General Election, June 8th

[Guest Foxin_mad]

16 hours ago, Carl the Llama said:

You seem taken in by this notion that high income = hard work and low income = work-shy sponger.  The richest people I've met throughout my life are undoubtedly hard working people but so are the poorest.  In my entirely anecdotal experience the laziest members of the workforce are the teenagers who still live at home and are only working because their hard-working, low-income parents made them.  Also the family members who work in the businesses set up by the aforementioned richest people I've encountered (and I've worked in multiple businesses where the owner employed his children and their children and partners - In my current role I have to work extra hard picking up after my colleagues for this very reason since they spend such little time actually at work yet I'm on the lowest hourly rate of the entire team afaik, I have begun talks to remedy this mind you).

 

As to your point about socialism: Having spent years working in Belgium I can personally vouch for the benefits of a socialism inspired system which allows workers to seek affordable professional support from catch-all unions (as in there isn't a rail workers union or a health workers union but rather a selection of "mutuels" as they call them which will provide legal assistance to any worker, the only difference is political or religious leaning, so there's a Christian one, a Socialist one, a Neutral one etc.) who will defend them against abuses by their employers, something I'm sad to say I've had to do following a dodgy dismissal.  I may well have ended up completely broke and having to move back in with my parents if it weren't for those protections, instead I got a rather nice "shut up and leave us alone" payoff without having to go through lengthy and costly court battles - all it took was one letter from my union asking them to clarify their reasons for sacking me and with it the evidence that I was willing to stand up to them if necessary and had the support to do so.  It's not so easy to stand up for your rights over here so it's a good job I have that money to provide a buffer if something ever goes wrong in my current low-income job... Indeed briefly going back to my remark about seeking a better hourly rate - in Belgium I'd be much more confident of a fair outcome with the support available than I am here where I have to fend entirely for myself.

 

Also that penultimate sentence should say "just over half of what you earn above a certain bracket".  You keep talking like the 45% is applied to everything earned, please confirm that you actually understand how tax works  

I don't fall for that at all, I fully appreciate life on low income. I have worked it the hardest jobs for the crappest amount of money I used to work 12 hour shifts 6 days a week in a supermarket before minimum wage, I've done 12hrs box packing in a warehouse. Ive worked hard at school and work and managed to get myself out of that. Its hard but I have always managed to earn enough to live off I have out of principle never claimed any benefits even when entitled, you shop in Aldi, you don't smoke, you don't drink, you don't have Sky, you don't have a mobile contract, you don't have take aways, you consider when you go out, I ran an old cheap car, you think about using electricity and gas wisely not wasting and illuminating a whole house, put a jumper on and knock a few degrees off the temperature. Then as a single person you could easily survive on a few hundred pound a week, people have to be wise and budget well.  I am sure that people have very high expectations of what they should have now (latest smart phone, cups of coffee on their way to work, big tvs, sky, nights out, take aways etc etc,) but other people absolutely should not pay for my luxuries in life. I dislike the vision in the left that the rich are widespread horrible the richest already contribute the most in tax

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/tax/11233686/How-top-3000-earners-pay-more-tax-than-bottom-9-million.html

 

A lot depends on the individuals there are horrible vile creatures who are poor who bleed the state dry and breed, and commit crime and there are horrible rich people . A business I worked for the family members get stuck in for big orders work night shifts and all sorts, they take a damn good wage and deserve it. They also give benefits to their workers like loaning their company cars for a weekend away, loaning holiday homes etc. Of course there are different types of rich, there always will be, there are different types of poor. Having knowledge of the voluntary sector, large numbers of volunteers for charity are 'horrible rich Tories' who are fortunate enough to be able to give their time, the impact this may have under Labour when they are forced to work another 15 years to pay off their mortgage.

 

I also now work with Belgium and the unions and laws there can be an absolute pain in the backside, they strike over the smallest thing, and getting rid of someone incompetent is almost impossible they are so protected, you really have to manage them out to make them leave. The wages there are very high for equivalent jobs in the UK. The long term plan is to migrate jobs away from there as it is too costly, and too much red tape.

 

Apologies for the technical error, my point is that government should never be taking half of any wage, whatever percentage ends up being subject to that rate. I would also question how much a more complicated tax system costs to operate by a hugely inefficient government department. Surely it would be better to merge NI and Tax into 1 it would reduce the administrative burden.

