May reaches out - pass the sickbag Alice.

Theresa May to launch fight-back with 'fairer Britain' vow - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40549253

Does ANYONE really think the "One Nation" Tory myth exits - or indeed ever existed? Patrician Conservatives yes (MacMillan / Home / Heath) but most sentient beings have long known exactly what the Tory party is all about - reinforcing privilege, helping wealth and resource accretion to the already rich and impoverishing the disadvantaged, weak and those in greatest need. 'Twas ever thus.

If May wants to fix Britain it's really not that difficult:-

- massive investment in social housing. (There are inexpensive, modern, energy-efficient "prefab" type houses available.

- cancel tax cuts for the already wealthy (sends a message as well as helping public purse.)

- properly fund crumbling public services.

- stop treating public service workers as scum. Their living standards have fallen between 14 - 20% since the greedy, rapacious, bankers f**ked the global economy with their avarice. They need and deserve a decent pay rise.

Tackle unfair business practices - like the fees charged by finance companies for financial products (annuities etc).

Cancel Trident replacement. Setting aside the moral argument we simply can't afford it...our conventional armed forces are perilously close to (or may already have) fallen below critical mass.

Theresa May's desperate attempt to relaunch herself and her faltering government has all the sincerity of a Bob Monkhouse smile.

Spot on

Unfortunately the two main parties are now polar opposites when we need strong centrist policies where we encourage success and wealth generation yet uphold a strong social infrastructure. Also, the problem with British politics is that a good idea by one party cannot be seen to be used by another.

A growing poportion of the population do not pay income tax and the top earners not only pay the most tax disporportionately but also generate the business taxes that sustain our economy. Everyone should pay tax, even if its a notional amount. Its part of being in society and also makes the person a sense of entitlement to services.

The OP starts of about a fairer Britain but most of your post is not actually related. Its just a personal rant from the far left. What about the private sector workers who generate tax revenue that funds the public sector? what about the sole trader trying to grow a business and become an employer, who pays tax that funds the public sector? What about the inventor, who is the bedrock of our manufacturing that generates revenue that pays tax that funds our public sector? All these people are "small" entrepreneurs who have the cojones to put everything on the line. Our country is funded by private sector tax, including not insignificantly banking. No banking, no tax , no public sector. It was fine when the finance sector was funding the country's coffers successfully for the previous decades.

People need to realise we are the sum of all our parts and each have a part to play.

Everybody does pay tax from 20% VAT Fuel Duty Etc regardless of how little or much they have to live on Vat started at 7.5%

After living in the USA, it's clear to me that both the mainstream parties in the UK are further left than in the US. The conservatives here are akin to the democrats in the US.

Personally, I object to the amount of taxes and national insurance I have paid to the UK during my lifetime. It has been a large amount and it often feels unfair. I have never qualified for any tax breaks or credits. However, I'm also aware that this is the cost of a free health service and one that I'm prepared to bear.

Should society be structured so that even the lazy, the unintelligent or the sometimes intentionally poorly educated receive the same benefits as those who have worked hard and been blessed with natural intelligence? Some would say that everyone is equal under God. Others would differ. Is the contribution from a street cleaner as valuable as that of a heart surgeon? Do they deserve different compensation?

The answer most likely depends on where your personal circumstances sit. In these debates, personal self interest often colours your viewpoint. I recall reading that 'a left winger is merely a right winger who has been in jail'. It's easy to support the left when the chips are down and it's easy to support the right in the good times, wouldn't you agree?

On a point of information, I had the pleasure of knowing Ted Heath slightly - he was a director of my employers' UK company. He didn't start as a patrician - he was the son of a carpenter and a housemaid, who got to Oxford on a scholarship. He had a reputation for being brusque, but I didn't find him to be so. He had turned himself into a patrician - as did John Major, whom I only met once, but liked immediately.

You could equaly use the example of a street cleaner and the Investment Banker

As I believe I may have mentioned, I have met Ted Heath twice within the space of about three months. In the autumn of 1969, I was one of four Deck Cadets on the P&O ship, ss Patonga, and made the voyage from London to Sydney (and beyond) with Ted Heath's first sailing yacht to bear the name "Morning Cloud". The boat was delivered to the quayside in Royal Victoria Dock and its loading as deck cargo was done in the owner's presence. Rather than pay the passage and wage bill for a couple of his own men to carry-out in-voyage maintenance, he prevailed on the Captain to give his cadets "something useful to do" during the voyage. The Captain agreed that we cadets could keep an eye on his boat (which we would have done anyway, along with the two horses and six dogs that we also had onboard). Heath then handed the Captain a list of things he wanted completingb for arrival and bade him a cheery goodbye.

