Clearly a 'socialist'.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... r-Inc.html

Taxes rose and class divides have increased, and look where he is afterwards. And he claims to be a socialist. Ridiculous.

Is Socialism left or right winged (in the whole scale of governments)?

Left wing.

Oh yes, it's ridiculous that a man continues to earn a good living after he has stood down from public office all together ; and god forbid him to set-up any sort of charitable organisation.

What I find funny is how everybody whines and moans about MP expenses when they hardly gained anything at all, compared to what they could earn if they decided to quit public office (case in point, Tony Blair).

And of course taxes have rose, there are many more people employed then there were in 1997 not to mention the boost immigration has had, higher incomes are now taxed more heavily then they ever were under the tories (infact that's one of the tories new policies, a tax break on the highest earners!).

When it comes to "class divides" you seem to be under the impression we still have a class system, whereby people never progress or move up the social ladder, this is not the case.

For example John Doe from family X with earnings of under £25,000 has child tax credits, family allowance, Education maintenance allowance and has the opportunity to be funded throughout any higher education as well as receiving bursaries and scholarships. There has never been less of a class divide, and labour under Tony Blair did a damn sight more then any Tories lead government would have done ; lower income people now have much more social mobility and disposable income.

everyone knows the telegraph's stance is conservative.

FML. does noone ever look at both sides of an argument anymore?

inb4 some daily mail reader posting topic saying video games are killing our elderly through starvation because of immigrants.

He has a charity intending to unite religions, yes. This wasn't what I was getting at.



The scandal was because it was public money they were using to spend as they saw fit. Hence the whining, moaning, and court cases.



The article says that Tony Blair doesn't have to declare all his income because of his 'mind-boggling web' of companies. Ultimately this means he pays less tax on his earnings than he should be.



People can move up the social ladder. I use class divides simply as a way of defining the status of people in society. Incomes can be classified in tiers, not everyone is earning the same amount.

Socialism tends to advocate social and economic equality. I don't notice this happening with Tony Blair, and if you read the article entirely perhaps you would understand the point I was making.



All of which serves to increase the national debt, which results in a need for increased taxes in other aspects. As a result more money flows in and out for people. I don't know specifics, and I'll probably need to read up on this if I continue to argue against you.


However I must ask Scottie whether you bothered to read through the article?



That's true, I've no doubt there is some bias in the article, but I still found what it contained quite disturbing.



I was simply saying I thought it went completely against any socialist standing as he now apparently 'lives like royalty'.

Erm, I read the article and don't quite get its point. It seems to be bitching about Tony Blair become a successful entrepreneur

They seem to have a thing against his owning of companies that do not reveal all their operating info. Well, that's perfectly legal and quite common

As for the "living like royalty" being against his socialist leanings, who really cares? It's not like he's being a hypocrite, he isn't pushing a socialist agenda anymore. Heck, give anyone money and they change, just see the Lottery winners (who all change, even if they say they won't).

Anyway, I really don't see the problem here.

I made that point to show that he is doing something, more then most people, and he doesn't have to do a damned thing and yet he is.




Yes...I am aware of the situation I was saying that people should calm down it was a pittance that was taken and they could all go into other jobs and be making alot more but we have some of the best and brightest working for a lot lower wages then they could be getting elsewhere.




Read below, at the attempt to disprove anything I say due to disbelief of even reading the article.



Your replying with a simplistic definition of how taxes are calculated, I was saying that judging by any indicators (from your previous point of a class divide) that you are wrong (I'll explain a few now for you). Education has improved gender and race divides have closed, tax relief and governmental funding of lower income families has increased the negative impacts of incarcerations has declined all of these indicators of an increase in social mobility. Without very much governmental spending.



Just because labour got into power does not mean a whole wash of so called socialist agendas got pushed through, our government and system doesn't allow this to happen (I'll spare the details, I'm sure you know that much at least). Labour has traditionally been socialist, and you use this word to tarnish and somehow mock them. You Met, I'm sure, have a lot to be thankful for due to this past history. But that is exactly what it is, history people have different views and the ability to cherry pick the best of all ideals, Tony Blair in himself is not inherently socialist ; yes he has socialist views but who in government these days doesn't?!



Perhaps you should, or even think back to your life and what has allowed you a level of education not available in some cases comparable countries. Our social welfare state is to be praised and kept, without it we could not compete higher education standards are all we have and to leave generations (you and I have already benefited) behind is, frankly a disgusting prospect. Especially when you consider the wealth generated by the nation, compared to the amount we put back into our people. It isn't alot when you consider the benefits. The national debt is not as much a concern as you have been lead to believe (it is when taken within historic debt in some cases ten times lower), the problem is mis-allocation of money due to our incompetent public service (state funded means there's no competition) and other wasteful things.




Of course I did, and I was able to see the stupidity when they started bashing his "web of companies", there's no web it was specifically worded to make you annoyed as your are. He has basically registered most of his companies (rightly so, and anyone with half a brain would) into some tax haven. He has already paid more tax then one thousand of the average in the country.




How?! He has some socialist views, but lives in a democracy whereby people can do as they like. It's like saying, one man think capital punishment is correct so the second he commits a minor traffic violation he is hung.

Just to let you know, I like all three parties and despise them at the same time.

I don't like the trade unions influence on labour and they have gotten so much done because of their support of labour.

I hate the tories tax breaks on the top 5% earners.

I hate that the liberals are so small.

I want to see a liberal lead, lib-lab coalition.