Are we going to have an Election discussion?

Posted by: Rasher on 26 April 2005

My wife is disgusted with Labour after the war, with the NHS being so crap (personal experience that we won't go into), council tax being so high with nothing to show for it, generally paying so much for so little, low cost housing, the poor getting poorer, schools & education. etc. etc.
She has been talking of voting Lib Dem, but she didn't see the ITV prog Ask Charles Kennedy last night. The poor will definately get poorer under Lib Dem, and the rich too!
It really isn't easy, is it.
I can't remember a time when I have been so disappointed with all of them.

Posted on: 26 April 2005 by 7V

quote:
Originally posted by Berlin Fritz:
So do the £Billions of Squid in Tax relief the likes of Marks & Spencer, Tesco, BP, etc, etc, get from the likes of you folk for their mega losses outside of the UK in your fair system, try it with a German firm losing dosh in UK for instance with Taxpayers like myself over here, I don't think so somehow, it'd be as contraversial as trying to introduce Church Tax (as they have here) in UK, I think a Poll Tax-like Civil War could well break out, innit ?

This has confused me somewhat. Wouldn't the other side of the coin be that HSBC (for example) would have to pay tax in the UK for their profits overseas?

Regards
Steve M

Posted on: 26 April 2005 by Mick P

Steve

Fritz is referring to a recent court decision that prevents international companies from switching losses made in one country to another where they only have an office.

It is all to do with varying levels of tax relief in different countries. You declare the loss where you get the greatest relief.

From now on they will not be able to do it.

Regards

Mick

Posted on: 26 April 2005 by Matt F

quote:
Originally posted by AndyFelin:
The 'HAVES' are doing very well at the moment and to suggest that they should have even more (flat-rate tax) is just right-wing nonsense.

But the have nots pay substantially less under a flat rate system e.g. someone on £10K a year would pay no tax at all!

There is a very interesting paper on it here by the Adam Smith institute - worth a read before dissing the idea I suggest.

http://www.adamsmith.org/pdf/flattax.pdf

quote:
Originally posted by AndyFelin:
I will vote Labour this election, as I have always done. I think they stand for a fairer more equitable society, where the weakest at least have a reasonable chance and don't have to beg or go into the poorhouse.

An alternative view might be that they squander billions of tax payer's money (and money 'stolen' from pension funds) on woefully innefficient public services and on creating an army of worthless, unproductive co-ordinator/liaison type roles and have created a benefits system that encourages reliance on the state instead of giving individuals an incentive to work.

At the end of the day, if I may use an analogy of a tired old car, they have raised enough money to give it a new engine and gearbox and to have to body resprayed. However, after the focus groups and similar have had their cut there's only enough left in the pot to give it a set of new mudflaps and some go faster stripes - and the spin doctors are trying to convince us how much better it is now.

quote:
Originally posted by AndyFelin:
I vehemently disagreed with the Iraq invasion and felt (and still feel) totally let down by the New Labour administration. I also don't like their enthusiastic take-up of Thatcherite free-market dogma, but despite all this I am still ging to vote for them. The alternative is too ghastly to contemplate. Do we really want a return to the grab-it-while-you-can greedy '80s?

Then you shouldn't vote for them as Blair will take victory as condoning the war in Iraq and, worse, may even take it as a mandate to embark upon whatever plans Bush has for Iran and/or North Korea.

When you put your cross in the Labour box, I won't say you are condoning the war but you are forgiving Labour for something that was no accident - far from it. Whether you can forgive them for it is up to you but we're not talking about tuition fees here are we.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by AndyFelin:
Question. Has the legacy of Mrs Thatcher made the Tory's unelectable - discuss.
/QUOTE]

I don't think so but Labour and the Lib Dems have done a great spin job in convincing everyone how bleak those 18 years were when lots of voters are probably too young to remember it. Fact is, if they were that bad why did the public vote them back in 3 times?

