General Election, June 8th

[Guest MattP]

2 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

Seems as if it's not quite as high as you suggest, but certainly very high by recent standards (was much higher after WW2, but not since, I don't think): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_national_debt

 

"As of Q1 2015, UK government debt amounted to £1.56 trillion, or 81.58% of total GDP, at which time the annual cost of servicing (paying the interest) the public debt amounted to around £43 billion (which is roughly 3% of GDP or 8% of UK government tax income). Approximately a third of this debt is owned by the British government due to the Bank of England's quantitative easing programme, so approximately 1/3 of the cost of servicing the debt is paid by the government to itself, reducing the annual servicing cost to approx £30 billion (approx 2% of GDP, approx 5% of UK government tax income)".

 

That's why, much as I loathe Tory priorities generally, I think they're being responsible in refusing to rule out increases in income tax and N.I. contributions, and in quietly seeking to ditch the "triple lock" guarantee on rising pensions. Similarly, it's why Labour is wrong to promise to keep the "triple lock" and to abolish student tuition fees. I prefer their programme of Keynesian expansion overall, and higher public spending can improve a deficit if it is done the right way. But in tough times you still have to prioritise - and tuition fees and higher pensions shouldn't be a priority, even if it might be popular with particular sections of the electorate. 

Thank you again, not as much as I thought, but still far too much to be throwing away.

 

The last paragraph I couldn't agree with more, it's pretty brave as well considering the vote the Tories get off the pensioners to rule out the triple lock,  if Labour had any chance of getting a majority I think we both know they wouldn't be making the promises you have mentioned there.

 

1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said:

As others have pointed out, Elliott highlights the funding of nationalisation plans as the bit that is not explained. In reality, as Sarah Champion's comment suggests, I'd imagine that these policies can be filed under "aspirations that won't happen". In the highly unlikely event that Labour end up in power, I imagine the mandarins at the Treasury would have a word in McDonnell's ear, pointing out that the cost of nationalisating energy, water and Royal Mail would destroy his budget and other spending plans, and probably the national economy. I assume that such plans would be well and truly on the back-burner....apart from Rail: that could be re-nationalised cost-free as franchises expire, so could be a cheap but juicy bone to throw to the Left.

Bringing the Railways into public ownership is probably the most sensible policy in the Corbyn manifesto, if it wasn't for the fact he wants to give the Unions so much power I'd be right up for it, wouldn't cost anything either with just waiting for the franchises to run out.

 

As I've said before, it's something I'm comfortable providing we could make sure staff and unions couldn't hold the public to ransom with it, maybe staff could guaranteed a wage based on something similar to the triple lock and sign away the right to action regarding pay whilst doing so.

 

I'm still baffled as to why anyone wants to re-nationalise the Royal Mail, it won't exist in twenty years, it could be this centuries British Telecom. Private companies can do everything they do for a far cheaper cost.

 

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

 

Other election thoughts at the minute, I wish the Tories would be a bit more positive....

 

Unemployment is at a record low today - mention it.

The deficit whilst not as low as you promised has come down considertably - mention it.

You have raised the minimum wage higher than any government in history and took more people out the tax bracket - mention it

 

All I heard from May and Hammond earlier was how bad it would be under Labour rather than how good it can be under the Conservatives, Project Fear isn't a way to win votes. Weirdly the one thing they haven't mentioned about Labour is the one thing I would, the fact they have a Stalin praising communist now running the campaign.

 

It also looks like Tim Farron is in a bit of trouble again, a ten years old video has emerged of him saying he's anti-abortion under any circumstance - he's turning out to be a bit of a disaster, it's impossible his vote share could be lower than 2015.

[Guest MattP]

While I'm on the Unions as well, they are already planning the aftermath of this election to keep Jeremy Corbyn as leader. I don't know what planet he is on if he really sees 200 seats as a good result for a party that is supposed to be one of government.

 

http://www.politico.eu/article/len-mccluskey-jeremy-corbyn-labour-general-election-2017/

 

Quote

Jeremy Corbyn’s most influential union backer, Len McCluskey, said it will be a “successful campaign” if Labour holds on to just 200 of the House of Commons’ 650 seats in next month’s general election.

