2015 Election season ..........stuff it in here.

[Benji]

Then there's the small matter of policy. Labour believes in the benefits of public spending, some redistribution from rich to poor, slower deficit reduction, real investment to stimulate growth and constructive engagement with the EU. The Tories want savage public spending cuts, redistribution from the poor to the rich, accelerated austerity despite its failure to reduce the deficit adequately, an economy based on deregulated free markets and finance (well, that worked well in 2009, didn't it?!) and a showdown with the EU. Not a lot of common ground for a "grand coalition" there! Nah, I think Labour will give a swerve to the embrace of the vampire! 

Naughty.

[Alf Bentley]

Naughty.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/britains-divided-decade-the-rich-are-64-richer-than-before-the-recessionwhile-the-poor-are-57-poorer-10097038.html

 

"Britain's divided decade: the rich are 64% richer than before the recession, while the poor are 57% poorer

The gap between richest and poorest has dramatically widened in the past decade as wealthy households paid off their debts and piled up savings following the financial crisis, a report warns today.

By contrast, the worst-off families are far less financially secure than before the recession triggered by the near- collapse of several major banks. They have an average of less than a week’s pay set aside and are more often in the red.

Younger workers have fallen behind older people while homeowners – particularly those who have paid off their mortgages – have become increasingly affluent compared with their neighbours who are paying rent" etc.

 

Very naughty indeed of the Tories to cut top-rate tax while slashing benefits and cutting public sector pay, I agree! 

(and, before anyone points it out, I'm aware that these figures relate to the past 10 years, not just the last 5)

[Footballwipe]

If I was in a constituency that was marginal between the Tories and the BNP, I would. Only in circumstances like that, I think.

 

The French left ended up in that situation for a presidential election a few years back - the final round was between Sarkozy (mainstream right) and Le Pen (Front National), so all the lefties had to hold their nose and vote for Sarkozy.

 

Do you mean the 2002 election between Chirac and Le Pen because Sarkozy was up against Royale and then lost to Hollande in the final round of the 07 and 12 elections?

 

The left certainly did like you said though, because Chirac won by a landslide even Blair would've been envious of.

[Alf Bentley]

Do you mean the 2002 election between Chirac and Le Pen because Sarkozy was up against Royale and then lost to Hollande in the final round of the 07 and 12 elections?

 

The left certainly did like you said though, because Chirac won by a landslide even Blair would've been envious of.

 

You're right! Apologies...early onset dementia on my part!

[Jon the Hat]

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/britains-divided-decade-the-rich-are-64-richer-than-before-the-recessionwhile-the-poor-are-57-poorer-10097038.html

 

"Britain's divided decade: the rich are 64% richer than before the recession, while the poor are 57% poorer

The gap between richest and poorest has dramatically widened in the past decade as wealthy households paid off their debts and piled up savings following the financial crisis, a report warns today.

By contrast, the worst-off families are far less financially secure than before the recession triggered by the near- collapse of several major banks. They have an average of less than a week’s pay set aside and are more often in the red.

Younger workers have fallen behind older people while homeowners – particularly those who have paid off their mortgages – have become increasingly affluent compared with their neighbours who are paying rent" etc.

 

Very naughty indeed of the Tories to cut top-rate tax while slashing benefits and cutting public sector pay, I agree! 

(and, before anyone points it out, I'm aware that these figures relate to the past 10 years, not just the last 5)

 

 

Was it also naughty of the Tories to dramatically increase the tax free threshold to lift so many out of paying tax? What about improving the effectiveness of benefits payments by not funding spare rooms while others are sharing the rooms they have?

 

While the stats you link to are interesting, I don't think you can blame the Tories or anyone else for the fact that in times of economic uncertainty people who can afford to are more likely to increase their savings.  Clearly things are tight at the bottom, but that is not impacted at all by the fact that the wealthiest 20% kept their money in their pocket.  The reduction of the top rate tax certainly made sod all difference, because it still higher now than at the start of that 10 year period.

[MooseBreath]

People who earn more in being able to save more shocker.

