The British Underclass

[Fop 1]

Everything Labour has done to the tax structure has been designed to encourage people on low incomes to work more.

 

I'm not sure that's entirely true (the latest tax band fiasco - firmly aimed at the voters in "middle earner" class), they have fiddled the books a lot though, hence the disappearance of long term unemployed and the explosion of long term sick (which has now reached the point where even they are shitting themselves over it).

[ChezGiven 0]

Everything Labour has done to the tax structure has been designed to encourage people on low incomes to work more.

 

I'm not sure that's entirely true (the latest tax band fiasco - firmly aimed at the voters in "middle earner" class), they have fiddled the books a lot though, hence the disappearance of long term unemployed and the explosion of long term sick (which has now reached the point where even they are shitting themselves over it).

 

Whether its entirely true is arguable but the point was to compare and contrast with the tax structures inhereited from the tories rather than to judge new labour's fiscal policy independently.

[Kevin Carr's Gloves 3843]

I just spent the weekend in the UK, reading the papers and the streams of editorials regarding Baby P and the wider social implications of the case. It seems that there is a growing concern regarding the existence of a social underclass in the UK. It got me thinking about the type of society that permits its own members to fall so far below what is considered normal from a moral or behavioural point of view?

 

People refer to the beginnings of the 20th century where values and social order were meant to be better than today. I’m not sure they were but lets assume that this view is correct (there is a lot to support it). What seems to have changed is the way in which we impose order and discipline on ourselves and our children. Over the 20th century, society ‘permitted’ more and more types of behaviour. Sex before marriage, single parents, binge drinking, drug taking and even elements of violence are more widely considered to be part of everyday life. There has at the same time, arguably, been an increase in our freedoms; our freedom to choose and a proliferation of choices (moral, social and consumer). Did the former follow the latter?

 

The boundaries of acceptable behaviour have broadened so much that now a life with no ambition and no drive for betterment is considered acceptable. If you want to live a life on social benefits, society has to an extent, permitted you to do so; the permission or freedom to exist in the underclass. To many social observers this is a kind of social trap where behaviour is re-enforced by previous and subsequent generations. From freedom we have slavery just as Orwell predicted.

 

There is nothing to support your view that society was better with better moral values and social order at the beginning of the 20th century. There were high levels of crime and drug use from the 19th century up til after the first world war. There were also high levels of crime with commentators of the day complaining about crime families controlling inner city areas. Also you have to consider the actions of government and corporate owners who were quite happy to work people into there graves with little or no reward. The only difference between then and now is the level of media intrusion and the inevitable problems which come from overpopulation.

Edited November 20, 2008 by Kevin Carr's Gloves

[Fop 1]

Everything Labour has done to the tax structure has been designed to encourage people on low incomes to work more.

 

I'm not sure that's entirely true (the latest tax band fiasco - firmly aimed at the voters in "middle earner" class), they have fiddled the books a lot though, hence the disappearance of long term unemployed and the explosion of long term sick (which has now reached the point where even they are shitting themselves over it).

 

Whether its entirely true is arguable but the point was to compare and contrast with the tax structures inhereited from the tories rather than to judge new labour's fiscal policy independently.

 

Well neither dare tax the super rich or big companies, and neither probably ever will.

[manc-mag 1]

Everything Labour has done to the tax structure has been designed to encourage people on low incomes to work more.

 

I'm not sure that's entirely true (the latest tax band fiasco - firmly aimed at the voters in "middle earner" class), they have fiddled the books a lot though, hence the disappearance of long term unemployed and the explosion of long term sick (which has now reached the point where even they are shitting themselves over it).

 

Whether its entirely true is arguable but the point was to compare and contrast with the tax structures inhereited from the tories rather than to judge new labour's fiscal policy independently.

 

Well neither dare tax the super rich or big companies, and neither probably ever will.

 

That doesnt really disprove the point either though does it?

[Fop 1]

Everything Labour has done to the tax structure has been designed to encourage people on low incomes to work more.