McCluskey, the general secretary of Unite — the U.K.’s biggest trade union — said it would be “extraordinary” if Labour won and admitted part of the problem was the party leader’s public image, which he blamed on “media bias.”

 

In a telephone interview with POLITICO, the Unite leader pinned the blame for Labour’s struggles on the media’s “constant attack” on Corbyn, internal party divisions, and on public support for Prime Minister Theresa May “jumping on the bandwagon of hard Brexit.”

 

He also insisted his personal support for Corbyn was rock solid, heaping praise on Tuesday’s manifesto launch, which proposed sweeping nationalizations, tax increases for the wealthy and a major boost in public spending to improve the National Health Service, social care and house-building.

 

[SMX11]

I always thought that Keynesian economics was purely for 'getting us out of recession'. It seems it just gives liscense for those that want largesse all the time to say we are 'stimulating' the economy. 

[Jon the Hat]

58 minutes ago, SMX11 said:

I always thought that Keynesian economics was purely for 'getting us out of recession'. It seems it just gives liscense for those that want largesse all the time to say we are 'stimulating' the economy. 

I always thought that it only made sense if you were, you know paying stuff back when times were good.  If you just overspend forever then you create a new exaggerated level of demand which is not sustainable and never see the benefits.

[Alf Bentley]

2 hours ago, MattP said:

 

All I heard from May and Hammond earlier was how bad it would be under Labour rather than how good it can be under the Conservatives, Project Fear isn't a way to win votes. 

 

It also looks like Tim Farron is in a bit of trouble again, a ten years old video has emerged of him saying he's anti-abortion under any circumstance - he's turning out to be a bit of a disaster, it's impossible his vote share could be lower than 2015.

 

Project "Keep hold of nurse for fear of worse" could be highly effective. Rightly or wrongly, many voters see May as "a safe pair of hands" in difficult times, even if they're not over-enthused with the Tories. Likewise, however much voters might like some of Corbyn's policies, many voters have formed the impression that he'd be a risky option in difficult times with challenging negotiations ahead.

 

With a lot of people struggling to get by and Brexit negotiations in the offing, May might well get a massive majority just by playing "the safe option" and portraying Labour as a reckless risk. I can't see Labour convincing the electorate of its own merits within 3 weeks, so I reckon they need to highlight Tory failings (austerity, NHS, failure to cut deficit, failure to reduce immigration) and, more particularly, they need to find a legitimate way of rattling or discrediting May, as the Tories are clearly relying on her personal image of reliability more than their own record or plans.

 

It's possible that May will turn out to be a good, reliable option in the Brexit negotiations if she plans to use her expected mandate to force her party to accept major compromises with the EU so as to maintain a closer relationship more beneficial to our economy and future relations. On the other hand, if she expects the EU to back down big-time, she might drive us off the Hard Brexit cliff causing all sorts of economic and social mayhem....so it might be a completely false prospectus.

 

The failure of the Lib Dems to increase their support is something I'd not expected. If their current poll ratings are borne out at the election, they won't be gaining many seats - unless major regional variations are hidden beneath the poll figures, or unless tactical voting happens on a much larger scale than before. Even if an upturn in Lib Dem support was limited to strongly Remain-voting constituencies, though, you'd surely expect to see some increase in their national poll rating?

[Alf Bentley]

17 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

I always thought that it only made sense if you were, you know paying stuff back when times were good.  If you just overspend forever then you create a new exaggerated level of demand which is not sustainable and never see the benefits.

 

Absolutely true......whereas if you under-spend forever then you create an unnecessarily low level of demand, leading to stagnation or worse (a bit like now).

Mind you, in a couple of years' time we might look back with fond nostalgia on the good old days of mere stagnation.... 

[Alf Bentley]

2 hours ago, MattP said:

While I'm on the Unions as well, they are already planning the aftermath of this election to keep Jeremy Corbyn as leader. I don't know what planet he is on if he really sees 200 seats as a good result for a party that is supposed to be one of government.