Just looking through the report now and what's most surprising to me is how low the levels of saving are for everyone. For example it says nobody in the 60% of lowest earners have more than £1k saved. It says even people in the top 20% only have £8k saved. I find that hard to believe. The 57% fall highlighted by the independent relates to a fall of about £20, the price of a few beers. Pretty easy to fix that problem then.

The report also highlights the struggles of those in the 25-34 age group in comparison to those over 34. Would be interesting to see how the dynamics of this debate change on FT if it shifts towards being more focused on intergenerational inequality.

[Alf Bentley]

Was it also naughty of the Tories to dramatically increase the tax free threshold to lift so many out of paying tax? What about improving the effectiveness of benefits payments by not funding spare rooms while others are sharing the rooms they have?

 

While the stats you link to are interesting, I don't think you can blame the Tories or anyone else for the fact that in times of economic uncertainty people who can afford to are more likely to increase their savings.  Clearly things are tight at the bottom, but that is not impacted at all by the fact that the wealthiest 20% kept their money in their pocket.  The reduction of the top rate tax certainly made sod all difference, because it still higher now than at the start of that 10 year period.

 

I don't have the time or expertise to respond properly to your first question. However, raising the basic tax threshold benefited everyone, including the super-rich, even if the effects will have been more tangible for the poor - so there's certainly a case to argue that it wasn't fiscally efficient - or socially just when combined with tax cuts for the rich, falling real pay for those in work and cuts in benefits/tax credits for those unable to work.

 

The bedroom tax was an act of cruelty against disabled people and those with young adult children in the forces / away at college who needed a spare room. If suitable single-room council accommodation had been available, it might have been justified for some people (e.g. young, able-bodied unemployed - I moved for work myself and lived in bedsits/shared houses as a young bloke), but very little such housing was available. So, it ended up just being another opportunity for the Tories to stick the boot into the vulnerable while handing out goodies to their rich mates....and, before anyone asks, yes, the minority of idlers on benefits should be penalised if they persist in idling.

 

Fair point re. the wealthiest increasing their savings (though an earlier growth stimulus might have encouraged a higher propensity for them to spend, to the benefit of the whole economy). I wonder how much of it was down to increased saving, though? Won't a fair chunk have been down to rises in house prices...which the govt could have offset, again to the benefit of the economy, by encouraging house-building rather than effectively subsidising mortgages and helping to increase house prices through Help to Buy? Certainly, some of the wealth will have come from the tax cut for those on £150k that Osborne handed out at a time of austerity for everyone else....it certainly didn't lead to an increased tax take, as he said it would. Likewise, through pensioner bonds, the govt has chosen to use the taxpayer's money to subsidise 4% (!) savings rates for wealthy pensioners, hardly a deprive demographic...Tories redistributing from the poor to the rich again (link below).

 

https://andrewlainton.wordpress.com/2015/01/17/pensioner-bonds-will-cost-as-much-as-bedroom-tax-will-save-biggest-pre-election-bribe-in-history/

[Benji]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/britains-divided-decade-the-rich-are-64-richer-than-before-the-recessionwhile-the-poor-are-57-poorer-10097038.html

 

"Britain's divided decade: the rich are 64% richer than before the recession, while the poor are 57% poorer

The gap between richest and poorest has dramatically widened in the past decade as wealthy households paid off their debts and piled up savings following the financial crisis, a report warns today.

By contrast, the worst-off families are far less financially secure than before the recession triggered by the near- collapse of several major banks. They have an average of less than a week’s pay set aside and are more often in the red.

Younger workers have fallen behind older people while homeowners – particularly those who have paid off their mortgages – have become increasingly affluent compared with their neighbours who are paying rent" etc.

 

Very naughty indeed of the Tories to cut top-rate tax while slashing benefits and cutting public sector pay, I agree! 

