General Election, June 8th

[The Floyd]

6 minutes ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

It was an agreement with points within both of your arguments. 

 

But in terms of surprises in the up coming election... I don't see it, given Labour's overall offering is to narrow in terms of class demographic.

 

Thats not to say some of their policies are not interesting, but the problem as I see it is that are lots of small things around the edges which demands anyone that wants to understand their offering to take a lot of time to discover what they are and then try to relate these things to them - and let's be frank, not many will actually do that and ultimately find it attractive. 

 

On the other hand, what the Conservatives have done well is frame the election against two key big factors - Brexit and Theresa May herself.

 

Brexit is a solid choice, because although 48% may have voted to remain, I would say a fair block of votes on either side wouldn't have been truly bothered about the ultimate result either way and so now that it's been declared we're leaving... and with most generally accepting it will happen, I expect a strong majority would rather we just get on with it now and do the best we can. There is certainly not the strong support of trying to reverse the process, that is only for the strong EU fanatics.

 

And then looking at Theresa May, if you consider her based on a 10 minute initial impression (for most voters, that's as much as they'll actively take in) she looks a sound leader... especially when placed alongside the alternative of Jeremy Corbyn - and strong attractive leadership is key when you're trying to win seats, because your new prospective MPs challenging for a seat start on a lower base than the incumbent. 

 

So as I see it, there will be no surprises... the Lib Dems might edge up to double figures in seats, the SNP will probably lose some (nationalists will go Tory), Labour will be hit hard except for highly populated University towns and the North West  (in terms of a braket, maybe 100-150 seats), with the Tories taking the rest bar the odd few giving them a comfortable majority. 

 

 

 

Apologies, by surprise I mean in the context of a much broader timescale rather than since Corbyn has been Labour leader, the most notable recent example being the loss of Tees Valley in the mayoral election. I agree with pretty much everything you've said though. 

[DJ Barry Hammond]

18 minutes ago, The Floyd said:

Apologies, by surprise I mean in the context of a much broader timescale rather than since Corbyn has been Labour leader, the most notable recent example being the loss of Tees Valley in the mayoral election. I agree with pretty much everything you've said though. 

 

Well... I had to check this, because I wasn't sure what side of the spectrum Protectionism should be (it's normally a 'left' idiology), yet  unbelievably at this present moment the party offering the protectionist policies are the Tories, so it's quite understandable how working class people in the North East would vote Conservstive. 

 

But yes, in terms of changes on a broader timescale, what would really enable a significant change is an amendment to the voting system to some form of proportion style... this may seem far off, but I wonder if this is the next big referendum battle in say 5-10 years time, especially if the Conservatives lock down power against a much battered and smaller Labour Party during that time. 

 

 

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

 

Well... I had to check this, because I wasn't sure what side of the spectrum Protectionism should be (it's normally a 'left' idiology), yet  unbelievably at this present moment the party offering the protectionist policies are the Tories, so it's quite understandable how working class people in the North East would vote Conservstive. 

 

But yes, in terms of changes on a broader timescale, what would really enable a significant change is an amendment to the voting system to some form of proportion style... this may seem far off, but I wonder if this is the next big referendum battle in say 5-10 years time, especially if the Conservatives lock down power against a much battered and smaller Labour Party during that time. 

 

 

How are the tories offering protectionist policies?

[Sharpe's Fox]

Replying to a fleshed out post with coherent arguments with a one sentence question. Webbo's back.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

Just now, Sharpe's Fox said:

Replying to a fleshed out post with coherent arguments with a one sentence question. Webbo's back.

 

Maybe i've got him questioning his politcal persuasion... "protectionist, i'm not voting for that!"

[DJ Barry Hammond]

23 minutes ago, Webbo said:

How are the tories offering protectionist policies?

 

Would you not see Brexit as a strong form of protectionism? Mean I would argue the reducing immigration argument is a massive form of protectionism - given the notion is this is about protecting resources and opportunity for the areas effected. 

 

Protectionism doesn't have to be solely about industry - the Conservatives are very much about protecting their view n family values, the way of British life and to some degree, class structures. 