As for Thatch - of course she remains a hate figure to those affected by her tough economic reforms but, if it wasn't her, it would have been someone else.

She did what HAD to be done to save the UK from going down the toilet - there was no alternative. There were many casualties who will hate her and the Tories forever.

However, I've yet to hear anyone say how they would have handled the situation better - someone had to deliver the nasty medicine to the sick man of Europe and that was her.

Matt.

Posted on: 26 April 2005 by 7V

I see. Thanks for that, Mick. Generally, corporations like individuals will pay as little tax as they can get away with.

That's another reason for the increasing popularity of flat tax schemes. A flat tax rate is generally low enough to persuade everyone that it's not worth avoiding payment. Of course 'flat tax' is a misnomer. In fact under the schemes that have been proposed, a higher proportion of people (at the lower earnings end) escape paying tax altogether.

Even where a scheme results in increased wealth for the poorest in society and leads to a higher growth rate (which benefits everyone), many people still come out against it if the wealthiest also benefit. It's better for everyone to be poorer than for everyone to be richer but the rich to be richer still.

Regards
Steve M

Posted on: 26 April 2005 by Jo Sharp

quote:
Originally posted by Hammerhead:

It'd be even worse for the Conservatives if Oliver Letwin had more air time. I can't think of a more repulsive, slimy git there is in UK politics presently.

Steve

That is easy, let me help you....

Blair, Mandelson, Campbell, Darling, Milburn....take your pick from the team that Mr Blair promised in 1997 would be 'whiter than white'...

Posted on: 26 April 2005 by Berlin Fritz

quote:
Originally posted by Mick Parry:
Steve

Fritz is referring to a recent court decision that prevents international companies from switching losses made in one country to another where they only have an office.

It is all to do with varying levels of tax relief in different countries. You declare the loss where you get the greatest relief.

From now on they will not be able to do it.

Regards

Mick

Simply not true Our Mick, in your lickle dreams I fear (once again) Gordon has sanctioned it, they are kept sweet, as with the helping out of Rover at taxpayers expense, please bullshit me (or try) all you wish, but not your fellow hard working TAX payers, you are WRONG it is not true, and is easily verified at IR level (it's not new or an election ruse, they got it from your Tories in the first place) .

Fritz Von I hope you've got your aluminum briefcase to put yer filofax in John ?

P.S. 7 Up old C´hooky, Mick refers to the offices that look similar to mega retail branches and selling outlets all over West & More lately Eastern €urope, I'm glad you all find it ever so funny, cos so do I, I think it's bally hilarious³

Posted on: 26 April 2005 by Don Atkinson

This election "campaign" seems more like a squalid squabble than anything else.

The "issues" are almost entirely domestic, with very shallow presentation, and very little to differentiate the two main parties. And you've already covered the entire spectrum of topics above (in more depth than the politicians). I would like to know their policies on creating funamental wealth (trade including invisible exports; manufacturing; agriculture) as opposed to "service" industries or (worst of all) bureaucrats.

There is very little about how each party would seek to influence the international community, or what subjects we would like the international community to tackle. For my part, I'd like to know each party's detailed proposals for tackling global-over-population, global-sustainability of resources, global-health and global-poverty.

Cheers

Don

Posted on: 26 April 2005 by Mick P

Fritz

Sorry you are wrong. The proposed legislation insists that losses must be declared in the country where the losses are made.

There are circumstances that will allow transfer of losses from one country to another but if this happens, it must be declared in the annual report and accounts of all countries concerned. This will make things a lot more transparent.

Regards

Mick

Posted on: 26 April 2005 by Berlin Fritz

I've just been onto Mr Jones and he's going to send you over some extra briskett for the weekend to sharpen those old brain cells of yours up a touch, he asked me to ask you when the rest of the World is going to change it's silly financial year rules from Jan - Dec, and be normal like us ?

Fritz Von You Couldn't make it up

Posted on: 26 April 2005 by Nime

I hear the swish of magic wands but litle in the way of concrete suggestions to sort out the (supposed) present mess.