 

I'm not sure that's entirely true (the latest tax band fiasco - firmly aimed at the voters in "middle earner" class), they have fiddled the books a lot though, hence the disappearance of long term unemployed and the explosion of long term sick (which has now reached the point where even they are shitting themselves over it).

 

Whether its entirely true is arguable but the point was to compare and contrast with the tax structures inhereited from the tories rather than to judge new labour's fiscal policy independently.

 

Well neither dare tax the super rich or big companies, and neither probably ever will.

 

That doesnt really disprove the point either though does it?

 

That New Labour and the Conservatives are essentially the same?

[manc-mag 1]

Everything Labour has done to the tax structure has been designed to encourage people on low incomes to work more.

 

I'm not sure that's entirely true (the latest tax band fiasco - firmly aimed at the voters in "middle earner" class), they have fiddled the books a lot though, hence the disappearance of long term unemployed and the explosion of long term sick (which has now reached the point where even they are shitting themselves over it).

 

Whether its entirely true is arguable but the point was to compare and contrast with the tax structures inhereited from the tories rather than to judge new labour's fiscal policy independently.

 

Well neither dare tax the super rich or big companies, and neither probably ever will.

 

That doesnt really disprove the point either though does it?

 

That New Labour and the Conservatives are essentially the same?

 

The quote in the centre that you were seeking to contradict.

[Guest alex]

Everything Labour has done to the tax structure has been designed to encourage people on low incomes to work more.

 

I'm not sure that's entirely true (the latest tax band fiasco - firmly aimed at the voters in "middle earner" class), they have fiddled the books a lot though, hence the disappearance of long term unemployed and the explosion of long term sick (which has now reached the point where even they are shitting themselves over it).

 

Whether its entirely true is arguable but the point was to compare and contrast with the tax structures inhereited from the tories rather than to judge new labour's fiscal policy independently.

 

Well neither dare tax the super rich or big companies, and neither probably ever will.

 

That doesnt really disprove the point either though does it?

 

That New Labour and the Conservatives are essentially the same?

That wasn't the point though. It might be the case that New Labour are basically the same as the Tories when it comes to big business but what is being discussed is the difference in their policies towards the taxation of people on low incomes.

[ChezGiven 0]

I just spent the weekend in the UK, reading the papers and the streams of editorials regarding Baby P and the wider social implications of the case. It seems that there is a growing concern regarding the existence of a social underclass in the UK. It got me thinking about the type of society that permits its own members to fall so far below what is considered normal from a moral or behavioural point of view?

 

People refer to the beginnings of the 20th century where values and social order were meant to be better than today. I’m not sure they were but lets assume that this view is correct (there is a lot to support it). What seems to have changed is the way in which we impose order and discipline on ourselves and our children. Over the 20th century, society ‘permitted’ more and more types of behaviour. Sex before marriage, single parents, binge drinking, drug taking and even elements of violence are more widely considered to be part of everyday life. There has at the same time, arguably, been an increase in our freedoms; our freedom to choose and a proliferation of choices (moral, social and consumer). Did the former follow the latter?

 

The boundaries of acceptable behaviour have broadened so much that now a life with no ambition and no drive for betterment is considered acceptable. If you want to live a life on social benefits, society has to an extent, permitted you to do so; the permission or freedom to exist in the underclass. To many social observers this is a kind of social trap where behaviour is re-enforced by previous and subsequent generations. From freedom we have slavery just as Orwell predicted.

 

There is nothing to support your view that society was better with better moral values and social order at the beginning of the 20th century. There were high levels of crime and drug use from the 19th century up til after the first world war. There were also high levels of crime with commentators of the day complaining about crime families controlling inner city areas. Also you have to consider the actions of government and corporate owners who were quite happy to work people into there graves with little or no reward. The only difference between then and now is the level of media intrusion and the inevitable problems which come from overpopulation.

 

I've bolded the bit where i accepted that this is not something you can say incontrovertibly so your point is well taken. I wouldn't say there was 'nothing to support' the view though.