 

[Jon the Hat]

7 hours ago, filthyfox said:

The rich can pay more.... They aren't suffering. I recon a tax per acre of land should raise some dough

Unfortunately Labour have set the threshold for "Rich" at just above Jeremy Corbyn's income, and he can barely afford clothing.

 

Seriously through, I would be well and truly ****ed off if Labour won and put my tax up.  I earn a good salary, but I already get no tax free allowance and pay 60% tax on some of my income as a result, and I am far from rich.  Labour once again target those who already pay the VAST amount of the tax take in this country, even after the huge shift in the tax burden in the last few years.  Wankers.

[Webbo]

6 hours ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

 

Would you not see Brexit as a strong form of protectionism? Mean I would argue the reducing immigration argument is a massive form of protectionism - given the notion is this is about protecting resources and opportunity for the areas effected. 

 

Protectionism doesn't have to be solely about industry - the Conservatives are very much about protecting their view n family values, the way of British life and to some degree, class structures. 

 

Bit of a stretch to call immigration policy protectionism.

 

Once we're out of the customs union we no longer have to apply the external tariff to everyone else's goods.. It's the opposite of protectionism. 

[The Doctor]

8 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

Unfortunately Labour have set the threshold for "Rich" at just above Jeremy Corbyn's income, and he can barely afford clothing.

 

Seriously through, I would be well and truly ****ed off if Labour won and put my tax up.  I earn a good salary, but I already get no tax free allowance and pay 60% tax on some of my income as a result, and I am far from rich.  Labour once again target those who already pay the VAST amount of the tax take in this country, even after the huge shift in the tax burden in the last few years.  Wankers.

The definition of rich they've got is the top 5% of income, a wage nearly three times the median wage in the uk. Seems a very fair definition - if you can't feel rich as one of the top 5% of earners in the country then maybe the problem isn't with McDonnells definition of rich, maybe the economy, and in particular the housing market, has been broken by decades of Thatcherite based mismanagement.

[Alf Bentley]

11 hours ago, Rincewind said:

My sister runs her own furniture and I cant imagine her voting Tory because how some of the policies have affected people. She has struggled herself and worked her way up. Perhaps fortunate to have had a job that enabled her to but a major share in the business. But she has never forgot that she came from humble beginnings and my mother struggling to raise a family. Ny elder brother worked his way up from being a teacher to a B&B the co-owning an hotel. I doubt that he is a Tory supporter but then again he may not support the others either. When I saw his wife recently she was very critical of Tory policies and how they affected people. Before having an interest in the hotel she worked in social services and job centres and said it was her role to help people which does not seem to happen now.

I can understand self interest to an extent. People have mortgages and families and bills. But there has to be a safety net. An accident or a sudden people in income can have devastating outcome. Not everyone will have everlasting savings. . Even so they do not last forever.

That is all.

 

How do you think your sister and brother will vote, your sister in particular? She seemed to be a key figure in persuading you into the pro-Brexit camp, so I'd be curious as to how she votes.

Obviously, I'm being nosy there, so feel free to tell me to butt out. As far as I'm aware, my brother has never voted and never even been on the electoral register (anti-state, anti-establishment)...I'll ignore him as usual. 

[filthyfox]

8 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

Unfortunately Labour have set the threshold for "Rich" at just above Jeremy Corbyn's income, and he can barely afford clothing.

 

Seriously through, I would be well and truly ****ed off if Labour won and put my tax up.  I earn a good salary, but I already get no tax free allowance and pay 60% tax on some of my income as a result, and I am far from rich.  Labour once again target those who already pay the VAST amount of the tax take in this country, even after the huge shift in the tax burden in the last few years.  Wankers.

Bear a thought for us single earning families in depressed areas on 25 and getting no help whatsoever- the Lib Dems want 135 quid a year more from me; so I'm not voting for them- I was actually going to!

You're in true blue territory anyway..   you will get what you are given, amd of you don't like it, Mrs May will come amd haunt your dreams!

[Alf Bentley]

9 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

Unfortunately Labour have set the threshold for "Rich" at just above Jeremy Corbyn's income, and he can barely afford clothing.

 

Seriously through, I would be well and truly ****ed off if Labour won and put my tax up.  I earn a good salary, but I already get no tax free allowance and pay 60% tax on some of my income as a result, and I am far from rich.  Labour once again target those who already pay the VAST amount of the tax take in this country, even after the huge shift in the tax burden in the last few years.  Wankers.