Let's put the party loyalists to the test.

Mick consistently brings up his distaste for the unemployed.

Could he recommend a way to take people off unemployment benefit without it simply meaning "empty" jobs at yet greater taxpayer's expense? Who is going to employ them? They can't all work in fast-food chains. The councils already have their full quota of sweepers and dustbin men and these jobs become yet more mechanised daily. The vast numbers of inneficient, pre-Thatcherite factories are gone. Has Britain suddenly developed the need for large number of unskilled workers? If not, which jobs are you actually offering them?

We have also heard that kids should allowed to leave school at 15 if they show poor academic performance. Should these armies of kids be supported financially by the taxpayer? Or will they become the next generation of burglars and drug pushers just to survive? You take them out of school to do what? Hang around the shopping centres? Voluntary attendance at skills centres?

Apprenticeships should be offered? Where? Rover? How will home manufacturing companies survive against ever cheaper imports if required to take on expensive apprentices instead of just using cheap unskilled labour for brain-damaging repetitive tasks? Cheap labour saves investing in expensive machines. Most of which would need to be imported from the Far East and E.Europe these days.

Isn't it the responsibility of the government to make it worthwhile for the unemployed to work by raising the minimum wage to level to where they can actually see the advantages of working? Though that still leaves the question of where they will actually find their own oh-so desirable job.

Would he not agree that for each unemployed person who gets a job, the balance of payments becomes worse? Since they will probably spend their meagre increase in disposable income on cheap imported (Chinese) electrical goods and clothing?

Won't increasing the number of active workers further damage Britain's poor performance in the Kyoto stakes? By allowing themselves to increase the warmth of their homes by a degree or two over the present inadequate levels? That extra heat has to come from somewhere.

Nime

Posted on: 26 April 2005 by 7V

quote:
Originally posted by Nime:
We have also heard that kids should allowed to leave school at 15 if they show poor academic performance.

Nime, you ask some good questions. At this late hour I'd just like to comment on the point above as it was me who brought up this issue.

I didn't mention academic performance. My point was that if 15 year olds don't wish to continue with their schooling, why force them? What purpose does it serve? I'm sure that some more vocational options could be made available to them. Apprenticeships exist and more could be encouraged, even following the demise of Rover.

Regards
Steve M

Posted on: 26 April 2005 by Matt F

quote:
Originally posted by Nime:
Apprenticeships should be offered? Where? Rover? How will home manufacturing companies survive against ever cheaper imports if required to take on expensive apprentices instead of just using cheap unskilled labour for brain-damaging repetitive tasks?

Nime

Engineering (electrical, civil), electronics, contruction industry, builders, roofers, carpenters, electricians, plasterers, plumbers, mechanics, quantity surveyors... need I go on?

And none of the above services can be imported - we need people here who can do those jobs.

Matt.

Posted on: 26 April 2005 by MichaelC

quote:
Originally posted by Hammerhead:
I can't think of a more repulsive, slimy git there is in UK politics presently.

Tony Blair

Posted on: 26 April 2005 by MichaelC

quote:
Originally posted by Mick Parry:
This will make things a lot more transparent

Trust me - it won't.

Posted on: 26 April 2005 by MichaelC

quote:
Originally posted by Nime:
Mick consistently brings up his distaste for the unemployed.

Could he recommend a way to take people off unemployment benefit ...

Ok, trying not to misquote - I think we may have hit a fundamental problem. We are now (perhaps) dealing with a significant number of people who do not wish to work (why??? is it too cushy a benefits system? or the lack of values instilled in them as they grow up?).

Posted on: 26 April 2005 by Steve Toy

Tony and his cronies are comfortably in the opinion poll lead right now.

However, there is a nice little blot on the horizon forming the backdrop to that bed of red roses.

The first ever anti-speed camera demonstration is scheduled to take place on Saturday not far from Mick's patch. This is probably not very significant in the grand scheme of things.

