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

[leicsmac]

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.

 

Even though this argument is entirely correct, the truth of it sickens me.

[Jon the Hat]

To be fair, Labour introduced top rate tax and removal of the tax free threshold over £100k, but from that base I agree, this government has done a huge amount for in work low paid people. 

[Alf Bentley]

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.

 

 

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.

 

 

It's not gall of the Tories to ask Labour to put their cards on the table. It is gall to do so while not putting their own cards on the table. Have the Tories ruled out a deal with UKIP? Have they answered that question? If so, I've not seen the answer.

 

In reality, though, we know that most parties would do a deal with most others if the arithmetic (numbers of MPs) meant it was an option and a workable deal could be done.  Labour probably would do a deal with the SNP under those circumstances, and the Tories probably would do a deal with UKIP. I wouldn't rule out Labour doing a deal with UKIP or the Tories doing a deal with the SNP either, though those options are less likely. But my guess is that any deal would be "confidence & supply", not a coalition, as none of the minor parties (with the possible exception of the DUP) will want to be tainted by too close an association with the major parties - they'll want to take their pound of flesh and distance themselves at time of their choosing. So, there'll be no Deputy PM Salmond or Farage, I think.

 

Also, when exactly is Scotland entitled to exert some influence at Westminster? When the Tories had a UK majority, they didn't give a shit that Scotland had voted differently. They went ahead, imposing their Thatcherite policies and rejecting any prospect of devolution. Now, if the Tories don't win a UK majority and the SNP are in a position to exert an influence over a minority government, the Tories still apparently believe that the SNP have no entitlement to use that influence. In that case, if Scottish MPs have no democratic/parliamentary rights, then the Tories should be honest and legislate to expel Scotland from the UK. While they're at it, they could expel all those horrible non-wealthy bits up North and those scummy chav/immigrant-ridden cities. All that would be left would be a golden England comprising the Home Counties and the Shires, mainly populated by the wealthy who could gallop around the fields on their horses braying about their wealth and how they'd stuffed it into tax avoidance accounts in the Bahamas. It would be the final stage in the transformation of the Tory party from the "one nation" party to the "one class" party! 

 

Labour led the campaign against Scottish independence (badly, but never mind, someone had to do it and the Tories had zero credibility up there), so any idea that they'd help the SNP to achieve independence is bollocks - and if they gave the Scots unfair amounts of cash, they'd be guaranteeing a massive defeat in 2020, as there are a lot more MPs elected in England.

 

You choose not to address the scenario of a Tory-UKIP post-election alliance. UKIP's position is clear - they'd settle for an early EU referendum under a confidence and supply deal with the Tories. So, in 2016-17 Farage would be campaigning to get out of the EU. What would Cameron be doing? Campaigning on the other side to stay in because he'd negotiated a great deal?  Standing alongside Farage - and against most of British business - to call for an EU exit? And what would happen to the government after that referendum? The country needs to know! 

 

Re. the Greens: I'm sure they have lots of policies that I disagree with. Their opposition to nuclear power is more of a concern, as they might seek to exert influence over that in the unlikely event that they have any influence, post-election. On ISIS/Al Qaeda, as I understand it, their position was that it should be legal to be a member, but a serious criminal offence to facilitate/encourage violence by those groups. I sort of understand where they're coming from, as we should ban as little as possible and allow as much liberty as possible. However, some organisations (like ISIS) are blatantly violent in essence so criminalising membership is justified. It sounds as if the Greens are backtracking to that position now.....growing pains, as with some of the bollocks that you'll find in UKIP's policy statements

 

Must work now - and won't be able to respond for at least a couple of days, due to a work glut. Will continue the debate some time, I'm sure (maybe even Saturday evening at the Beer Festival if I bump into you - I'm hoping to get down there to sample a few ales and to acquire a copy of Ken's poetry book).

[Webbo]

Scotland has its own parliament with, soon to be,greatly enhanced powers, including tax raising powers. The fact is the SNP can impose upon the rest of us things that don't apply in Scotland. Add to that the fact that resentment in England can only help in their aim of independence.

Labour should and would be wise to rule out any deal with the SNP.

[Guest MattP]

It's not gall of the Tories to ask Labour to put their cards on the table. It is gall to do so while not putting their own cards on the table. Have the Tories ruled out a deal with UKIP? Have they answered that question? If so, I've not seen the answer.