 

Would you also be well and truly ****ed off if the Tories won and put your tax up? They seem to be avoiding any commitment NOT to increase income tax / N.I. (correctly, in my view). I presume they at least want to give themselves the option to increase tax IF Brexit or its economic impact prove costly to the public finances. Of course, they might increase tax on those poorer than you (or richer) - would you be happy with that?

 

If you don't like tax increases generally, then presumably any shortfall in the public finances would need to be met by larger cuts in public spending or by higher borrowing. Would you favour increasing public sector debt? If not, which areas of public spending are ripe for much larger cuts?

 

Difficult to pin down a definition for "rich". As well as income, you'd have to consider capital, property, mortgage outgoings, family status, work/travel expenses etc. Even so, I understand that only those earning over £123,000 per annum get no tax-free allowance. That's a pretty good income, comparatively, even with a mortgage, travel expenses and a family to support (some support families on £15-£20k or whatever). Someone earning £150,000 will pay £53,600 in income tax plus about £6,000 in N.I. contributions, leaving a disposable income of over £90,000. Most people could only dream of wealth on that scale, even allowing for mortgage and travel costs......not to mention the property capital acquired via that mortgage.

[filthyfox]

14 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Would you also be well and truly ****ed off if the Tories won and put your tax up? They seem to be avoiding any commitment NOT to increase income tax / N.I. (correctly, in my view). I presume they at least want to give themselves the option to increase tax IF Brexit or its economic impact prove costly to the public finances. Of course, they might increase tax on those poorer than you (or richer) - would you be happy with that?

 

If you don't like tax increases generally, then presumably any shortfall in the public finances would need to be met by larger cuts in public spending or by higher borrowing. Would you favour increasing public sector debt? If not, which areas of public spending are ripe for much larger cuts?

 

Difficult to pin down a definition for "rich". As well as income, you'd have to consider capital, property, mortgage outgoings, family status, work/travel expenses etc. Even so, I understand that only those earning over £123,000 per annum get no tax-free allowance. That's a pretty good income, comparatively, even with a mortgage, travel expenses and a family to support (some support families on £15-£20k or whatever). Someone earning £150,000 will pay £53,600 in income tax plus about £6,000 in N.I. contributions, leaving a disposable income of over £90,000. Most people could only dream of wealth on that scale, even allowing for mortgage and travel costs......not to mention the property capital acquired via that mortgage.

Go on Jon.... argue that you are struggling    The last bloke in the same boat as you argued that everyone who earns under 70k is a net drain on society- but you are of a higher class than that, I know  

[Rincewind]

2 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

How do you think your sister and brother will vote, your sister in particular? She seemed to be a key figure in persuading you into the pro-Brexit camp, so I'd be curious as to how she votes.

Obviously, I'm being nosy there, so feel free to tell me to butt out. As far as I'm aware, my brother has never voted and never even been on the electoral register (anti-state, anti-establishment)...I'll ignore him as usual. 

Not sure. My brother is not a fan of politicians and does not trust the media that supports them. He has never been keen on unions preferring to come to an agreement with workers inhouse which he always did at the hotel. He paid a decent salary but expected the work in return. For instance he had a team of cleaners. Each had a set section to do and if any fell behind he wanted the others to help out but would not stand for deliberate slacking.

We once had a discussion on messenger about people on benefits and we ended up agreeing that those on benefits should work and contribute to their lifestyle and society if able. If they were unable then it is up to the rest of us to support them.

My sister runs her business , a furniture building affair, like it is family run. If she is unable to be there to lock up she knows that she can leave the keys with any of them. They all do any work that is needed whether it is loading a van or cutting material.

How they will vote I dont know but I am sure it will not be Tory as they disagree with cuts to services and the running down of the NHS. They live comfortable lives but not mega rich. My brother has taken retirement and living off his savings a lot which came from the sale of the hotel business. He says it won't last regardless of how he lives so may as well enjoy life using the savings for holidays etc without overdoing it and wasting it. He said its a toss up whether it will be him or the savings that go first. This is from someone who advises people on finance and sets up budgets for them. He has said some people that run businesses run their home budget awful.