The impending fuel blockades are a different matter though as they will bring to the fore of voters' minds the willful malevolence of this government's untransport policy.

Posted on: 27 April 2005 by Derek Wright

Apart from stealth taxes we also have stealth unemployment -

The stealth unemployed consist of two main groups:

2/3rds of all the undergraduates in UK places of education - why - becuse the country does not have the required number of graduate entry jobs to employ the surplus of undergraduates - they should be on the unemployment register so they can get real work that is beneficial to the country.

50% of all the public sector jobs that have been created in the last 8 years. These new jobs are in the main regulatory jobs to ensure that other people work to redundant targets or standards that have been central government initiated.

One could argue that the %age of new public sector jobs that are redundant should in fact be higher.

Employing people in the public sector is more expensive than putting them on the dole for a short while and also dissuades them from getting jobs that are truly benefical to the economy

Posted on: 27 April 2005 by Berlin Fritz

quote:
Originally posted by Matt F:
quote:
Originally posted by Nime:
Apprenticeships should be offered? Where? Rover? How will home manufacturing companies survive against ever cheaper imports if required to take on expensive apprentices instead of just using cheap unskilled labour for brain-damaging repetitive tasks?

Nime

Engineering (electrical, civil), electronics, contruction industry, builders, roofers, carpenters, electricians, plasterers, plumbers, mechanics, quantity surveyors... need I go on?

And none of the above services can be imported - we need people here who can do those jobs.

Matt.

Mattt me old diamond, perhaps you could explain to me why these jobs are un-importable mate ?

Fritz Von Not an engineer by any chance are yee ?

Posted on: 27 April 2005 by AndyFelin

quote:
Originally posted by Matt F:

But the have nots pay substantially less under a flat rate system e.g. someone on £10K a year would pay no tax at all!

There is a very interesting paper on it here by the Adam Smith institute - worth a read before dissing the idea I suggest.
--
I accept that the low incomed (this includes myself) should not pay tax. But a flat rate is still very unfair to the lower paid as the proportion they will have to pay in tax is unduly high compared to the higher earner. For example, consider 20% tax rate for someone on £20K against someone on £100K. It does look equitable until you realise the residual remaining.

I must admit I am suspicious of anything coming out of the Adam Smith Institute, especially when it uses an American model.

Anyway, flat rate tax is a side issue and not part of the Tory proposals.

------------------------------------------------

An alternative view might be that they squander billions of tax payer's money (and money 'stolen' from pension funds) on woefully innefficient public services and on creating an army of worthless, unproductive co-ordinator/liaison type roles and have created a benefits system that encourages reliance on the state instead of giving individuals an incentive to work.

--

Hmmm. I think you are starting to believe your own dogma. Our public services are not crumbling or breaking down, we do have problems which are little different from other Western countries.

Have you ever been on benefit? Despite all the dodgy anecdotal evidence you get down the pub, it is NOT easy to get. To blame the benefits system for the UKs social problems appears to me, to be completely missing the point.

------------------------------------------------

Then you shouldn't vote for them as Blair will take victory as condoning the war in Iraq and, worse, may even take it as a mandate to embark upon whatever plans Bush has for Iran and/or North Korea.

When you put your cross in the Labour box, I won't say you are condoning the war but you are forgiving Labour for something that was no accident - far from it. Whether you can forgive them for it is up to you but we're not talking about tuition fees here are we.

Regarding Iraq, I don't think your party (Conservative?) would have done anything differently, do you? And I don't think Tony B will take a yes vote as condoning the war. He knows his position on Iraq has done considerable harm to himself and the Labour party.

------------------------------------------------

[QUOTE]Originally posted by AndyFelin:
Question. Has the legacy of Mrs Thatcher made the Tory's unelectable - discuss.
/QUOTE]

I don't think so but Labour and the Lib Dems have done a great spin job in convincing everyone how bleak those 18 years were when lots of voters are probably too young to remember it. Fact is, if they were that bad why did the public vote them back in 3 times?