 

In reality, though, we know that most parties would do a deal with most others if the arithmetic (numbers of MPs) meant it was an option and a workable deal could be done.  Labour probably would do a deal with the SNP under those circumstances, and the Tories probably would do a deal with UKIP. I wouldn't rule out Labour doing a deal with UKIP or the Tories doing a deal with the SNP either, though those options are less likely. But my guess is that any deal would be "confidence & supply", not a coalition, as none of the minor parties (with the possible exception of the DUP) will want to be tainted by too close an association with the major parties - they'll want to take their pound of flesh and distance themselves at time of their choosing. So, there'll be no Deputy PM Salmond or Farage, I think.

 

Also, when exactly is Scotland entitled to exert some influence at Westminster? When the Tories had a UK majority, they didn't give a shit that Scotland had voted differently. They went ahead, imposing their Thatcherite policies and rejecting any prospect of devolution. Now, if the Tories don't win a UK majority and the SNP are in a position to exert an influence over a minority government, the Tories still apparently believe that the SNP have no entitlement to use that influence. In that case, if Scottish MPs have no democratic/parliamentary rights, then the Tories should be honest and legislate to expel Scotland from the UK. While they're at it, they could expel all those horrible non-wealthy bits up North and those scummy chav/immigrant-ridden cities. All that would be left would be a golden England comprising the Home Counties and the Shires, mainly populated by the wealthy who could gallop around the fields on their horses braying about their wealth and how they'd stuffed it into tax avoidance accounts in the Bahamas. It would be the final stage in the transformation of the Tory party from the "one nation" party to the "one class" party! 

 

Labour led the campaign against Scottish independence (badly, but never mind, someone had to do it and the Tories had zero credibility up there), so any idea that they'd help the SNP to achieve independence is bollocks - and if they gave the Scots unfair amounts of cash, they'd be guaranteeing a massive defeat in 2020, as there are a lot more MPs elected in England.

 

You choose not to address the scenario of a Tory-UKIP post-election alliance. UKIP's position is clear - they'd settle for an early EU referendum under a confidence and supply deal with the Tories. So, in 2016-17 Farage would be campaigning to get out of the EU. What would Cameron be doing? Campaigning on the other side to stay in because he'd negotiated a great deal?  Standing alongside Farage - and against most of British business - to call for an EU exit? And what would happen to the government after that referendum? The country needs to know! 

 

Re. the Greens: I'm sure they have lots of policies that I disagree with. Their opposition to nuclear power is more of a concern, as they might seek to exert influence over that in the unlikely event that they have any influence, post-election. On ISIS/Al Qaeda, as I understand it, their position was that it should be legal to be a member, but a serious criminal offence to facilitate/encourage violence by those groups. I sort of understand where they're coming from, as we should ban as little as possible and allow as much liberty as possible. However, some organisations (like ISIS) are blatantly violent in essence so criminalising membership is justified. It sounds as if the Greens are backtracking to that position now.....growing pains, as with some of the bollocks that you'll find in UKIP's policy statements

 

Must work now - and won't be able to respond for at least a couple of days, due to a work glut. Will continue the debate some time, I'm sure (maybe even Saturday evening at the Beer Festival if I bump into you - I'm hoping to get down there to sample a few ales and to acquire a copy of Ken's poetry book).

 

I'll answer the UKIP question now - Miliband can ask him if he wants, although he had 6 questions at PMQ's today and every single one related to TV debates rather than anything about policy (which really does show where Labour and Miliband are at the minute, literally no policy to argue or try and win votes or credibility on), and if he does ask Cameron should be completely honest about it, that's politics - you ask a question and the other person answers it, you can't criticise Cameron for not answering a question he hasn't been asked or expect him not to ask other questions because he hasn't been asked himself

 

I've addressed the position of a Tory-UKIP coalition very clearly numerous times, if you haven't read it here it is again - I personally would have little problem with it and actually welcome it.

 

Ignoring all the hyperbole in the middle I've never heard anyone say Labour would help Scotland achieve independence? Why would they? They can't get to power without them, of course they would start being financially generous to them, the only way Labour can win votes is by throwing money around under the guise of 'wealth distribution' (even when in reality it's stolen or borrowed) - they would do exactly the same to Scotland here in a desperate attempt to win back voters from the SNP.