 

http://www.politico.eu/article/len-mccluskey-jeremy-corbyn-labour-general-election-2017/

 

 

Someone's obviously had a word in Comrade Len's ear, asking for more optimism. On the BBC Lunchtime News he said he'd changed his mind about Labour election prospects overnight (literally). He no longer thinks that 200 seats would be a good result. In fact, Unite members have been telling the union about their massive enthusiasm for the Labour manifesto, he said.

 

To be fair, the Labour campaign - and Corbyn personally - have been a lot better than I was expecting so far. But I still think Comrade Len was telling the truth first time around: 200 seats WOULD be a good result for Labour given their poll ratings. Not the sort of result that an opposition should be achieving against a government that has presided over years of stagnation and no little chaos....but 200 seats would be better than expected, I think, unless something changes dramatically within 3 weeks. Oddschecker has 150-199 seats as the Labour seat range with the shortest odds.

 

Mind you, from Len's perspective there's every reason to be optimistic about what could be achieved if they keep Corbyn (or a similar replacement) as leader for a couple more years. If the UK suffers serious economic problems and/or unsuccessful Brexit negotiations, Tory poll ratings could absolutely crash within 2 years leaving the electorate desperate for something different. Of course, that might not be a Corbynista Labour Party, it might be some new force, maybe a Macron-style centrist force under a fresh-faced newcomer or a resurgent UKIP or something unpleasant from even further to the Right. As UKIP seems to have imploded, for now at least, and the Lib Dems are flat-lining, Labour does look the most credible opposition party for now, surprisingly enough.

[Guest MattP]

23 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Project "Keep hold of nurse for fear of worse" could be highly effective. Rightly or wrongly, many voters see May as "a safe pair of hands" in difficult times, even if they're not over-enthused with the Tories. Likewise, however much voters might like some of Corbyn's policies, many voters have formed the impression that he'd be a risky option in difficult times with challenging negotiations ahead.

 

With a lot of people struggling to get by and Brexit negotiations in the offing, May might well get a massive majority just by playing "the safe option" and portraying Labour as a reckless risk. I can't see Labour convincing the electorate of its own merits within 3 weeks, so I reckon they need to highlight Tory failings (austerity, NHS, failure to cut deficit, failure to reduce immigration) and, more particularly, they need to find a legitimate way of rattling or discrediting May, as the Tories are clearly relying on her personal image of reliability more than their own record or plans.

 

It's possible that May will turn out to be a good, reliable option in the Brexit negotiations if she plans to use her expected mandate to force her party to accept major compromises with the EU so as to maintain a closer relationship more beneficial to our economy and future relations. On the other hand, if she expects the EU to back down big-time, she might drive us off the Hard Brexit cliff causing all sorts of economic and social mayhem....so it might be a completely false prospectus.

 

The failure of the Lib Dems to increase their support is something I'd not expected. If their current poll ratings are borne out at the election, they won't be gaining many seats - unless major regional variations are hidden beneath the poll figures, or unless tactical voting happens on a much larger scale than before. Even if an upturn in Lib Dem support was limited to strongly Remain-voting constituencies, though, you'd surely expect to see some increase in their national poll rating?

You and me both regarding the Lib Dems, I thought they would sweep up a lot of the remain vote and just doesn't seem to have happened, they still might take places like Twickenham and Bath but on a national level they don't appear to be doing anything(On current polling even Farron himself isn't totally safe) - They might even have walked into the same trap that UKIP could never escape from, now seen a single issue party with the issue in question resolved.

 

They've released the manifesto today and the only thing on the headline is a second referendum and the will for that now seems to be at an all time low with only 22% (yougov) now believing Brexit should be stopped - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/15/two-thirds-voters-now-support-brexit/

 

Quote

 

More than two thirds of people now support Brexit following the emergence of "Re-Leavers", according to the latest poll. 

A total of 68 per cent of respondents would like to see Britain withdraw from the EU, the latest YouGov figures show. 

Some 45 per cent said they were Eurosceptics, while 22 per cent said they wanted the Government to ignore June's election result. 

A total of 23 per cent – described as “Re-Leavers” – said that they voted Remain last year, but now believe the government has a duty to carry out the will of the British people.