I think with it being Cumbria they may be in Lib Dem country but cannot be certain. They do not have much choice anyway. 

[DJ Barry Hammond]

 

@Rincewind... just a hunch, but i reckon your sister may end up voting Conservative.

 

And on the other question on whether earning £80,000+ is deemed rich... well it all depends on the perspective your coming from, but it's not totally unreasonable to say it's not on the basis that if you're working in and around that bracket you are likely to be one of the worse paid of those that do.

 

Its also a wage bracket where you will no doubt find inflationary pressures rather noticble, because it provides a greater usable disposal income on items that will have distinct changes (mortgage costs, motoring costs, white goods) and can quite often get pillered by any tax increases, because politicians know aiming these at the mega rich doesn't end up bringing much in to the exchequer*

 

Now of course, things for those earning this sort of wage are far from precarious when compared to those living month to month of a barely living wage, so I'm not suggesting we should all poor them a massive glass of sympathy, but it's also not unreasonable for people who earn this much be reasonably disgruntled at the proposed targeted tax rise. 

 

In terms of tax overall, what is probably needed is a massive rethink, especially given the growing trend of self employment rather than simple tinkering around the edges.

 

I'd be interested a policy that proposed to move to a system where the onus of tax arrangements was placed on the individual more rather than the employer, with a higher general overall rate for everyone, but where plenty of instant deductibles for desirable actions such as saving for a pension / funding a child's university costs / purchasing public transport passes

 

*The net gain from tax saving set against the cost of employing creative accounting is much easier for those that earn mega sums. 

 

 

[Buce]

5 hours ago, The Doctor said:

The definition of rich they've got is the top 5% of income, a wage nearly three times the median wage in the uk. Seems a very fair definition - if you can't feel rich as one of the top 5% of earners in the country then maybe the problem is n't with McDonnells  @Jon the Hat's definition of rich, maybe the economy, and in particular the housing market, has been broken by decades of Thatcherite based mismanagement.

 

[Jon the Hat]

3 hours ago, filthyfox said:

Go on Jon.... argue that you are struggling    The last bloke in the same boat as you argued that everyone who earns under 70k is a net drain on society- but you are of a higher class than that, I know  

I'm not struggling no, but if you think we drive new cars you would be wrong (one 9 years old, one 6 years old), take multiple holidays each year (we did go to Australia last year, but my in laws paid most of it), mainly we go to cornwall; have cash left over at the end of the month, don't have any debts or credit cards, wear designer clothing, eat out a lot, etc you would be completely wrong.  The cost of living in the South east is insane, and I will soon be paying £4500 to get to work each year, which will mean selling one car. If you tried to tell my wife we are wealthy she would laugh at you.

So no, not struggling, but a long way from thinking I should pay more tax than I paid last year.

 

[Rincewind]

I would be able to live quite comfortably on 80k. But then again I do not have a mortgage, wife and kids and run a car. I was thinking yesterday what would I do if I came into a few million. I may buy a house 4/5 bedroom. Convert the top floor to a flat and live on the ground floor. (my age) I would rent to a middle aged or plus 30 couple. It would be nice for one of them to be an handyan for repairs theirs and mine but not essential I would not change the way I live too much. Still have the same friends and go out for the odd pint or two and visit beer festivals but I would be able to go further afeild maybe stay overnight. 

My income is just my pension and I am content with that. I live in a grotty rented flat but that is OK. Why would I want 80k when I can live OK on 20k? There are people worse off than me. I come from a family where we struggled week to week. Bread and dripping sandwiches and banana ones on a Saturday and hand me downs. You appreciate what you have and can emphasise with those that do not even have what I had. 

This is why I am a little angry at some politicians who claim for everything they can then moan about people on low income and who have never known what it is like to struggle. It is not just Tories either. 

It is OK to want more income but it has to be for the right reasons. The more you have the more liable you are to waste it. Why would I want a 42 inch TV when my wall alcove is only 30 inch? Yet people do just to show off then complain 80k is not a lot. Trying having the same things on 24k.