 

Crime existing at a significant level in the early parts of the 20th century does not indicate that it was at the same level as it is today, nor that it has risen or fallen.

 

I don't think i implied society was better either, i was trying to make a point about social order and contrast the existence of the apparent (according to the media) 'Underclass' today with previous generations and reflect what the elder generations of my family say to me. My Gran is 99 now and as lucid as she was 30 years ago. She would support my view that the 'social constraints' (freedoms in the OP) hardly exist today compared to 100 years ago.

 

I don't doubt that society had many many problems 100 years ago and perhaps you are right, such an underclass may have existed then. It was the time of the great social projects, the rise of Labour and ultimately, once the wars were out of the way, the NHS. These political changes imply a massive amount of poverty and social need.

 

The question at the heart of this is whether presented with the same opportunities that the current generation have, would the people from 100 years ago have embraced the 'benefits' culture or sought to better themselves?

[Fop 1]

Everything Labour has done to the tax structure has been designed to encourage people on low incomes to work more.

 

I'm not sure that's entirely true (the latest tax band fiasco - firmly aimed at the voters in "middle earner" class), they have fiddled the books a lot though, hence the disappearance of long term unemployed and the explosion of long term sick (which has now reached the point where even they are shitting themselves over it).

 

Whether its entirely true is arguable but the point was to compare and contrast with the tax structures inhereited from the tories rather than to judge new labour's fiscal policy independently.

 

Well neither dare tax the super rich or big companies, and neither probably ever will.

 

That doesnt really disprove the point either though does it?

 

That New Labour and the Conservatives are essentially the same?

 

The quote in the centre that you were seeking to contradict.

 

That New Labour and the Conservatives are essentially the same?

[Fop 1]

Everything Labour has done to the tax structure has been designed to encourage people on low incomes to work more.

 

I'm not sure that's entirely true (the latest tax band fiasco - firmly aimed at the voters in "middle earner" class), they have fiddled the books a lot though, hence the disappearance of long term unemployed and the explosion of long term sick (which has now reached the point where even they are shitting themselves over it).

 

Whether its entirely true is arguable but the point was to compare and contrast with the tax structures inhereited from the tories rather than to judge new labour's fiscal policy independently.

 

Well neither dare tax the super rich or big companies, and neither probably ever will.

 

That doesnt really disprove the point either though does it?

 

That New Labour and the Conservatives are essentially the same?

That wasn't the point though. It might be the case that New Labour are basically the same as the Tories when it comes to big business but what is being discussed is the difference in their policies towards the taxation of people on low incomes.

 

Again, taxing the super rich and the recent tax band changes.

[Kevin Carr's Gloves 3843]

I just spent the weekend in the UK, reading the papers and the streams of editorials regarding Baby P and the wider social implications of the case. It seems that there is a growing concern regarding the existence of a social underclass in the UK. It got me thinking about the type of society that permits its own members to fall so far below what is considered normal from a moral or behavioural point of view?

 

People refer to the beginnings of the 20th century where values and social order were meant to be better than today. I’m not sure they were but lets assume that this view is correct (there is a lot to support it). What seems to have changed is the way in which we impose order and discipline on ourselves and our children. Over the 20th century, society ‘permitted’ more and more types of behaviour. Sex before marriage, single parents, binge drinking, drug taking and even elements of violence are more widely considered to be part of everyday life. There has at the same time, arguably, been an increase in our freedoms; our freedom to choose and a proliferation of choices (moral, social and consumer). Did the former follow the latter?

 

The boundaries of acceptable behaviour have broadened so much that now a life with no ambition and no drive for betterment is considered acceptable. If you want to live a life on social benefits, society has to an extent, permitted you to do so; the permission or freedom to exist in the underclass. To many social observers this is a kind of social trap where behaviour is re-enforced by previous and subsequent generations. From freedom we have slavery just as Orwell predicted.