[Guest Foxin_mad]

I think the Tory Manifesto is just honest. We are a country will 1 trillion of debt, we need to sort ourselves out and live with in our means.

 

Labour just want to apply for another credit card that our children's children's children will have to still be repaying. We are currently paying £45 billion in in interest payments per year. What could that fund?

 

There is no evidence that spending more boosts an economy, especially when you are taxing the economy to death.

[Rincewind]

If pep[le are spending more in rhe shops then it boosts budiness. If you do not have it you cannot spe nd it. Creating more housing creates more jobs. Better schools with smaller classrooms leads to teachers being able to spend more time on kids. Better social care for those with mental issues and disabilities creates more jobs.

 

I do not see reducing peoples income as an encouragement to go out on a spending spree.

[EnderbyFox]

#LibDemFightBack

[Guest]

They're really needs to be a proper grown up discussion about taxation, spending and debt. An honest one, not a party political one. Just the facts of how they actually work. I think people would be surprised. 

 

For example: £400billion of the national debt is actually held by ('owed to') the bank of England. 

[DJ Barry Hammond]

 

https://www.conservatives.com/manifesto

 

here it is, for those interested

[Sharpe's Fox]

tory death tax IoI

[Guest Kopfkino]

16 minutes ago, toddybad said:

They're really needs to be a proper grown up discussion about taxation, spending and debt. An honest one, not a party political one. Just the facts of how they actually work. I think people would be surprised. 

 

For example: £400billion of the national debt is actually held by ('owed to') the bank of England. 

 

Does it matter who it's owed to?

[The Floyd]

Whilst not being overwhelmingly impressed by the Tory manifesto, it is incredible how much more professional the Conservative launch was in contrast to Labour's. Journalists were asking difficult questions without being booed and I thought May, most notably during her speech, came across pretty well. 

 

 

 

[DJ Barry Hammond]

Just now, The Floyd said:

Whilst not being overwhelmingly impressed by the Tory manifesto, it is incredible how much more professional the Conservative launch was in contrast to Labour's. Journalists were asking difficult questions without being booed and I thought May, most notably during her speech, came across pretty well. 

 

 

 

 

It was late! 

 

BBC cut off May as she was droning on as a result!

[Alf Bentley]

8 minutes ago, KingGTF said:

 

Does it matter who it's owed to?

 

I'm not very knowledgeable about the financial system, but assume that debt owed to foreign governments or private companies is much more of a risk than debt owed to your own central bank.

More risk of a foreign government or private firm wanting to be repaid or to jack up interest rates, I imagine?

 

The US Government owes some vast sum to China - a potential hostage to fortune?

 

Here's a graphic on who we owe our public debt to. http://www.edmundconway.com/2013/10/heres-who-the-uk-government-owes-money-to/

 

 

[DJ Barry Hammond]

 

An interesting scenario here in that the Conservative manifesto is out... but they won't be directly represented in the ITV leaders debate tonight and have Priti Patel scheduled for tonight's Question Time. 

 

The news reporting on it... isn't exactly a glowing endorsement of the major plans either, so they'll have minimal recognisable reinforcement of a pro-message towards the policies than they might have had. 

 

[The Floyd]

14 minutes ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

 

It was late! 

 

BBC cut off May as she was droning on as a result!

I was watching on Sky and I think they put that down to the protests gathering outside but I could be wrong.

[leicsmac]

6 hours ago, toddybad said:

She's getting a pasting in the comments section though ?

It's the Mail comments section. If the manifesto didn't include the wholescale eating of "benefit scroungers" babies and subsequent harvesting of their organs to sell as well as pressing the parents into slav- sorry, "work for benefits", then it didn't go nearly far enough in the opinion of most of the commenters there.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, KingGTF said:

 

Does it matter who it's owed to?

What matters is how debt is accrued and why it is accrued.

[Guest MattP]

3 hours ago, Realist Guy In The Room said:

It must be amazing to know that you can rely on a voting demographic so much that you can fvck them over and not lose a single vote.

Maybe that demographic have seen it all and realise it's realistic?

 

Maybe that demographic have seen the other side before and saw where it ended up?

 

Just a thought.

 

46 minutes ago, The Floyd said:

Whilst not being overwhelmingly impressed by the Tory manifesto, it is incredible how much more professional the Conservative launch was in contrast to Labour's. Journalists were asking difficult questions without being booed and I thought May, most notably during her speech, came across pretty well.