 

 

[Alf Bentley]

4 minutes ago, MattP said:

You and me both regarding the Lib Dems, I thought they would sweep up a lot of the remain vote and just doesn't seem to have happened, they still might take places like Twickenham and Bath but on a national level they don't appear to be doing anything(On current polling even Farron himself isn't totally safe) - They might even have walked into the same trap that UKIP could never escape from, now seen a single issue party with the issue in question resolved.

 

They've released the manifesto today and the only thing on the headline is a second referendum and the will for that now seems to be at an all time low with only 22% (yougov) now believing Brexit should be stopped - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/15/two-thirds-voters-now-support-brexit/

 

 

 

Yep. I assumed that the Lib Dems would struggle to recover in the SW due to it being a strongly pro-Brexit region. But I'd assumed they would surge in Remain-voting areas of London & SE, university towns etc. Might still happen, but doesn't seem to be happening yet.

 

They did a vox pop with a couple of people on the News asking them which election issues were most important - and Brexit didn't feature at all. I know that's only a couple of people, so maybe untypical, but they seemed to be folk with an above average level of interest in politics.

 

Maybe the vast majority of people just accept that Brexit is something that is going to happen now, so it's not going to be "the Brexit election". If so, the Lib Dems could be in a very bad place focusing on the issue. Whereas, a few weeks ago, Labour seemed to be in an impossible position trying to straddle the Leave/Remain divide over Brexit, but now look to be in a much better place: accepting Brexit but promoting a different set of priorities for the negotiations, some of which could chime with voters' other concerns (protecting jobs/rights, avoiding isolation, not setting up as a low-wage tax haven etc.). There might yet be a backlash against Brexit if the terms negotiated sound disastrous or have an adverse economic impact.....but IF that does happen, it might be in 18 months or 2 years, which is sod all use to the Lib Dems if they were banking on a "Remain boost" in the election....

[Rincewind]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33014760

[Guest MattP]

1 minute ago, Rincewind said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33014760

That's from 2015.

[Guest MattP]

9 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

Maybe the vast majority of people just accept that Brexit is something that is going to happen now, so it's not going to be "the Brexit election". If so, the Lib Dems could be in a very bad place focusing on the issue. Whereas, a few weeks ago, Labour seemed to be in an impossible position trying to straddle the Leave/Remain divide over Brexit, but now look to be in a much better place: accepting Brexit but promoting a different set of priorities for the negotiations, some of which could chime with voters' other concerns (protecting jobs/rights, avoiding isolation, not setting up as a low-wage tax haven etc.). There might yet be a backlash against Brexit if the terms negotiated sound disastrous or have an adverse economic impact.....but IF that does happen, it might be in 18 months or 2 years, which is sod all use to the Lib Dems if they were banking on a "Remain boost" in the election....

We can see already Brexit isn't a massive issue in this election from the last few days, anyone who thought this would be a second referendum got it so wrong. If anything the only place in the United Kingdom where we are going over old ground again is Scotland where the unionist vote seems to be hading behind Labour in Edinboro and the Tories everywhere else.

 

Labour have finally at least come out with a coherant position, which is what they needed from the very start and has probably saved them losing a lot of their remain rump to the Liberal Democrats,

[Realist Guy In The Room]

I think you may see a Lib Dem resurgence still happen in the SW.  I live in Cornwall and its actually beginning to hit home what the county will lose from exiting the EU.  The regional development funding has propped up the economy and there are no gaurantees that cash will be replaced.

 

Literally every start up business down here (of which I deal with a good proportion) have all been funded with EU cash.  Most training and development programmes are paid in the same way.

 

Its an insulated community down here so the immigration angle really did a number.  I remember a UKIP campaigner standing in the middle of my town saying 'It's only a matter of time before boats full of foreigners are washing up on the beaches of Cornwall'.  Brilliant stuff.

 

But day by day it seems people are realising how damaging Brexit could be here so the second referendum is probably a vote winner here.

 

One thing I did notice on their manifesto that I couldnt quite believe is they think they'd only raise £1bn in tax from legalising cannabis?  Surely it would be more?

 

Tobacco raises around £12bn so

surely cannabis would raise more than £1bn?

 

 

[Rincewind]

Theresa May has been out meeting her public.