 

There is nothing to support your view that society was better with better moral values and social order at the beginning of the 20th century. There were high levels of crime and drug use from the 19th century up til after the first world war. There were also high levels of crime with commentators of the day complaining about crime families controlling inner city areas. Also you have to consider the actions of government and corporate owners who were quite happy to work people into there graves with little or no reward. The only difference between then and now is the level of media intrusion and the inevitable problems which come from overpopulation.

 

I've bolded the bit where i accepted that this is not something you can say incontrovertibly so your point is well taken. I wouldn't say there was 'nothing to support' the view though.

 

Crime existing at a significant level in the early parts of the 20th century does not indicate that it was at the same level as it is today, nor that it has risen or fallen.

 

I don't think i implied society was better either, i was trying to make a point about social order and contrast the existence of the apparent (according to the media) 'Underclass' today with previous generations and reflect what the elder generations of my family say to me. My Gran is 99 now and as lucid as she was 30 years ago. She would support my view that the 'social constraints' (freedoms in the OP) hardly exist today compared to 100 years ago.

 

I don't doubt that society had many many problems 100 years ago and perhaps you are right, such an underclass may have existed then. It was the time of the great social projects, the rise of Labour and ultimately, once the wars were out of the way, the NHS. These political changes imply a massive amount of poverty and social need.

 

The question at the heart of this is whether presented with the same opportunities that the current generation have, would the people from 100 years ago have embraced the 'benefits' culture or sought to better themselves?

 

It is the problem of grouping the people as some heterogenous (sp) entity. I have no doubt a lot of them would have grabbed it with open arms. But some like today would prefer the sense of achievment that work gives. Although I think there may be something in the lack of achievment the working classes have in work nowadays in the service industry. We are not a creative society anymore. In the past a launching of a ship on the tyne or the clyde would give workers something tangible to aim to. Nowadays who gives a crap how many people can call their friends on their mobile phine. Dont get me wrong I do believe there are some scum out there. You should have seen the looks I got off some catholic friends here in Glasgow when I told them I not only agreed with abortion but thought in some cases it should be compulsory.

[ChezGiven 0]

Everything Labour has done to the tax structure has been designed to encourage people on low incomes to work more.

 

I'm not sure that's entirely true (the latest tax band fiasco - firmly aimed at the voters in "middle earner" class), they have fiddled the books a lot though, hence the disappearance of long term unemployed and the explosion of long term sick (which has now reached the point where even they are shitting themselves over it).

 

Whether its entirely true is arguable but the point was to compare and contrast with the tax structures inhereited from the tories rather than to judge new labour's fiscal policy independently.

 

Well neither dare tax the super rich or big companies, and neither probably ever will.

 

That doesnt really disprove the point either though does it?

 

That New Labour and the Conservatives are essentially the same?

 

The quote in the centre that you were seeking to contradict.

 

That New Labour and the Conservatives are essentially the same?

 

Apart from their tax policy to low income families, aye.

[Fop 1]

Everything Labour has done to the tax structure has been designed to encourage people on low incomes to work more.

 

I'm not sure that's entirely true (the latest tax band fiasco - firmly aimed at the voters in "middle earner" class), they have fiddled the books a lot though, hence the disappearance of long term unemployed and the explosion of long term sick (which has now reached the point where even they are shitting themselves over it).

 

Whether its entirely true is arguable but the point was to compare and contrast with the tax structures inhereited from the tories rather than to judge new labour's fiscal policy independently.

 

Well neither dare tax the super rich or big companies, and neither probably ever will.

 

That doesnt really disprove the point either though does it?

 

That New Labour and the Conservatives are essentially the same?

 

The quote in the centre that you were seeking to contradict.

 

That New Labour and the Conservatives are essentially the same?

 

Apart from their tax policy to low income families, aye.

Which made 2,000,000 low income people worse off (hence the mass political panic when people actually got their pay packets).

[ChezGiven 0]

Everything Labour has done to the tax structure has been designed to encourage people on low incomes to work more.

 

I'm not sure that's entirely true (the latest tax band fiasco - firmly aimed at the voters in "middle earner" class), they have fiddled the books a lot though, hence the disappearance of long term unemployed and the explosion of long term sick (which has now reached the point where even they are shitting themselves over it).