 

Might be there on Saturday but unlikely now as I'd forgotton a mates 40th!

[Alf Bentley]

I've addressed the position of a Tory-UKIP coalition very clearly numerous times, if you haven't read it here it is again - I personally would have little problem with it and actually welcome it.

 

 

How would it work with the EU referendum, though? Do you assume that Cameron would stand by his claim that he'd get a good deal on EU reform, allowing him to support continued EU membership? Or would the Tories join UKIP in supporting a British exit (as many of their backbenchers want)? Or might Cameron and Farage be campaigning in opposing camps and then continuing to govern? Not impossible, that, I suppose - Cameron & Clegg did that over the electoral reform referendum....though EU membership is a much bigger issue to most people.

 

I agree that Miliband should ask such questions and come out with more meaningful policy. Hopefully that will happen once the election campaign proper gets underway.

 

Must work!

[Guest MattP]

Nice little video here again showing one of Farage's predictions proving to be right while Nick Clegg was yet again trying to use words like 'dangerous' nasty' etc to try and discredit him and hoodwink the public into believing his lies.

 

 

To think some people actually thouth Clegg won these debates as well

[Guest MattP]

How would it work with the EU referendum, though? Do you assume that Cameron would stand by his claim that he'd get a good deal on EU reform, allowing him to support continued EU membership? Or would the Tories join UKIP in supporting a British exit (as many of their backbenchers want)? Or might Cameron and Farage be campaigning in opposing camps and then continuing to govern? Not impossible, that, I suppose - Cameron & Clegg did that over the electoral reform referendum....though EU membership is a much bigger issue to most people.

 

I agree that Miliband should ask such questions and come out with more meaningful policy. Hopefully that will happen once the election campaign proper gets underway.

 

Must work!

 

Well I imagine you would campaign on what you believe on - in exactly the same way a 'free vote' is held in the House of Commons.

 

Don't hold your breath on Ed mind, I felt sorry for him today, he really is hopeless, I remember my Dad telling me how hopeless Michael Foot and Neil Kinnock were, they couldn't have been as bad as him surely?

.

[leicsmac]

Well I imagine you would campaign on what you believe on - in exactly the same way a 'free vote' is held in the House of Commons.

 

Don't hold your breath on Ed mind, I felt sorry for him today, he really is hopeless, I remember my Dad telling me how hopeless Michael Foot and Neil Kinnock were, they couldn't have been as bad as him surely?

.

 

Don't be too harsh on Kinnock, lacklustre politician as he is he would still have won it in '92 if not for Murdochs smear campaign being remarkably successful. 

 

But yes, both of them were pretty awful. Miliband is just...average. Every time I hear him speak I'm reminded of this.

 

[MooseBreath]

Even though this argument is entirely correct, the truth of it sickens me.

You don't like people who move abroad for financial gain or people who use tax efficient wrappers like pensions? Bit harsh on yourself and pretty much everyone. Or does it only sicken you when people who have earned a few more bob than you do it?

[leicsmac]

You don't like people who move abroad for financial gain or people who use tax efficient wrappers like pensions? Bit harsh on yourself and pretty much everyone. Or does it only sicken you when people who have earned a few more bob than you do it?

 

Perhaps some clarification is in order then. People basing their money offshore and then continuing to use UK public services in any way is what sickens me, rather than people moving abroad and paying tax in a whole new country with a whole new job. I do believe Jon was referring to the former when he made his point, though I could be wrong.

[Jon the Hat]

Perhaps some clarification is in order then. People basing their money offshore and then continuing to use UK public services in any way is what sickens me, rather than people moving abroad and paying tax in a whole new country with a whole new job. I do believe Jon was referring to the former when he made his point, though I could be wrong.

 

I was mostly thinking of a number of execs I have worked with over time, mainly in pan-European roles, who could choose to base themselves in a number of countries.  There are more people like that than you would think.

 

So it sickens you that people who have undoubtedly paid far more in tax to fund the system get to use the system?

[leicsmac]

I was mostly thinking of a number of execs I have worked with over time, mainly in pan-European roles, who could choose to base themselves in a number of countries.  There are more people like that than you would think.

 

So it sickens you that people who have undoubtedly paid far more in tax to fund the system get to use the system?

 

No. It sickens me that people who have most definitely NOT paid far more in tax (through the use of creative accounting loopholes and offshore accounts) get to use the system. Which seems to be the case with a significant number of rich UK nationals. 

