Milliband made a passionate defence for a mansion tax on ITVs the Agenda there tonight even though most of the panel were attacking him about it. HOW DARE YOU TAX US RICH PEOPLE MORE ITLL BE THE POOR GRANNYS IN THEIR 2 MILLION POUND MANSIONS THAT WILL BE EFFECTED MOST OR THEIR FAMILIES LIVING OFF THE SILVER SPOON

Milliband made a passionate defence for a mansion tax on ITVs the Agenda there tonight even though most of the panel were attacking him about it. HOW DARE YOU TAX US RICH PEOPLE MORE ITLL BE THE POOR GRANNYS IN THEIR 2 MILLION POUND MANSIONS THAT WILL BE EFFECTED MOST OR THEIR FAMILIES LIVING OFF THE SILVER SPOON

The whole idea of the bedroom tax is to get people on low incomes to move. Somehow the same principle isn't supposed to apply to people with a low income but who happen to own a home worth over two million quid.

Of course most of the panel would be against it, they are exactly the selfish greedy bast*ards this tax is aimed at to attempt in some way to redress the vast (and growing) inequalities in wealth across the UK.

The rich are powerful, Labour need to go on the attack and stop worrying about losing their support. They won't vote for Labour anyway, so it's stupid to even consider them. My family had to relocate to another part of the country entirely to get jobs. If I had a house worth 2million I'd sell it and retire, and buy an even bigger one somewhere else. Poor dears being that asset rich, speaking as a none-property-owner, my heart bleeds for them it's a terrible burden being well-off....

The rich are powerful, Labour need to go on the attack and stop worrying about losing their support. They won't vote for Labour anyway, so it's stupid to even consider them.

Which totally misses the point that they're disproportionately powerful within the media and exceptionally good at talking as one in an effort to make ordinary voters think Labour's plans are morally wrong/a mess/would hit them/any of the above.

^^Exactly the media in this country are a disgrace.

 

Ed was getting very passionate during the discussion he seemed disgusted that people like Mylenne Klass were opposing the issue so much - Made him look decent!

Which totally misses the point that they're disproportionately powerful within the media and exceptionally good at talking as one in an effort to make ordinary voters think Labour's plans are morally wrong/a mess/would hit them/any of the above.

 

Of course, it's the same in the USA wher Fox News has spent the entire last 6 years moaning about Obamacare and Obama, that's not an exaggeration, switch on at random and that's what you hear - not news, just constant political spewing. You have to hit them hard, the UK has the advantage of the BBC who have to be unbiased, so there's no excuse for sucking up or kowtowing to the powerful - you attack them verbally and spell out in simple terms exactly what they are doing and why they are saying it. There's the internet, i, The Guardian, plenty of outlets. Make them the enemy (again - phone hacking anyone?) and show some guts and passion. Meekly being on the defensive all the time is just accepting you're a loser.

Which totally misses the point that they're disproportionately powerful within the media and exceptionally good at talking as one in an effort to make ordinary voters think Labour's plans are morally wrong/a mess/would hit them/any of the above.

 

Boo hoo. Just because it's difficult, that doesn't mean they can just pathetically give up time after time. I believe the entire press were hysterically against Labour's "communist" plans before the 1945 election, yet they still won a landslide - and that was when the press were far more trusted than they are now.

Edited November 18, 201410 yr by Danny

This put her comments into perspective.

 

http://labourlist.org/2014/11/5-beautiful-...lass-could-buy/

Boo hoo. Just because it's difficult, that doesn't mean they can just pathetically give up time after time. I believe the entire press were hysterically against Labour's "communist" plans before the 1945 election, yet they still won a landslide - and that was when the press were far more trusted than they are now.

Yes, I'm sure those rich are delighted we've given up by guaranteeing a return to the 50p tax rate, a clampdown on tax avoidance, rent caps and freezes for the landlords, and bringing in a mansion tax. That's basically Christmas to them that is.

 

(and they weren't - The Sun and The Times endorsed Labour in the 1945 general election, and most of the antis didn't refer to Labour's plans as communist, but rather 'imposing state control after we've just fought a war against it'. You've got a bit of a bad habit of stating your assumptions of how things have happened/must be as fact.)

Yes, I'm sure those rich are delighted we've given up by guaranteeing a return to the 50p tax rate, a clampdown on tax avoidance, rent caps and freezes for the landlords, and bringing in a mansion tax. That's basically Christmas to them that is.

 

(and they weren't - The Sun and The Times endorsed Labour in the 1945 general election, and most of the antis didn't refer to Labour's plans as communist, but rather 'imposing state control after we've just fought a war against it'. You've got a bit of a bad habit of stating your assumptions of how things have happened/must be as fact.)

The Sun didn't exist in 1945. It's predecessor, the Daily Herald, was a very different paper.

Yes, I'm sure those rich are delighted we've given up by guaranteeing a return to the 50p tax rate, a clampdown on tax avoidance, rent caps and freezes for the landlords, and bringing in a mansion tax. That's basically Christmas to them that is.