As for Thatch - of course she remains a hate figure to those affected by her tough economic reforms but, if it wasn't her, it would have been someone else.

She did what HAD to be done to save the UK from going down the toilet - there was no alternative. There were many casualties who will hate her and the Tories forever.

However, I've yet to hear anyone say how they would have handled the situation better - someone had to deliver the nasty medicine to the sick man of Europe and that was her.

Matt.

Were we really the sick man of Europe or did Mrs T just benefit from the upturn in the world's capaitalist economy. I seem to remember that we still had a fair amount of manufacturing industries in the '70s, where are they now? The Tories painted a lurid picture of things and the fickle electorate believed it. The truth was not quite so black and white. And besides Mrs T only just scraped into power in 1979 with the (normally Labour supporting) council house sale vote. The wholesale sell-off of our national industries came later. The treatment of the coal-miners was purely vindictive and decimated many communities which have taken many years to recover from, if at all. No, I don't think Mrs T was a great PM, she was derisive and a bully.

Andy the rant

Posted on: 27 April 2005 by 7V

quote:
Originally posted by Derek Wright:
Apart from stealth taxes we also have stealth unemployment -

The stealth unemployed consist of two main groups:

...

Employing people in the public sector is more expensive than putting them on the dole for a short while and also dissuades them from getting jobs that are truly benefical to the economy

I agree absolutely and I would like to add two more groups to your 'stealth unemployed':

1. Any unemployed person can start his own business and claim 'Working Tax Credit' in lieu of 'Jobseekers Allowance'. He could receive this for years without ever having to actually work and could avoid signing on, job interviews, etc. I'm sure that many fall into this category.

2. Many of those claiming 'Incapacity Benefit' are effectively unemployed. If the UK really had a very significantly higher proportion of people suffering from stress, backache,and other 'mental and behavioural disorders' - compared to our European neighbours - there would be riots about the state of our nation's health.

Regards
Steve M

Posted on: 27 April 2005 by Rasher

quote:
Originally posted by AndyFelin:
Question. Has the legacy of Mrs Thatcher made the Tory's unelectable - discuss.

My take on it is that Thatcher promoted an arrogant and patronising tone that was adopted by all Tories in the government at the time. This was continued throughout John Major's reign, although he seemed to be a likeable bloke - but he was way too weak and was walked all over by other members of his inherited cabinet, and he didn't have the guts to change them. Nigel Lawson was a disaster until he rebelled, eventually, and Norman Lamont single handedly destroyed faith from true blue Tory voters once and for all. Tory Boy was a complete joke (except that I always enjoyed him during PM's questions), IDS was weak. They all made the mistake of forgetting that the public voted to ditch them because they are arrogant and patronising, so they surrounded themselves with the same old team. No change. To now have Howard as leader, remembering his slimy performance as Home Sec, where he blamed all his mistakes on Widdecombe and civil servants - who he actually named!!! - illustrates what a untrustworthy & creepy little shit he is. At least IDS & Tory Boy were harmless!
Until the Tories reform and get a whole new team, they are wasting their time. Having Howard as a leader is extraordinary if they want to get elected. I just can't understand how they can't see this - arrogance I guess. Oliver Letwin is a brilliant illustration of what chinless twats are yet to come, and Theresa May is truly awful without a personal opinion at all - she just says what she is told without any consideration at all.
If they finally went for Ken Clarke, then they may have a chance. But they won't. I think Thatcher set the attitude of the Torys, but that has nothing to do with how un-electable they are currently.

Posted on: 27 April 2005 by AndyFelin

quote:
Originally posted by AndyFelin:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Matt F:

But the have nots pay substantially less under a flat rate system e.g. someone on £10K a year would pay no tax at all!