 

I'm sorry, but with so many people playing the system it's very difficult to trust anyone at all in that particular echelon.

[Guest MattP]

No. It sickens me that people who have most definitely NOT paid far more in tax (through the use of creative accounting loopholes and offshore accounts) get to use the system. Which seems to be the case with a significant number of rich UK nationals. 

 

I'm sorry, but with so many people playing the system it's very difficult to trust anyone at all in that particular echelon.

 

How do you reconcile these beliefs with your pro freedom of movement opinions? That's something that opens up the NHS to millions who have never contributed to the system or if they have probably very little.

 

From the sidelines it just looks like the Rincewind line of rich people = bad - poor people = good.

[Alf Bentley]

Well I imagine you would campaign on what you believe on - in exactly the same way a 'free vote' is held in the House of Commons.

 

Don't hold your breath on Ed mind, I felt sorry for him today, he really is hopeless, I remember my Dad telling me how hopeless Michael Foot and Neil Kinnock were, they couldn't have been as bad as him surely?

.

 

If voters now demand a smooth, self-confident, charismatic showman like Blair or Cameron, then Ed is doomed, but uncharismatic leaders have won before (Major, Heath, even Attlee). The old cliches that people vote based on their wallets and that governments lose elections, oppositions don't win them probably still apply. Ed's failure so far to project a vision of a Labour govt's purpose is more of a concern to me....he's leaving that awfully late, coming up with the odd good policy idea but never joining the dots to offer that vision.

 

Maybe there are 2 very different stages in political leadership - persuading the public to vote for you, and then going on to do a good job. I think that Ed might actually be quite good at the second bit, as he seems quite shrewd in taking decisions on particular issues and might be prepared to delegate and not get drunk on ego like Thatcher and Blair did. That's no use if he can't persuade people to vote him into office, of course! 

 

Foot and, to a lesser extent, Kinnock probably get a worse press than they deserve because the Labour Party was in a mess when they took charge. Foot was renowned as one of the greatest ever parliamentary orators and had been a respected minister and writer (as well as playing a role opposing appeasement in the 30s), but took over a party split down the middle between Bennites (& Militant entryists) and SDP splitters in the wake of the Winter of Discontent....a poisoned chalice to beat them all! He was ridiculed for looking old and not being a smooth TV performer, but that was something quite new. Heath was a very awkward, uncharismatic bloke and it didn't stop him getting elected a decade earlier. Again, some people didn't like Kinnock for superficial reasons ("ginger Welsh windbag" etc.), but he did a pretty good job at turning Labour back to electability after the Tory landslide of 1983 - and only narrowly lost in 1992, after the Tories' successful "Labour's tax bombshell" scare campaign.

 

I think it'll be a sad day if the only sort of PM we're prepared to elect is a TV-friendly, snake-oil salesman like Cameron or Blair. Would we only want football managers who were "charismatic media performers", like Redknapp & Sherwood  ?!

Ed does need to get his finger out on the "political vision" front, though....

[Guest Kopfkino]

That work must be going well Alf

[Alf Bentley]

That work must be going well Alf

 

 

I'll now be working till 10pm tonight and starting again at 4 or 5am tomorrow because of you buggers on here distracting me! I reckon FoxesTalk is responsible for the poor productivity in the British economy. 

[leicsmac]

How do you reconcile these beliefs with your pro freedom of movement opinions? That's something that opens up the NHS to millions who have never contributed to the system or if they have probably very little.

 

From the sidelines it just looks like the Rincewind line of rich people = bad - poor people = good.

 

Easily enough. When you live in a country, you pay into their tax system. When you begin doing so, you can use their public services. Wherever you may find yourself. I think it can be reasonably well assumed that if you work in a country with a visa for any length of time, the tax contributions you make will foot the bill for most public services you might use, unless you're extremely unlucky.

 

Speaking for the UK NHS by itself (a pretty unique example of single payer healthcare) and people using it having contributed little to the tax system...yes, I do in fact have more sympathy for those who can't pay for such services and then use them than for those that won't. Their contributions are the same - almost zero - but the intent means everything. 

 

And, of course, the individual who arrives here and has to use the NHS right away before finding work may well end up getting that job and then making their contributions in the future. The same cannot be said of those who deliberately avoid tax.