 

Whether its entirely true is arguable but the point was to compare and contrast with the tax structures inhereited from the tories rather than to judge new labour's fiscal policy independently.

 

Well neither dare tax the super rich or big companies, and neither probably ever will.

 

That doesnt really disprove the point either though does it?

 

That New Labour and the Conservatives are essentially the same?

 

The quote in the centre that you were seeking to contradict.

 

That New Labour and the Conservatives are essentially the same?

 

Apart from their tax policy to low income families, aye.

Which made 2,000,000 low income people worse off (hence the mass political panic when people actually got their pay packets).

 

And you say i pull statistics out me arse?

[Fop 1]

Everything Labour has done to the tax structure has been designed to encourage people on low incomes to work more.

 

I'm not sure that's entirely true (the latest tax band fiasco - firmly aimed at the voters in "middle earner" class), they have fiddled the books a lot though, hence the disappearance of long term unemployed and the explosion of long term sick (which has now reached the point where even they are shitting themselves over it).

 

Whether its entirely true is arguable but the point was to compare and contrast with the tax structures inhereited from the tories rather than to judge new labour's fiscal policy independently.

 

Well neither dare tax the super rich or big companies, and neither probably ever will.

 

That doesnt really disprove the point either though does it?

 

That New Labour and the Conservatives are essentially the same?

 

The quote in the centre that you were seeking to contradict.

 

That New Labour and the Conservatives are essentially the same?

 

Apart from their tax policy to low income families, aye.

Which made 2,000,000 low income people worse off (hence the mass political panic when people actually got their pay packets).

 

And you say i pull statistics out me arse?

You do.

[ChezGiven 0]

Everything Labour has done to the tax structure has been designed to encourage people on low incomes to work more.

 

I'm not sure that's entirely true (the latest tax band fiasco - firmly aimed at the voters in "middle earner" class), they have fiddled the books a lot though, hence the disappearance of long term unemployed and the explosion of long term sick (which has now reached the point where even they are shitting themselves over it).

 

Whether its entirely true is arguable but the point was to compare and contrast with the tax structures inhereited from the tories rather than to judge new labour's fiscal policy independently.

 

Well neither dare tax the super rich or big companies, and neither probably ever will.

 

That doesnt really disprove the point either though does it?

 

That New Labour and the Conservatives are essentially the same?

 

The quote in the centre that you were seeking to contradict.

 

That New Labour and the Conservatives are essentially the same?

 

Apart from their tax policy to low income families, aye.

Which made 2,000,000 low income people worse off (hence the mass political panic when people actually got their pay packets).

 

And you say i pull statistics out me arse?

You do.

 

I always link to the source. You just scratch yours.

[Fop 1]

Everything Labour has done to the tax structure has been designed to encourage people on low incomes to work more.

 

I'm not sure that's entirely true (the latest tax band fiasco - firmly aimed at the voters in "middle earner" class), they have fiddled the books a lot though, hence the disappearance of long term unemployed and the explosion of long term sick (which has now reached the point where even they are shitting themselves over it).

 

Whether its entirely true is arguable but the point was to compare and contrast with the tax structures inhereited from the tories rather than to judge new labour's fiscal policy independently.

 

Well neither dare tax the super rich or big companies, and neither probably ever will.

 

That doesnt really disprove the point either though does it?

 

That New Labour and the Conservatives are essentially the same?

 

The quote in the centre that you were seeking to contradict.

 

That New Labour and the Conservatives are essentially the same?

 

Apart from their tax policy to low income families, aye.

Which made 2,000,000 low income people worse off (hence the mass political panic when people actually got their pay packets).

 

And you say i pull statistics out me arse?

You do.

 

I always link to the source. You just scratch yours.

Apart from when you don't of course (or do you have links to the future and HIV vaccine costs? Or Universal Flu vaccine cost for that matter). However if you paid attention to the UK and its taxation you should already know what I'm saying was true (pre-panic anyway).