 

http://newsthump.com/2017/05/16/theresa-may-in-quarantine-at-tory-hq-after-contact-with-real-member-of-public/

[Buce]

19 minutes ago, Realist Guy In The Room said:

I think you may see a Lib Dem resurgence still happen in the SW.  I live in Cornwall and its actually beginning to hit home what the county will lose from exiting the EU.  The regional development funding has propped up the economy and there are no gaurantees that cash will be replaced.

 

Literally every start up business down here (of which I deal with a good proportion) have all been funded with EU cash.  Most training and development programmes are paid in the same way.

 

Its an insulated community down here so the immigration angle really did a number.  I remember a UKIP campaigner standing in the middle of my town saying 'It's only a matter of time before boats full of foreigners are washing up on the beaches of Cornwall'.  Brilliant stuff.

 

But day by day it seems people are realising how damaging Brexit could be here so the second referendum is probably a vote winner here.

 

One thing I did notice on their manifesto that I couldnt quite believe is they think they'd only raise £1bn in tax from legalising cannabis?  Surely it would be more?

 

Tobacco raises around £12bn so

surely cannabis would raise more than £1bn?

 

 

 

 

[theessexfox]

Back on to PR as briefly earlier discussed, perhaps the lack of majority government could promote a healthier political culture, where parties are more keen to consult and co-operate rather than the adversarial nature we have now. To me, the way our system is structured, the opposition opposes all policies for opposition's sake, and vice versa with the party in power; perhaps a more collaborative system could be created under PR - the Lib Dems have included a pledge for STV in their manifesto (http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/single-transferable-vote). Could be optimistic, but no voting system is perfect. 

[DJ Barry Hammond]

 

@Realist Guy In The Room

 

Cannabis tax revenue = you have to go with a conservative estimate in figures and although you say smoking raises £12 billion, this recreational activity is still (for the time being) largely socially acceptable.

 

I couldn't see the same being said for Cannabis at least initially - it'd have the 'sex shop effect' in that you may want to buy it, but you may not wish to publicise to everyone else you're buying it for fear of others perception. The same could be said for retailers - it's unlikely for Cannabis to be readily available in Supermarkets etc, until it gained social acceptability regardless of its legal status - limiting its tax revenue raising powers. 

[DJ Barry Hammond]

40 minutes ago, MattP said:

We can see already Brexit isn't a massive issue in this election from the last few days, anyone who thought this would be a second referendum got it so wrong. If anything the only place in the United Kingdom where we are going over old ground again is Scotland where the unionist vote seems to be hading behind Labour in Edinboro and the Tories everywhere else.

 

Labour have finally at least come out with a coherant position, which is what they needed from the very start and has probably saved them losing a lot of their remain rump to the Liberal Democrats,

 

The problem the Lib Dems have is two fold;

 

1.) Out of the 48% of the remain vote, how many of them would passionately vote for joining the EU again on a fresh basis?

 

That's not quite the same thing as voting to maintain the status quo - so in reality I think they're actually pitching at a rather neiche section of the overall remain vote.

 

2.) Regardless of the personal positon someone may take on Brexit, most would conced the Lib Dem's won't get anywhere close to power - so even if you're passionately pro remain, voting Lib Dem doesn't make any great sense in a general election. 

 

When you consider these two points, what becomes clear is those likely to be pursaded to vote Lib Dem on this issue are likely to be existing Lib Dem supporters... so although their stance will make sense to many within the party, what it doesn't do is build support. 

 

This is the same mistake Labour are making - they've pitched all of their ideas at who supports them, rather than try to reach out to a cross section of society they need to bring on board (without harming their base) to build party support. 

 

This Is what the Conservatives appear to be doing quite well with at the moment (tanks on Labours lawn) - although, with this comes a danger because as you broaden your base and try to appeal to more people, the more diluted your core message becomes and the mainstream support can then get disgruntled...  yet this is likely to be a problem for the Conservstive party in elections down the line, not this one. 

 

[Guest MattP]

1 hour ago, Realist Guy In The Room said:

I think you may see a Lib Dem resurgence still happen in the SW.  I live in Cornwall and its actually beginning to hit home what the county will lose from exiting the EU.  The regional development funding has propped up the economy and there are no gaurantees that cash will be replaced.