There is a very interesting paper on it here by the Adam Smith institute - worth a read before dissing the idea I suggest.
--
I accept that the low incomed (this includes myself) should not pay tax. But a flat rate is still very unfair to the lower paid as the proportion they will have to pay in tax is unduly high compared to the higher earner. For example, consider 20% tax rate for someone on £20K against someone on £100K. It does look equitable until you realise the residual remaining.

I must admit I am suspicious of anything coming out of the Adam Smith Institute, especially when it uses an American model.

Anyway, flat rate tax is a side issue and not part of the Tory proposals.

------------------------------------------------

An alternative view might be that they squander billions of tax payer's money (and money 'stolen' from pension funds) on woefully innefficient public services and on creating an army of worthless, unproductive co-ordinator/liaison type roles and have created a benefits system that encourages reliance on the state instead of giving individuals an incentive to work.

--

Hmmm. I think you are starting to believe your own dogma. Our public services are not crumbling or breaking down, we do have problems which are little different from other Western countries.

Have you ever been on benefit? Despite all the dodgy anecdotal evidence you get down the pub, it is NOT easy to get. To blame the benefits system for the UKs social problems appears to me, to be completely missing the point.

------------------------------------------------

Then you shouldn't vote for them as Blair will take victory as condoning the war in Iraq and, worse, may even take it as a mandate to embark upon whatever plans Bush has for Iran and/or North Korea.

When you put your cross in the Labour box, I won't say you are condoning the war but you are forgiving Labour for something that was no accident - far from it. Whether you can forgive them for it is up to you but we're not talking about tuition fees here are we.

Regarding Iraq, I don't think your party (Conservative?) would have done anything differently, do you? And I don't think Tony B will take a yes vote as condoning the war. He knows his position on Iraq has done considerable harm to himself and the Labour party.

------------------------------------------------

[QUOTE]Originally posted by AndyFelin:
Question. Has the legacy of Mrs Thatcher made the Tory's unelectable - discuss.
/QUOTE]

I don't think so but Labour and the Lib Dems have done a great spin job in convincing everyone how bleak those 18 years were when lots of voters are probably too young to remember it. Fact is, if they were that bad why did the public vote them back in 3 times?

As for Thatch - of course she remains a hate figure to those affected by her tough economic reforms but, if it wasn't her, it would have been someone else.

She did what HAD to be done to save the UK from going down the toilet - there was no alternative. There were many casualties who will hate her and the Tories forever.

However, I've yet to hear anyone say how they would have handled the situation better - someone had to deliver the nasty medicine to the sick man of Europe and that was her.

Matt.

Posted on: 27 April 2005 by Berlin Fritz

Just to add briefly to the above last section regarding Thatchers Govt. Mines abviously hit Wales badly, as in other area's too, and that coal in the ground is still there, and going nowhere (Yet). Thachers greatest enemy (The Evil Empire) was the answerr to her political 'Hypocrytical' prayers. Gas & Coal were imported to UK in £100's Millions (paid for in sterling silver rather than cash) The GDR did not officially exist, though Britain traded with them ?

Fritz Von Don't forget too quickly chaps

Posted on: 27 April 2005 by Matthew T

I know who I will vote for but it pains me that none of the parties seem to be prepared to stand up and put forward somebody who can lead the country. I would be much more inspired by potential leaders who had a strong vision for the UK (not their own career) and the charisism to lead the country there, people who would actually give british politics a good name.

Rather then that we have a host of candidates who are trying there hardest to smear the opposition (or at least that is the majority of what we hear reported) and defend a record of broken promises, bad decisions, and inane manifesto's which don't add up.

Either way whoever gets in will have a pretty rocky ride becasue budgeoning fiscal deficits in an economy which is supposedly doing really well doesn't bode well. So maybe we get higher taxes and lower public spending, then we can all be happy!

Matthew

Posted on: 27 April 2005 by Derek Wright

The country does not want or need vision - we have had 8 years of vision

the country needs strong administration that keeps the country running, traffic moving, street lights working, streets that are safe..