 

Oh, and before you mention those who exist solely on benefits, do not wish to seek work and use such services - I have made my position pretty clear on that in the past. Unless there's a good reason for it being the case, multiple job refusals when on JSA should result in penalties. But that's a different argument. 

 

The area of 'medical tourism' is a different matter entirely, and those few cases of people actively coming to the UK seeking medical treatment and then leaving immediately afterwards should of course be scrutinised.

 

As an aside, I'm not in favour of unlimited economic migration - while we still have nation states around they should absolutely have the right to exert control over their borders. The world isn't nearly ready for the alternative, nor might it ever be. However I do hope that one day humans as a whole might actually come to terms with the idea that the petty tribal and ideological rubbish (whatever form it might take) doesn't mean anything, that we actually have more in common than not, and that certain things are better done when humanity acts with one agenda. Then we might - just might - not need borders. 

 

I'm inclined to believe that humanity might end up wiping itself out before that happens, though.

[davieG]

Foot took a massive beating by the media purely on his looks and dress sense was a pretty sad reflection on the society we've become.

[davieG]

 

I'll now be working till 10pm tonight and starting again at 4 or 5am tomorrow because of you buggers on here distracting me! I reckon FoxesTalk is responsible for the poor productivity in the British economy. 

I often wonder how so many can post on here during 'normal' working hours. It was a sackable offence when I was working or at least a written warning.

[bovril]

I often wonder how so many can post on here during 'normal' working hours. It was a sackable offence when I was working or at least a written warning.

 

We're all just the figment of some 15 year old kid's imagination, sitting in his room in Arkansas.

[Buce]

I'll now be working till 10pm tonight and starting again at 4 or 5am tomorrow because of you buggers on here distracting me! I reckon FoxesTalk is responsible for the poor productivity in the British economy.

Maybe we lefties should be subbing you, Alf: you put across the left's point of view so eloquently, the rest of us don't have to...

[Buce]

We're all just the figment of some 15 year old kid's imagination, sitting in his room in Arkansas.

I think, therefore I am.

[leicsmac]

Maybe we lefties should be subbing you, Alf: you put across the left's point of view so eloquently, the rest of us don't have to...

 

This.

[Webbo]

If voters now demand a smooth, self-confident, charismatic showman like Blair or Cameron, then Ed is doomed, but uncharismatic leaders have won before (Major, Heath, even Attlee). The old cliches that people vote based on their wallets and that governments lose elections, oppositions don't win them probably still apply. Ed's failure so far to project a vision of a Labour govt's purpose is more of a concern to me....he's leaving that awfully late, coming up with the odd good policy idea but never joining the dots to offer that vision.

 

Maybe there are 2 very different stages in political leadership - persuading the public to vote for you, and then going on to do a good job. I think that Ed might actually be quite good at the second bit, as he seems quite shrewd in taking decisions on particular issues and might be prepared to delegate and not get drunk on ego like Thatcher and Blair did. That's no use if he can't persuade people to vote him into office, of course! 

 

Foot and, to a lesser extent, Kinnock probably get a worse press than they deserve because the Labour Party was in a mess when they took charge. Foot was renowned as one of the greatest ever parliamentary orators and had been a respected minister and writer (as well as playing a role opposing appeasement in the 30s), but took over a party split down the middle between Bennites (& Militant entryists) and SDP splitters in the wake of the Winter of Discontent....a poisoned chalice to beat them all! He was ridiculed for looking old and not being a smooth TV performer, but that was something quite new. Heath was a very awkward, uncharismatic bloke and it didn't stop him getting elected a decade earlier. Again, some people didn't like Kinnock for superficial reasons ("ginger Welsh windbag" etc.), but he did a pretty good job at turning Labour back to electability after the Tory landslide of 1983 - and only narrowly lost in 1992, after the Tories' successful "Labour's tax bombshell" scare campaign.

 

I think it'll be a sad day if the only sort of PM we're prepared to elect is a TV-friendly, snake-oil salesman like Cameron or Blair. Would we only want football managers who were "charismatic media performers", like Redknapp & Sherwood  ?!

Ed does need to get his finger out on the "political vision" front, though....

Can't agree with your analysis of Foot there Alf. He and his faction created the split in the Labour party, you can't really say he inherited it. Also it wasn't his lack of charisma that cost them the election but his extreme left wing manifesto, called even by members of his own party as the longest suicide note in history.