[ChezGiven 0]

Everything Labour has done to the tax structure has been designed to encourage people on low incomes to work more.

 

I'm not sure that's entirely true (the latest tax band fiasco - firmly aimed at the voters in "middle earner" class), they have fiddled the books a lot though, hence the disappearance of long term unemployed and the explosion of long term sick (which has now reached the point where even they are shitting themselves over it).

 

Whether its entirely true is arguable but the point was to compare and contrast with the tax structures inhereited from the tories rather than to judge new labour's fiscal policy independently.

 

Well neither dare tax the super rich or big companies, and neither probably ever will.

 

That doesnt really disprove the point either though does it?

 

That New Labour and the Conservatives are essentially the same?

 

The quote in the centre that you were seeking to contradict.

 

That New Labour and the Conservatives are essentially the same?

 

Apart from their tax policy to low income families, aye.

Which made 2,000,000 low income people worse off (hence the mass political panic when people actually got their pay packets).

 

And you say i pull statistics out me arse?

You do.

 

I always link to the source. You just scratch yours.

However if you paid attention to the UK and its taxation you should already know what I'm saying was true (pre-panic anyway).

About low income families being targeted by policies in 1999 and 2001? As thats what we are talking about, as in the centre of this post. I've not been following your side points enough to even know what you're saying

[Fop 1]

Everything Labour has done to the tax structure has been designed to encourage people on low incomes to work more.

 

I'm not sure that's entirely true (the latest tax band fiasco - firmly aimed at the voters in "middle earner" class), they have fiddled the books a lot though, hence the disappearance of long term unemployed and the explosion of long term sick (which has now reached the point where even they are shitting themselves over it).

 

Whether its entirely true is arguable but the point was to compare and contrast with the tax structures inhereited from the tories rather than to judge new labour's fiscal policy independently.

 

Well neither dare tax the super rich or big companies, and neither probably ever will.

 

That doesnt really disprove the point either though does it?

 

That New Labour and the Conservatives are essentially the same?

 

The quote in the centre that you were seeking to contradict.

 

That New Labour and the Conservatives are essentially the same?

 

Apart from their tax policy to low income families, aye.

Which made 2,000,000 low income people worse off (hence the mass political panic when people actually got their pay packets).

 

And you say i pull statistics out me arse?

You do.

 

I always link to the source. You just scratch yours.

However if you paid attention to the UK and its taxation you should already know what I'm saying was true (pre-panic anyway).

About low income families being targeted by policies in 1999 and 2001? As thats what we are talking about, as in the centre of this post. I've not been following your side points enough to even know what you're saying

 

Links to these 2 years of ground breaking policies please (if it was just "get a credit card", then I don't want to know ). I don't doubt they said something, but they said a lot of things that never amounted to what they claimed (the BBC has done an entire series of articles on Labours broken promises ).

[ChezGiven 0]

Everything Labour has done to the tax structure has been designed to encourage people on low incomes to work more.

 

I'm not sure that's entirely true (the latest tax band fiasco - firmly aimed at the voters in "middle earner" class), they have fiddled the books a lot though, hence the disappearance of long term unemployed and the explosion of long term sick (which has now reached the point where even they are shitting themselves over it).

 

Whether its entirely true is arguable but the point was to compare and contrast with the tax structures inhereited from the tories rather than to judge new labour's fiscal policy independently.

 

Well neither dare tax the super rich or big companies, and neither probably ever will.

 

That doesnt really disprove the point either though does it?

 

That New Labour and the Conservatives are essentially the same?

 

The quote in the centre that you were seeking to contradict.

 

That New Labour and the Conservatives are essentially the same?

 

Apart from their tax policy to low income families, aye.

Which made 2,000,000 low income people worse off (hence the mass political panic when people actually got their pay packets).

 

And you say i pull statistics out me arse?

You do.

 

I always link to the source. You just scratch yours.

However if you paid attention to the UK and its taxation you should already know what I'm saying was true (pre-panic anyway).

