• Welcome to the ShrimperZone forums.
    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which only gives you limited access.

    Existing Users:.
    Please log-in using your existing username and password. If you have any problems, please see below.

    New Users:
    Join our free community now and gain access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and free. Click here to join.

    Fans from other clubs
    We welcome and appreciate supporters from other clubs who wish to engage in sensible discussion. Please feel free to join as above but understand that this is a moderated site and those who cannot play nicely will be quickly removed.

    Assistance Required
    For help with the registration process or accessing your account, please send a note using the Contact us link in the footer, please include your account name. We can then provide you with a new password and verification to get you on the site.

Progressive Politics

Forums New posts
Such is my ignorance, that I always imagined it was a term used by the likes of Clinton, Blair et al to steal the centre ground of politics on the pretence of being left wing; and thus making all others seem extremist.
 
So its left wing policies (nothing wrong with that) being rolled out by parties to spineless to have the courage of their convictions so they hide behind a soundbite which sounds good.

If you believe your policies are good enough and that you as a politician are good enough to persuade people that you can implement them and they will work, you don't need to hide behind a buzzword name.

If fairness to the Tories , you always know what you are going to get , but Labour went through a stage of being less about the politics and more about being a politician and shafted their rank and file as well as their founders principles in order to try and get cheap win votes. By "New" labour belittling the left (as well as the expect right bashing them too) the bulk of the population heard that socialism doesn't work (despite fair post war evidence to the contrary) and basically buried the chances of left of centre really being able to work again in this country.
 
Firestorm said:
So its left wing policies (nothing wrong with that) being rolled out by parties to spineless to have the courage of their convictions so they hide behind a soundbite which sounds good.

If you believe your policies are good enough and that you as a politician are good enough to persuade people that you can implement them and they will work, you don't need to hide behind a buzzword name.

If fairness to the Tories , you always know what you are going to get , but Labour went through a stage of being less about the politics and more about being a politician and shafted their rank and file as well as their founders principles in order to try and get cheap win votes. By "New" labour belittling the left (as well as the expect right bashing them too) the bulk of the population heard that socialism doesn't work (despite fair post war evidence to the contrary) and basically buried the chances of left of centre really being able to work again in this country.
Click to expand...

Fair comment, but I'm struggling to see the examples of socialism 'working'.
 
osymandus said:
Norway and Sweden.
Click to expand...

'I live in sweden and I'm only speaking for our country now. But the situation is similar in the other nordic countries. This graph shows you the taxes as a percentage of GDP for the past 100 years.

http://www.ekonomifakta.se/sv/Fakta/...r/Skattetryck/

As you can see, we haven't always had as high taxes as we do today. It wasn't until the just before the 80s that they reached their top. In the early 1900s we were free market extremists by todays standards. It was during this time that we actually created most of our wealth. Note that we didn't participate in either WWI or WWII either so we have had quite a head start.

The real question isn't wether we are wealthy or not. The real question is, are we creating more wealth or is our wealth deteriorating. I say the answer is certainly the latter. Our public sector have become very bloated and we don't have the wiggle room with taxes that we used to have. 50 years ago the government still had room to raise taxes in order to fund for the raising costs of socialism. They don't have this luxury anymore so government emplyees are underpaid now instead. Since teachers and nurses etc. aren't getting the payments they deserve we start to see a shortage of these. Why would people educate themself into something underpaid? All of this will have some very bad long term results. If you give it 20 or 30 more years I think you will hear some very different stories on the success of our socialism.'

But whatever you say Ozzer Hughes.
 
Rusty Shackleford said:
'I live in sweden and I'm only speaking for our country now. But the situation is similar in the other nordic countries. This graph shows you the taxes as a percentage of GDP for the past 100 years.

http://www.ekonomifakta.se/sv/Fakta/...r/Skattetryck/

As you can see, we haven't always had as high taxes as we do today. It wasn't until the just before the 80s that they reached their top. In the early 1900s we were free market extremists by todays standards. It was during this time that we actually created most of our wealth. Note that we didn't participate in either WWI or WWII either so we have had quite a head start.

The real question isn't wether we are wealthy or not. The real question is, are we creating more wealth or is our wealth deteriorating. I say the answer is certainly the latter. Our public sector have become very bloated and we don't have the wiggle room with taxes that we used to have. 50 years ago the government still had room to raise taxes in order to fund for the raising costs of socialism. They don't have this luxury anymore so government emplyees are underpaid now instead. Since teachers and nurses etc. aren't getting the payments they deserve we start to see a shortage of these. Why would people educate themself into something underpaid? All of this will have some very bad long term results. If you give it 20 or 30 more years I think you will hear some very different stories on the success of our socialism.'

But whatever you say Ozzer Hughes.
Click to expand...

Ok someone in Sweden doesn't like high taxes has shown that , their taxes have got higher over the years (no mention of quality of life or services or benefits and profits will drop anyway in a global recessions ). And their guessing in 20 years it might change ?
Norway ? Anything for Norway ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

.



Club News
Fixtures and Results
League Table
SUFC Ticket Stats
Shrimpers Trust
SoccerBase
SUEPA (Ex Players)
Shrimperzone on Facebook
Shrimperzone on Twitter
Shrimperzone on Instagram
SUFC Exiles


ShrimperZone Sponsors

FFM MSPFX Foreign Exchange Services
Estuary MFF2
Zone Advertisers Zone Advertisers

ShrimperZone - SUFC Player Sponsorship

Southend United Away Travel


All At Sea Fanzine


Back
Top