(and, before anyone points it out, I'm aware that these figures relate to the past 10 years, not just the last 5)

I fail to see how that supports an argument that it is Tory intention to redistribute money from the poor to the rich. Merely, it's a sad truth that the rich (through their availability of wealth and resources) are able to take a hit, adapt and go again in times of an economic crisis while your average man on the street, who makes no meaningful contribution to such crisis, does not have such luxury. Your article itself refers to wealthy households paying off their debts and piling up savings. That's not political policy, its rich individuals adapting to the economy and finding a way, as they usually do, of prospering.

There is an implication in what you say that the Tories are ideological in dipping their hands in the pockets of the "poor" to fund policies in favour of the "rich".

The personal allowance has continued to increase, or does that not count because it's not seen as being a Tory policy in favour of the rich?

[Benji]

I don't have the time or expertise to respond properly to your first question. However, raising the basic tax threshold benefited everyone, including the super-rich, even if the effects will have been more tangible for the poor - so there's certainly a case to argue that it wasn't fiscally efficient - or socially just when combined with tax cuts for the rich, falling real pay for those in work and cuts in benefits/tax credits for those unable to work.

No it doesn't: https://www.gov.uk/income-tax-rates/income-over-100000.

EDIT: I see you said basic tax threshold - I assume you mean the start of and not the end of - apologies if not.

[Alf Bentley]

No it doesn't: https://www.gov.uk/income-tax-rates/income-over-100000.

EDIT: I see you said basic tax threshold - I assume you mean the start of and not the end of - apologies if not.

 

I stand corrected. I wasn't aware that the personal allowance was tapered out between £100k and £120k.

£100k is still a pretty high income in my book, though - and people earning up to that benefit along with those on low incomes, I think.

 

Certainly, those earning from £150k to infinity benefited from the cut in the top tax rate, instituted at a time of austerity cuts for almost everyone els.e 

[Benji]

Likewise, through pensioner bonds, the govt has chosen to use the taxpayer's money to subsidise 4% (!) savings rates for wealthy pensioners, hardly a deprive demographic...Tories redistributing from the poor to the rich again (link below).

 

https://andrewlainton.wordpress.com/2015/01/17/pensioner-bonds-will-cost-as-much-as-bedroom-tax-will-save-biggest-pre-election-bribe-in-history/

But again these are not inextricably linked measures. The journalist has simply chosen two policies and compared direct financial net effect. The Tories have not said, "you know what, let's fund interest payments to rich pensioners by introducing a bedroom tax".

This also ignores the indirect effect of the bonds. The bedroom tax is a cost-saving measure with the general thesis that "the State will not subsidise people to have empty bedrooms". Paying such amounts are essentially payments down the toilet. I'm not saying I agree with it either way, I confess I jsut don't know enough about it - but it's not a comparable measure to pensioner bonds.

A bond is a financial instrument which raises cash for the Government. Yes these pensioner bonds have preferential rates (up to 4%) but that requires the pensioner to hand over their money to the Government for up to three years. What about the indirect benefits of this to the Government? Initial estimates were that approximately £15bn would be raised through these bonds. The Government has raised cash but rather than pay "the greedy bankers" for a loan, they're paying interest to people who have worked their lives and have some spare cash to invest. And guess what, most pensioners will have to pay back to the Government savings tax on the interest they receive! These are benefits to the Treasury, not Tory mates. If anything, had that been what they'd wanted to achieve, they go down the loan/financial instrument route with the institutional bankers.

And as far as I can tell, anyone over 65 can invest... political party and number of acres owned ignored.

[Webbo]

I remember when Labour used to care about pensioners, now they just seem to blame them.

[Alf Bentley]

I remember when Labour used to care about pensioners, now they just seem to blame them.

 

Feeling your age, Webbo?   I know I bloody am....

[Webbo]

It's the big 5 0 this year. I hope you're not all planning a surprise gift for me? 

[Benji]

It's the big 5 0 this year. I hope you're not all planning a surprise gift for me? 

Damn only 50? I had a couple of pensioner bonds planned for you.

[Alf Bentley]

It's the big 5 0 this year. I hope you're not all planning a surprise gift for me? 

 

I vaguely recall a 5 0 in my own past and am sure that I was planning something for yours, but I can't seem to remember what it was.

Now, where did I put my teeth?