I would never rule anything out but there is absolutely no sign of this so far, in fact the South West is even stronger than it was 2015 for the Tories when they vote every seat apart from Ben Bradshaw's last time out according to the regional polls.

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/05/15/voting-intention-regional-breakdown-apr-24-may-5/

 

I'll post the breakdown for anyone interested in how the regional polling is going as opposed to across the nation. (changes from 2015 in brackets) - this is very interesting and proves a lot what @Alf Bentley has been saying about how regions are going to be very different from each other come June 9th..

 

The Labour party is now not just impotent but actually dying in the rural ereas, that's something they will have to address if they are ever to win a majority again.

 

North East voting intention:

 

LAB: 42% (-9)

CON: 40% (+15)
UKIP: 8% (-9)
LDEM: 6% (-1)

 

North West voting intention:

 

CON: 42% (+11)

LAB: 42% (-3)
UKIP: 8% (-8)
LDEM: 6% (+1)

 

Yorkshire and the Humber voting intention:

 

CON: 43% (+10)

LAB: 38% (-1)

LDEM: 9% (+2)
UKIP: 7% (-11)

 

East Midlands voting intention:

 

CON: 54% (+10)

LAB: 28% (-4)

LDEM: 8% (+2)
UKIP: 7% (-9)

 

West Midlands voting intention:

 

CON: 51% (+9)

LAB: 28% (-5)

LDEM: 9% (+3)
UKIP: 9% (-7)

 

East of England voting intention:

 

CON: 56% (+7)

LAB: 19% (-3)

LDEM: 12% (+4)
UKIP: 9% (-7)

 

London voting intention:

 

LAB: 41% (-3)

CON: 36% (+1)

LDEM: 14% (+6)
UKIP: 6% (-2)

South East voting intention:

 

CON: 56% (+5)

LAB: 19% (+1)

LDEM: 15% (+6)
UKIP: 6% (-11)

 

South West voting intention:

 

CON: 52% (+5)

LAB: 22% (+4)

LDEM: 16% (+1)
UKIP: 6% (-8)

 

 

 

[Guest Foxin_mad]

20 hours ago, Carl the Llama said:

If it's that easy why aren't you doing that now?

 

Taking tax off an £80k salary roughly equates to a £54k take home not accounting for student loan repayments/allowances etc.  The median annual gross income in the UK (ie. the middle point if you were to list the gross annual income of all UK workers in ascending order) is £22,044 according to a quick google which amounts to £18k after tax using the same calculation method as above.

 

If you no longer see the point in working because you're only going to be making 55p in every pound you earn beyond a point where you're already taking home 3 times the national median (and so by basic inference more than 3 times of what is made by 49.9999999999% of the country's workforce) then I'm not sure how any government policy can possibly satisfy you short of pledging to funnel all public funds directly into your bank account.

At the moment it is worth working for me, but I feel under a Labour government all they do is attack the hard workers. They will have to move the scale of what they consider to be 'rich' to pay for their splurge as businesses and rich individuals will leave the country that is a fact.

 

Just to be clear I do not earn anywhere near that amount but I am sick of a society where people expect something for nothing, you have to work hard or you do not get anything.

 

You are working for a wage and taking home just over half what you earn, that is not fair. I would not bother working I was taxed that much.

 

20 hours ago, Carl the Llama said:

I think that point highlights the rather sad driving force of a capitalist economy: The need to have more than everyone else instead of being happy with compromising one's personal wealth for the sake of a fairer society.

 

What is a fairer society??.....I think if you work damn hard, you should get to keep a lot more than just over half of it for maybe a 40+ hour week. People earning a lot of money already contribute a lot more in tax, there will come a point when they think what is the point of progressing in a career when all that happens is more money taken away. Its especially annoying as there are a lot of benefits that are abused and wasted that Labour want to increase and uncap, under the last Labour government this got out of control.

 

Its arguable that actually decreasing tax will actually raise more revenue as less people will find incentive to avoid it, I cant think of one successful high tax economy that has worked, or any socialist economy. It is the politics of envy and spite. Reduce tax and government burden to record low levels and the economy would thrive and tax receipts would grow.

