏👏

Well said, Cossy. I agree 100%.

I have said for a long time that the problems we have are due to the very rich.
The blame for our problems tends to be directed towards those who are unable to defend themselves.