[Stadt]

I thought you were younger than that Webbo, I thought you were 48.

[Webbo]

I thought you were younger than that Webbo, I thought you were 48.

If you'd ever met me you'd think I couldn't over 47 and a half.

[Strokes]

I'm not a member of any party, Strokes, though I was in the Labour Party a long time ago, before leaving in disillusionment at their over-cautious, centralising ways. I've mainly voted Labour in the past, a couple of times Lib Dem and Green.

 

I plan to vote Green this time. That's not because I'd want them running the government....yet....as they're not ready for it, any more than UKIP are from the other wing. But there's no chance of that, anyway. The Greens will be lucky to get more than 1-2 MPs (possibly even none). But I agree with most of their main principles: e.g. climate change should be top of the agenda; quality of life should be a higher priority than ever more growth, consumption of resources, stress and materialism (I'm aware this is an unpopular view!); political & economic power should be decentralised; wealth redistributed to boost social cohesion/sense of community; electoral system reformed etc. That's despite disagreeing with some of their policies (e.g. nuclear power), thinking they're not fit to govern yet - and being unlikely to get on with Green Party members, as I'm a scruffy, beer-swilling, carnivorous male football fan, not a fragrant, earnest, middle-class vegetarian lady on a bicycle! 

 

I also think it would be good if the Greens got a decent % of the vote so as to give Labour a kick up the arse to move away from the "New Labour" agenda (free market capitalism but with a bit more safety net / public spending / redistribution than the Tories offer). The government after May will be led by either Labour or the Tories, probably with some degree of support from smaller parties. But in 5-10 years (maybe longer), I reckon that old party system will crumble. New parties might be formed, or smaller parties like the Greens and UKIP might become much bigger players. 

 

Where I vote (Leicester), Labour will win, anyway, as I live in one of the 85% or so of seats where the winner is already known, under our outdated, anti-democratic electoral system.

 

I tend to defend Labour more on here than I would normally as the Tory/UKIP posters on here seem to be more active than the lefties, since Zingari retired (though there's a fair balance).

The balance on here probably is in favour of Tory/UKIP these days and my contemplation of voting UKIP is very similar to yours for voting Green. It's good to hear strong arguments against your own opinions though and can offer a chance of reflection, I enjoy reading posts I disagree with almost as much as reading my own

[Rincewind]

Had an email from  David Cameron but he is running  for a seat in Glasgow for Labour.

[Guest MattP]

The Tories have unbelievable gall to call for Labour to rule out a deal with the SNP. They spent years riding roughshod over the Scots when they had majority support in England, but hardly any MPs in Scotland. They used Scotland as an experimental laboratory for their hated poll tax and consistently opposed any devolution until it was a fait accompli, thereby fanning the flames of separatism. Meanwhile, Labour is set to pay a heavy price for actually leading the battle AGAINST the SNP to oppose Scottish independence.

 

It's not gall at all, I think it's fair, I think ALL parties should put their cards on the table and tell us who they will and won't work with - it's becoming quite clear that we are going to have a hung parliament and some sort of coalition so it's time they were honest with the voters. We all need to know. The way Miliband is selling his own MP's out in Scotland on this is unbelievable, he must be the most untrustworthy man in politics, knifed his brother and will knife his own MP's.

 

And believe me if we get a Lab-SNP coalition this May what the Tories did in Scotland previously will look like a children's tea party compared to what they'll get in 2020 with a Boris led party comes into power with an overall majority.

 

I plan to vote Green this time. That's not because I'd want them running the government....yet....as they're not ready for it, any more than UKIP are from the other wing. But there's no chance of that, anyway. The Greens will be lucky to get more than 1-2 MPs (possibly even none). But I agree with most of their main principles: e.g. climate change should be top of the agenda; quality of life should be a higher priority than ever more growth, consumption of resources, stress and materialism (I'm aware this is an unpopular view!); political & economic power should be decentralised; wealth redistributed to boost social cohesion/sense of community; electoral system reformed etc. That's despite disagreeing with some of their policies (e.g. nuclear power), thinking they're not fit to govern yet - and being unlikely to get on with Green Party members, as I'm a scruffy, beer-swilling, carnivorous male football fan, not a fragrant, earnest, middle-class vegetarian lady on a bicycle! 