About low income families being targeted by policies in 1999 and 2001? As thats what we are talking about, as in the centre of this post. I've not been following your side points enough to even know what you're saying

 

Links to these 2 years of ground breaking policies please (if it was just "get a credit card", then I don't want to know ). I don't doubt they said something, but they said a lot of things that never amounted to what they claimed (the BBC has done an entire series of articles on Labours broken promises ).

 

The links are in this thread.

[Kevin Carr's Gloves 3843]

Everything Labour has done to the tax structure has been designed to encourage people on low incomes to work more.

 

I'm not sure that's entirely true (the latest tax band fiasco - firmly aimed at the voters in "middle earner" class), they have fiddled the books a lot though, hence the disappearance of long term unemployed and the explosion of long term sick (which has now reached the point where even they are shitting themselves over it).

 

Whether its entirely true is arguable but the point was to compare and contrast with the tax structures inhereited from the tories rather than to judge new labour's fiscal policy independently.

 

Well neither dare tax the super rich or big companies, and neither probably ever will.

 

That doesnt really disprove the point either though does it?

 

That New Labour and the Conservatives are essentially the same?

 

The quote in the centre that you were seeking to contradict.

 

That New Labour and the Conservatives are essentially the same?

 

Apart from their tax policy to low income families, aye.

Which made 2,000,000 low income people worse off (hence the mass political panic when people actually got their pay packets).

 

And you say i pull statistics out me arse?

You do.

 

I always link to the source. You just scratch yours.

However if you paid attention to the UK and its taxation you should already know what I'm saying was true (pre-panic anyway).

About low income families being targeted by policies in 1999 and 2001? As thats what we are talking about, as in the centre of this post. I've not been following your side points enough to even know what you're saying

 

Links to these 2 years of ground breaking policies please (if it was just "get a credit card", then I don't want to know ). I don't doubt they said something, but they said a lot of things that never amounted to what they claimed (the BBC has done an entire series of articles on Labours broken promises ).

 

I would hope they would have entire series of articles about every british governments broken promises.

[manc-mag 1]

Everything Labour has done to the tax structure has been designed to encourage people on low incomes to work more.

 

I'm not sure that's entirely true (the latest tax band fiasco - firmly aimed at the voters in "middle earner" class), they have fiddled the books a lot though, hence the disappearance of long term unemployed and the explosion of long term sick (which has now reached the point where even they are shitting themselves over it).

 

Whether its entirely true is arguable but the point was to compare and contrast with the tax structures inhereited from the tories rather than to judge new labour's fiscal policy independently.

 

Well neither dare tax the super rich or big companies, and neither probably ever will.

 

That doesnt really disprove the point either though does it?

 

That New Labour and the Conservatives are essentially the same?

 

The quote in the centre that you were seeking to contradict.

 

That New Labour and the Conservatives are essentially the same?

 

Apart from their tax policy to low income families, aye.

Which made 2,000,000 low income people worse off (hence the mass political panic when people actually got their pay packets).

 

And you say i pull statistics out me arse?

You do.

 

I always link to the source. You just scratch yours.

 

 

Fucking hell man Fop, you've taken some whuppings on here recently. Brilliant.

[Fop 1]

Everything Labour has done to the tax structure has been designed to encourage people on low incomes to work more.

 

I'm not sure that's entirely true (the latest tax band fiasco - firmly aimed at the voters in "middle earner" class), they have fiddled the books a lot though, hence the disappearance of long term unemployed and the explosion of long term sick (which has now reached the point where even they are shitting themselves over it).

 

Whether its entirely true is arguable but the point was to compare and contrast with the tax structures inhereited from the tories rather than to judge new labour's fiscal policy independently.

 

Well neither dare tax the super rich or big companies, and neither probably ever will.

 

That doesnt really disprove the point either though does it?

 

That New Labour and the Conservatives are essentially the same?

 

The quote in the centre that you were seeking to contradict.

 

That New Labour and the Conservatives are essentially the same?

 

Apart from their tax policy to low income families, aye.