During the voyage we completed some but not all the tasks. Painting the hull could not be done for the simple reason that P&O's cargo ships did not use (or carry) white paint - in those days the ships were black-hulled, green boot-topping, red decks and dark sand superstructure. Besides which, our paint was intended for use on steel and would not have worked at all well on fiberglass.

When we arrived in Sydney and Heath came aboard to supervise the unloading, the Chief Steward (the keeper of the books) handed him a bill. "One thousand Pounds?!", spluttered Heath, "what's that for". The bill was fully-itemised and covered the overtime which we cadets had incurred along with the ship's stores consumed in looking after that perishing boat. Heath refused and tried to bluster his way out of the situation whereupon the Mate threatened to impound "Morning Cloud" for non-payment of passage fees. Heath's sailing master - an altogether much nicer individual - paid just in time for the boat to be put in the water, provisioned, crewed and positioned on the starting line.

Since when did a call for a fair distribution of wealth & resources, properly-funded social services and a fair tax system to pay for it become the sole purview of the "far left"?

Before neo-liberalism completely dominated the Tory party these were regarded as moderate, progressive, policies.

If Britain carries on the way it's going the welfare state will disappear and we'll be like the US with millions of impoverished souls left to the mercy of the unforgiving market. Indeed, an argument can be made we've already reached there.

Do you mean like in Russia from 1917 onwards?

You do mean like in Russia from 1917 onwards!

nah from maggy onwards

No. Try your leader's idols, Josef Stalin and Karl Marx.

I am overwelmed by the force of you interlectual aguement and spelling

How could one such as I hope to address your astute reasoning

A fair distribution of wealth is a socialist policy. Wealth is earned or inherited. Putting in a sentence along with social services and a fair tax system does not change that.

It can also be stolen as per BHS and Hidden as per The Panama Papers and other off shore hideaways

You won't find many people willing to defend investment bankers, but if I may provide food for thought by way of analogy.

In 1492, the Catholic Kings of Spain finally expelled the Arabs from Spain. Under 700 years of Moorish rule, the entire southern half of the Iberian peninsula was turned into a fertile garden, with all manner of fruit and vegetables being in abundant supply, made possible by the Arab's installation of an ingenious irrigation system.

Upon their expulsion, it became clear that nobody knew how the system actually worked. The trees and bushes that provided the fruit and vegetables went unwatered and died, and the area reverted to its barren state.

Banking and Financial Services provides a huge income for Britain. During the GFC they took a beating for many justifiable reasons. But they DO pay their taxes, and they DO know how the machine functions. Stopping them earning such huge amounts won't solve society's ills. The Financial Sector of our economy would simply become The Financial Sector of Germany and France.

Perhaps it's time to stop blaming them for everything.

Wealth can also be frittered away, lost or poorly invested. Or plundered by an ex wife, for example.

The Panama issue and offshore banking is completely unrelated to money being stolen and it annoys me when two unconnected things are used together as though the association is relevant when it clearly is not. I do not support tax avoidance if that is your point, but its usually more to do with inadequate tax laws rather than criminal activity. Loop holes are not illegal.

With regard to BHS, the money was not stolen anymore than many other companies who took pension payment holidays. The shame/scandal about BHS was its failure as a retailer because had that not happened, the pension problem would have not arisen so critically.

If any party wants to come in a squeeze the rich then they will make a big mistake. I think over 50% of the population pay no income tax, and many have in work benefits. How is that sustainable? and who do you think pays the taxes that finances those benefits already? I think I read the statistic somewhere that only 25% of the population pay more tax than they use. I may be way off on that figure but you get my drift.

Getting the right blend is the key. That is the right blend of taxation and redistribution.

Its not, my personal view is that the whole tax pay investment incentive needs a start from scratch rethink and that its Land ownership where really dramatic redistrabution could take place

“A Land Value Tax could be a fair and progressive way to encourage both the creation of more homes, and a more efficient and sustainable use of land by making it unprofitable to sit on unused land.

“Over a period of time, it could help to stabilise the property market and tackle the boom-and-bust factor that contributed towards the 2008 financial crisis – discouraging disproportionate amounts of capital from being tied up in property and excessive accumulation of debt.

“Unfortunately, despite increasing support for the idea amongst economists and politicians (2), no government has yet been willing to look seriously into the possibilities of introducing an LVT.

https://www.greenparty.org.uk/news/...lue-tax-would-help-stabilise-property-market/