 

Do you still not feel put off by the Greens though and some of their more radical policies though Alf? Things like legalising membership/support to groups like ISIS? - There's a lovely thread in the football forum about Cheltenham Festival - another thing that would be completely banned under this bunch of fascists.

 

I could never have voted BNP despite wanting a serious shift to the right on things like immigration even knowing they had no chance of power.

Had an email from  David Cameron but he is running  for a seat in Glasgow for Labour.

 

Not sure if you are being serious but he isn't.

[Guest MattP]

I think it's a shame that both labour and the greens are going for the 'can't work, won't work' vote, the only difference being that labour know they need some credibility in terms of how they pay for it, whereas the greens have just gone for pie in the sky wackiness.

Such a shame that there exists no left wing party that represents the ordinary working man, he who diligently carries out his responsibilities without relying on hand outs and without being driven by envy of those more financially successful.

Come to think of it, scrap that, the tories pretty much tick those boxes.

 

We were talking about this in the pub the other day and all agreeing that the Greens may as well just carry on as they are, Bennett may as well just come out and say she's going build a million new homes for a tenner each, I honestly don't think it would effect their vote too much as the sort of people who are voting for them aren't really going to be remotly bothered about finaces or people who take politics too seriously.

 

More wacky stuff being prepared for their manifesto (I'm desperate for these debates to go ahead just so we can see her on TV) - Sending out Hospital ships to the World is my favourite - can't wait for the costings on that. Actually scrap that - this country has serious problems with Monkey, Elephant and Whale kidnapping - let's sort that first.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/green-party/11456572/Rodents-to-be-given-human-rights-under-Green-Party-plans.htm

 

Animal rights: Article Five of the UN Declaration on Human Rights, banning “inhuman” treatment, is extended to all sentient life forms. The same prison sentences for the murder and kidnap of humans will apply to crimes involving elephants, monkeys and whales.

 

Nappies: Companies that manufacture disposable nappies face higher taxes to account for landfill

 

Grand National: Commercial horse and dog racing to be banned

 

National Lottery: Payouts to be smaller, with more winners, under “progressive” system

 

Aid: Budget to increase to one per cent of GDP, with hospital ships serving the developing world

[Jon the Hat]

I don't have the time or expertise to respond properly to your first question. However, raising the basic tax threshold benefited everyone, including the super-rich, even if the effects will have been more tangible for the poor - so there's certainly a case to argue that it wasn't fiscally efficient - or socially just when combined with tax cuts for the rich, falling real pay for those in work and cuts in benefits/tax credits for those unable to work.

 

The tax free threshold was in fact not increased through most of the changes for those on higher rate tax, and the higher rate threshold was reduced to negate the impact.  That's right, Tories reducing tax for those on low wages, and not impacting the higher paid at all.  Note you don't get a tax free threshold at all over about £112k.

[Jon the Hat]

 

Certainly, those earning from £150k to infinity benefited from the cut in the top tax rate, instituted at a time of austerity cuts for almost everyone els.e 

 

There is a lot of evidence that tax contributions overall drop when you tax at 50%, because people either don't base themselves in the UK if they have the choice, or those that do look at ways of reducing their taxable pay, eg loading pensions etc.

[Guest MattP]

The tax free threshold was in fact not increased through most of the changes for those on higher rate tax, and the higher rate threshold was reduced to negate the impact.  That's right, Tories reducing tax for those on low wages, and not impacting the higher paid at all.  Note you don't get a tax free threshold at all over about £112k.

 

I really do find this argument bizarre and it's getting Miliband nowhere.

 

Indisputable fact - Low paid workers are paying less tax under this Tory government than the last Labour one whilst the highest earners are paying more tax under this Tory government than the last Labour one.

 

Of course we all know what the left and especially Labour really mean by 'low paid' - the people they want on their 'payroll' on benefits who vote for them - Not actual working people.