Which made 2,000,000 low income people worse off (hence the mass political panic when people actually got their pay packets).

 

And you say i pull statistics out me arse?

You do.

 

I always link to the source. You just scratch yours.

 

 

Fucking hell man Fop, you've taken some whuppings on here recently. Brilliant.

 

You've got a lot to learn before graduation. Just repeating stuff can be effective, but there has to be some niggle there first.

 

 

Everything Labour has done to the tax structure has been designed to encourage people on low incomes to work more.

 

I'm not sure that's entirely true (the latest tax band fiasco - firmly aimed at the voters in "middle earner" class), they have fiddled the books a lot though, hence the disappearance of long term unemployed and the explosion of long term sick (which has now reached the point where even they are shitting themselves over it).

 

Whether its entirely true is arguable but the point was to compare and contrast with the tax structures inhereited from the tories rather than to judge new labour's fiscal policy independently.

 

Well neither dare tax the super rich or big companies, and neither probably ever will.

 

That doesnt really disprove the point either though does it?

 

That New Labour and the Conservatives are essentially the same?

 

The quote in the centre that you were seeking to contradict.

 

That New Labour and the Conservatives are essentially the same?

 

Apart from their tax policy to low income families, aye.

Which made 2,000,000 low income people worse off (hence the mass political panic when people actually got their pay packets).

 

And you say i pull statistics out me arse?

You do.

 

I always link to the source. You just scratch yours.

However if you paid attention to the UK and its taxation you should already know what I'm saying was true (pre-panic anyway).

About low income families being targeted by policies in 1999 and 2001? As thats what we are talking about, as in the centre of this post. I've not been following your side points enough to even know what you're saying

 

Links to these 2 years of ground breaking policies please (if it was just "get a credit card", then I don't want to know ). I don't doubt they said something, but they said a lot of things that never amounted to what they claimed (the BBC has done an entire series of articles on Labours broken promises ).

 

I would hope they would have entire series of articles about every british governments broken promises.

 

Aye, but New Labour came to power promising ridiculous numbers of things (and kept it up right into the early 2000's), but they delivered on very little of it (even their 5 key pledges were iffy).

 

Admittedly if the Liberals got in tomorrow they'd have the same problem (the SNP are having similar issues now), because they tend to promise the moon on a stick knowing they won't get the chance to have to deliver it.

 

The really shitty Labour raft of broken promises come from their second win though, by then they had no excuse they absolutely knew what they could and could not do.

[Fop 1]

Everything Labour has done to the tax structure has been designed to encourage people on low incomes to work more.

 

I'm not sure that's entirely true (the latest tax band fiasco - firmly aimed at the voters in "middle earner" class), they have fiddled the books a lot though, hence the disappearance of long term unemployed and the explosion of long term sick (which has now reached the point where even they are shitting themselves over it).

 

Whether its entirely true is arguable but the point was to compare and contrast with the tax structures inhereited from the tories rather than to judge new labour's fiscal policy independently.

 

Well neither dare tax the super rich or big companies, and neither probably ever will.

 

That doesnt really disprove the point either though does it?

 

That New Labour and the Conservatives are essentially the same?

 

The quote in the centre that you were seeking to contradict.

 

That New Labour and the Conservatives are essentially the same?

 

Apart from their tax policy to low income families, aye.

Which made 2,000,000 low income people worse off (hence the mass political panic when people actually got their pay packets).

 

And you say i pull statistics out me arse?

You do.

 

I always link to the source. You just scratch yours.

However if you paid attention to the UK and its taxation you should already know what I'm saying was true (pre-panic anyway).

About low income families being targeted by policies in 1999 and 2001? As thats what we are talking about, as in the centre of this post. I've not been following your side points enough to even know what you're saying

 

Links to these 2 years of ground breaking policies please (if it was just "get a credit card", then I don't want to know ). I don't doubt they said something, but they said a lot of things that never amounted to what they claimed (the BBC has done an entire series of articles on Labours broken promises ).

 

The links are in this thread.

 

See you never give links.