[Jon the Hat]

3 minutes ago, Rincewind said:

I would be able to live quite comfortably on 80k. But then again I do not have a mortgage, wife and kids and run a car. I was thinking yesterday what would I do if I came into a few million. I may buy a house 4/5 bedroom. Convert the top floor to a flat and live on the ground floor. (my age) I would rent to a middle aged or plus 30 couple. It would be nice for one of them to be an handyan for repairs theirs and mine but not essential I would not change the way I live too much. Still have the same friends and go out for the odd pint or two and visit beer festivals but I would be able to go further afeild maybe stay overnight. 

My income is just my pension and I am content with that. I live in a grotty rented flat but that is OK. Why would I want 80k when I can live OK on 20k? There are people worse off than me. I come from a family where we struggled week to week. Bread and dripping sandwiches and banana ones on a Saturday and hand me downs. You appreciate what you have and can emphasise with those that do not even have what I had. 

This is why I am a little angry at some politicians who claim for everything they can then moan about people on low income and who have never known what it is like to struggle. It is not just Tories either. 

It is OK to want more income but it has to be for the right reasons. The more you have the more liable you are to waste it. Why would I want a 42 inch TV when my wall alcove is only 30 inch? Yet people do just to show off then complain 80k is not a lot. Trying having the same things on 24k.

£80k in Leicester would go quite a long way I guess, probably be better off than I am.

[Rincewind]

It would indeed. A lot depends on where you live. I have never been one to want loads of possessions, the latest gadgets etc. In fact I always look for second hand stuff and buy clothes from charity shops. If I did not then I would struggle.(Would have to cut down on beer Some people are too proud to do this. I have always tried to live within my means which unfortunately some find hard to do when they have a sudden drop in income. )

As they say what you never had you never miss.

[Innovindil]

Loving this thread. When my 2 brothers call me rich for earning £29k (pre-tax) for the year I'm pointing them to this thread. 

[DJ Barry Hammond]

 

The tax argument shows the folly of previous governments privatising energy, water and rail.

 

Under public hands, they're forms of reasonably fair indirect taxation in that those who use these things more would naturally pay more. The cost is representative.

 

Had there been the foresight for these to be run as co-operatives on behalf of the public, so they were accountable to but yet outside direct government control, they could have run themselves as self serving entities - still on the basis of making an overall profit, but with the additional income put back into the service and other government departments where warranted.

 

But now their outside of government control, not only do we as consumers end up paying a premium for essential services in return for questionable improvement, the government purse itself is hostage to these increasing costs for all of its other operations, resulting in not only it losing an area of income, but also pushing up an area of expense for itself. 

 

 

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

 

The tax argument shows the folly of previous governments privatising energy, water and rail.

 

Under public hands, they're forms of reasonably fair indirect taxation in that those who use these things more would naturally pay more. The cost is representative.

 

Had there been the foresight for these to be run as co-operatives on behalf of the public, so they were accountable to but yet outside direct government control, they could have run themselves as self serving entities - still on the basis of making an overall profit, but with the additional income put back into the service and other government departments where warranted.

 

But now their outside of government control, not only do we as consumers end up paying a premium for essential services in return for questionable improvement, the government purse itself is hostage to these increasing costs for all of its other operations, resulting in not only it losing an area of income, but also pushing up an area of expense for itself. 

 

 

1

The rail companies over in SK work on a similar principle if I remember right. It works rather well.

 

Of course there are other factors as to why it's so good too.

[Harry - LCFC]

9 hours ago, Webbo said:

Bit of a stretch to call immigration policy protectionism.

 

Once we're out of the customs union we no longer have to apply the external tariff to everyone else's goods.. It's the opposite of protectionism. 

IMO immigration controls should count as protectionism.

 

Tariffs are often justified on the basis that, while they may reduce economic efficiency, they will give extra security to those working in the relevant industry. Immigration controls are defended in much the same way: "Large flows of immigration lead to an increase in supply of low-skilled labour which lowers the wages of British workers and makes it harder for young people to find work. Therefore we should limit immigration." That's a pretty typical argument and to me it's a protectionist one.

[Rincewind]

Saw something where an MP gave a great speech as to why a section of a NHS services should be sold and put in the hands of a private company. The bill was passed and it turned out that the company that eventually won the bid to buy the service the MP was a director.

 

Just sayin'