 

(and they weren't - The Sun and The Times endorsed Labour in the 1945 general election, and most of the antis didn't refer to Labour's plans as communist, but rather 'imposing state control after we've just fought a war against it'. You've got a bit of a bad habit of stating your assumptions of how things have happened/must be as fact.)

 

Yes, so that's two papers - even now, there are still 2-3 papers (Independent is questionable) who would support such things. My point is that there's nothing new in the vast majority of the press viciously opposing anything vaguely left-wing - it's ALWAYS been the case, and always will be, rich people are always going to be the major press barons. But that's not an excuse for left-wing people to just whine about how impossible it is and not even try to fight against it, when that 1945 example showed even THEN that people didn't pay much attention to what the press said (and for a more recent example, how about the fact that 45% of people voted for Scottish independence despite all the hysterical propaganda from the press against it, a voteshare that would be easily enough for any party to get a landslide win in an election).

Edited November 18, 201410 yr by Danny

Yes, so that's two papers - even now, there are still 2-3 papers (Independent is questionable) who would support such things.

The Mirror and the Guardian were in support too. The point I was making is that the idea that all of the press were viciously against Labour in 1945 is a total falsehood. I mean come on, if you're getting THE TIMES endorsing you...even then they were a big swing endorsement.

 

My point is that there's nothing new in the vast majority of the press viciously opposing anything vaguely left-wing - it's ALWAYS been the case, and always will be, rich people are always going to be the major press barons. But that's not an excuse for left-wing people to just whine about how impossible it is and not even try to fight against it, when that 1945 example showed even THEN that people didn't pay much attention to what the press said (and for a more recent example, how about the fact that 45% of people voted for Scottish independence despite all the hysterical propaganda from the press against it, a voteshare that would be easily enough for any party to get a landslide win in an election).

And do you think the result would've been the exact same without the 'hysterical propaganda' from the press? (which also spent the entire time trashing the Better Together campaign. Hardly unqualified unstinting propaganda). And a nebulous 'independence' which anybody could paint their own definition on (from some centrist businesses to the Radical Campaign for Independence) has an advantage in terms of broad appeal over a specific political platform for a political party, with all the baggage parties bring with them.

 

Did I say we shouldn't even try to fight against it? My original point was against popchartfreak's facile statement that going all out against the rich didn't matter 'because they were never going to vote Labour anyway' - their influence goes beyond that. That isn't a reason to not go against the interests of the rich, but I don't think there's been a single government in the West in the last fifty years that got elected on a platform of totally declaring war on the interests of the rich without ending in failure.

The Mirror and the Guardian were in support too. The point I was making is that the idea that all of the press were viciously against Labour in 1945 is a total falsehood. I mean come on, if you're getting THE TIMES endorsing you...even then they were a big swing endorsement.

And do you think the result would've been the exact same without the 'hysterical propaganda' from the press? (which also spent the entire time trashing the Better Together campaign. Hardly unqualified unstinting propaganda). And a nebulous 'independence' which anybody could paint their own definition on (from some centrist businesses to the Radical Campaign for Independence) has an advantage in terms of broad appeal over a specific political platform for a political party, with all the baggage parties bring with them.

 

Did I say we shouldn't even try to fight against it? My original point was against popchartfreak's facile statement that going all out against the rich didn't matter 'because they were never going to vote Labour anyway' - their influence goes beyond that. That isn't a reason to not go against the interests of the rich, but I don't think there's been a single government in the West in the last fifty years that got elected on a platform of totally declaring war on the interests of the rich without ending in failure.

 

I think it's possible independence would've been rejected by even MORE had they not had the press and super-rich hysterically against them. Having all the elites against you actually can be an asset in this day and age when people are so anti-establishment. But Labour are too inept to take advantage of it, because they can't campaign in a populist way to save themselves, and because they're so obsessed with getting "credibility" from the establishment.

Edited November 18, 201410 yr by Danny

I must have missed all those insurgent anti-establishment governments taking power across the West without any media support instead of just getting about 15% of the vote.

Again....the Scottish independence referendum.

Edited November 18, 201410 yr by Danny

Which had the backing of the Herald and the backing of Rupert Murdoch. And isn't a government.

I must have missed all those insurgent anti-establishment governments taking power across the West without any media support instead of just getting about 15% of the vote.

 

Was about to suggest Italy's Five Star Movement, although it turns out they aren't as popular as I'd originally thought.

The Mirror and the Guardian were in support too. The point I was making is that the idea that all of the press were viciously against Labour in 1945 is a total falsehood. I mean come on, if you're getting THE TIMES endorsing you...even then they were a big swing endorsement.

When it's been obvious that Labour were going to win then The Times have endorsed them.

When it's been obvious that Labour were going to win then The Times have endorsed them.

It wasn't obvious that Labour were going to win in 1945 though - they were going into the election with just 150 or so seats against Churchill as the hero leader. From what I've read most people expected they'd do a lot better but a win certainly wasn't obvious - indeed, the likes of Herbert Morrison told Attlee privately that they'd be contesting his leadership after the election because he was holding them back from the victory they felt they deserved, until they actually got it!

 

Not to mention that The Times didn't endorse Labour again until 2001 - even for those obvious wins in 1966 and 1997, they withheld the endorsement.