The contrast was incredible really, one is a party of government, the other is effectively a protest movement dressed up as a political party. One manifesto is there to be implemented, the other is there to shore up a core vote.

 

In a weird way I'd love to see what would happen if Labour did win (from afar obviously) - If Phillip Dick was alive he could do a fantastic book on it.

[Guest]

Tories have said that they are removing the need for planning permission for exploratory drilling linked to fracking but still consider on shore windfarms to be unacceptable in England (they might allow in remote scottish islands).

 

Ridiculous.

[Guest Kopfkino]

10 minutes ago, toddybad said:

What matters is how debt is accrued and why it is accrued.

 

So what does it matter that the Bank of England holds roughly 25% of it? As per your original statement 

[Guest MattP]

There aren't many figures in this manifesto, the double lock certainly sounds more sensible than the triple lock as it removes the 2.5% increase. I can't see anything at all that backs up this "lurch to the right" or "new Thatcher" claims so far, can anyone direct me to something?

 

From what I have read so far it looks like a typical grab for the centre ground.

[Bellend Sebastian]

Disappointed by the dumping of Leveson part 2 but not surprised

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, KingGTF said:

 

So what does it matter that the Bank of England holds roughly 25% of it? As per your original statement 

My point wasnt that it mattered it was that people don't understand government debt. My example of this was showing that a big chunk of that debt owed to our own central bank.

 

Another example is that the national debt has been higher than it is now as a % of GDP for around 200 of the last 250 years. At no point has this debt ever caused a problem. National debt is not like debt that you or i might find ourselves in. Despite Tory protestations to the contrary, the UK will not be bankrupted by increased debt.

 

The deficit is in a slightly different place in that the % GDP deficit is relatively high at the moment but the counter to this is growth, not cuts. We are in the position that we need to increase the deficit in the short term to raise the funds to see a decrease in the medium and long term.

[Guest Kopfkino]

59 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I'm not very knowledgeable about the financial system, but assume that debt owed to foreign governments or private companies is much more of a risk than debt owed to your own central bank.

More risk of a foreign government or private firm wanting to be repaid or to jack up interest rates, I imagine?

 

The US Government owes some vast sum to China - a potential hostage to fortune?

 

 

 

 

The government issues gilts to sell on the LSE with set terms. I believe currently the most common is a 30-year coupon bond at 1.75%, and payable after a certain date. There are other securities that are issued, like index-linked bonds but I don't believe it differs too much. So it's not possible to be held to ransom, for the debt to be called in or for interest rates to be hiked, nor is it in the interest of foreign governments to do so. 

 

China holds so much US government debt as a way for it to control the exchange rate.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, KingGTF said:

 

The government issues gilts to sell on the LSE with set terms. I believe currently the most common is a 30-year coupon bond at 1.75%, and payable after a certain date. There are other securities that are issued, like index-linked bonds but I don't believe it differs too much. So it's not possible to be held to ransom, for the debt to be called in or for interest rates to be hiked, nor is it in the interest of foreign governments to do so. 

 

China holds so much US government debt as a way for it to control the exchange rate.

A few months ago it was 1.3% for a 10 year bond.

For comparison, the US was closer to 1.7%.

These are extroadinarily low rates which do not suggest unease with our ability to fund our debt.

A country in that position sees 5% and above.

[Guest MattP]

Labour upto 34% in Yougov poll and Liberals on just 6%! (Tories no change on 49%)

 

The country is moving back towards two party politics - what Corbyn has done brilliantly is remove any progressive alliance and established his party as the only serious anti-Conservative option. 

 

Tim Farron and the Dems banking on this being another referendum is starting to look as big a mistake as the Tory one under Hague when he ran an entire election campaign on keeping the pound.

[Sharpe's Fox]

15 minutes ago, MattP said:

Labour upto 34% in Yougov poll and Liberals on just 6%! (Tories no change on 49%)

 

The country is moving back towards two party politics - what Corbyn has done brilliantly is remove any progressive alliance and established his party as the only serious anti-Conservative option. 

 

Tim Farron and the Dems banking on this being another referendum is starting to look as big a mistake as the Tory one under Hague when he ran an entire election campaign on keeping the pound.

kind of makes the debate tonight redundant, then. Shan't be watching those showers of shite.