 

I find all the hankering for the 70s bizarre! The unions held the country the ransom, this clown wants to bring that kind of militancy back! power cuts, rubbish mountains, unburied dead. Nationalised businesses were generally awful or on strike, The GPO  were absolutely terrible, you had to wait about 18 months to have a line installed, the unions dictated that only certain engineers did certain jobs. British rail was absolutely wank, really wank never on time dirty smelly old pieces of crap trains. I agree franchises shouldn't be used to make profit for foreign companies but Virgin for instance have invested a tremendous amount into the franchises they own. British Leyland bankrupted itself because it was crap, the staff were always on strike or built really really shit cars that no one wanted. Why one earth anyone is hankering for that is beyond me!!

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

At the moment it is worth working for me, but I feel under a Labour government all they do is attack the hard workers. They will have to move the scale of what they consider to be 'rich' to pay for their splurge as businesses and rich individuals will leave the country that is a fact.

 

Just to be clear I do not earn anywhere near that amount but I am sick of a society where people expect something for nothing, you have to work hard or you do not get anything.

 

You are working for a wage and taking home just over half what you earn, that is not fair. I would not bother working I was taxed that much.

 

 

What is a fairer society??.....I think if you work damn hard, you should get to keep a lot more than just over half of it for maybe a 40+ hour week. People earning a lot of money already contribute a lot more in tax, there will come a point when they think what is the point of progressing in a career when all that happens is more money taken away. Its especially annoying as there are a lot of benefits that are abused and wasted that Labour want to increase and uncap, under the last Labour government this got out of control.

 

Its arguable that actually decreasing tax will actually raise more revenue as less people will find incentive to avoid it, I cant think of one successful high tax economy that has worked, or any socialist economy. It is the politics of envy and spite. Reduce tax and government burden to record low levels and the economy would thrive and tax receipts would grow.

 

I find all the hankering for the 70s bizarre! The unions held the country the ransom, this clown wants to bring that kind of militancy back! power cuts, rubbish mountains, unburied dead. Nationalised businesses were generally awful or on strike, The GPO  were absolutely terrible, you had to wait about 18 months to have a line installed, the unions dictated that only certain engineers did certain jobs. British rail was absolutely wank, really wank never on time dirty smelly old pieces of crap trains. I agree franchises shouldn't be used to make profit for foreign companies but Virgin for instance have invested a tremendous amount into the franchises they own. British Leyland bankrupted itself because it was crap, the staff were always on strike or built really really shit cars that no one wanted. Why one earth anyone is hankering for that is beyond me!!

9

Sigh...I know it's been said so many times on here that it's practically a stereotype...but the Nordic countries make it work.

[Guest Foxin_mad]

9 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Sigh...I know it's been said so many times on here that it's practically a stereotype...but the Nordic countries make it work.

Do they at the moment? there are a lot of murmurings of discontent from there too recently. People think the system here is broke, people in scandanavia may argue otherwise.

 

Generally also they get paid a lot more, their population is a lot less so that whole thing is a lot more sustainable. The services they get are better and more efficient. Its arguable we fund our services fairly well and that actually they are hugely inefficient.

[Jon the Hat]

More to the point on high tax bands, it reaches a point where instead of taking salary, you put the maximum into your pension pot, or other salary sacrifice options to reduce your tax bill.  So the idea that a Labour government could bank it all is nonsense.

I know lots of people who cap their income at £100k because between there and £122k, they are paying 60% tax due to the withdrawal of tax free allowance.  It is criminal.

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

Do they at the moment? there are a lot of murmurings of discontent from there too recently. People the system here is broke, people in scandanavia may argue otherwise.

 

Generally also they get paid a lot more, their population is a lot less so that whole thing is a lot more sustainable. The services they get are better and more efficient. Its arguable we fund our services fairly well and that actually they are hugely inefficient.

 

Judging by general quality of life surveys they do (though of course such things never tell the full story). I would also say their services are indeed much more efficient.

 

The sustainability argument is one to consider - what makes scaling up the model they do (reasonably) successfully to larger populations so difficult? Is there a point where the bureaucracy becomes simply becomes too unwieldy? If so, at what point is that?

[Guest MattP]

 

 

 

She's just become a figure of fun now, no one even criticises her anymore, just something to be laughed at.