General Election 2017
- Thread starter Andy
- Start date
- Aug 5, 2013
- 1,710
- 1,690
While I don't agree with any hunting and cowardly killing of living things for "sport", the above are, in most cases, killed by being shot (hopefully, for them, quickly and painlessly as possible).
How someone can watch a pack of dogs rip another living animal to death in probably one of the most painful ways imaginable to die and find this entertaining is way beyond me!!!..........and then have the nerve to call it sport!!!?
Most of these morons must be tapped in the head!!!!!!
I would love to let a pack of dogs chase them and see how "entertaining" they find that!!
- Jun 24, 2013
- 3,400
- 2,345
Or in the case of much of the rail network, taking it back into the control of this country rather than the control of state-run railways from other countries, and allowing the profits to go to our Exchequer rather than theirs. It is a crazy situation where the rail services cannot be state-run unless they are foreign state-run. Should be a very popular policy with Brexiteers.
Heard a radio interview this morning where the interviewer seemed unable to grasp the concept of taking over at the end of each franchise, thus costing nothing to take the franchise over but saving on the subsidies currently paid to the franchisees. Or the concept that even if the current agreements on rolling stock leasing, pricing etc etc were simply continued unchanged this would bring in profits in the 100s of million (namely the profits currently exported into other countries' coffers). Or the concept that it was possible to return franchises to public ownership one by one without causing utter chaos (at least not as much chaos as having 16 (?) different franchise operators at the moment), as it is just like any other scheduled change of franchise, with the added benefit of consolidating them into one franchisee.
It is a singularly sensible policy proposal. The only criticism I heard voiced was that it couldn't be properly nationalised because "it would have to be run like a private company". So what?
(I'll declare an interest here, coming from a family steeped in the railways going back to the 1920s)
I know the Tory manifesto hasn't been released yet, but for me, there's no contest between which I find the more progressive and hopeful for Britain and it's the Labour party. Yes, Corbyn is a bad leader but it's the policies I will support and that will make me vote Labour at the ballot box. Plus, I'm living in a Labour seat and it makes sense to vote for the Labour candidate.
- Jun 24, 2013
- 3,400
- 2,345
If that final sentence made sense I would be out campaigning for Christopher Chope down here. I can reassure you that cheering on that lot at Wincham Park would give me more pleasure.
That sentence also underlines what is wrong with our FPTP system.
That sentence also underlines what is wrong with our FPTP system.
- Jul 28, 2013
- 3,008
- 2,330
- Thread starter
- #369
Just seen this, it kind of explains why hammering people with Tax doesn't solve the problem...
For those of you reciting the 'Tories defend the rich' argument, read this. It's worth it, I assure you.
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100...
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this...
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay £1.
The sixth would pay £3.
The seventh would pay £7..
The eighth would pay £12.
The ninth would pay £18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.
So, that's what they decided to do..
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball.
"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by £20". Drinks for the ten men would now cost just £80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes.
So the first four men were unaffected.
They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men?
The paying customers?
How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?
They realised that £20 divided by six is £3.33. But if they
subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.
So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.
And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).
The sixth now paid £2 instead of £3 (33% saving).
The seventh now paid £5 instead of £7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid £9 instead of £12 (25% saving).
The ninth now paid £14 instead of £18 (22% saving).
The tenth now paid £49 instead of £59 (16% saving).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a pound out of the £20 saving," declared the sixth man.
He pointed to the tenth man,"but he got £10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a pound too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!"
"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get £10 back, when I got only £2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works.
The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction.
Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore.
In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics.
For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.
For those of you reciting the 'Tories defend the rich' argument, read this. It's worth it, I assure you.
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100...
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this...
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay £1.
The sixth would pay £3.
The seventh would pay £7..
The eighth would pay £12.
The ninth would pay £18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.
So, that's what they decided to do..
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball.
"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by £20". Drinks for the ten men would now cost just £80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes.
So the first four men were unaffected.
They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men?
The paying customers?
How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?
They realised that £20 divided by six is £3.33. But if they
subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.
So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.
And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).
The sixth now paid £2 instead of £3 (33% saving).
The seventh now paid £5 instead of £7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid £9 instead of £12 (25% saving).
The ninth now paid £14 instead of £18 (22% saving).
The tenth now paid £49 instead of £59 (16% saving).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a pound out of the £20 saving," declared the sixth man.
He pointed to the tenth man,"but he got £10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a pound too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!"
"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get £10 back, when I got only £2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works.
The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction.
Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore.
In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics.
For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.
By what I posted, Alan, I meant that it makes it easier for me being someone who wants to vote Labour and stop the Tories to live in a seat that is already Labour. The more Labour MPs that can be returned to Wesminster the better in my opinion as Britain needs a functioning and effective opposition. There would be less incentive for me to vote Labour in Tatton as it's a Tory seat and always will be, so I'd probably plump for the Lib Dems instead. Yes, it shows the flaws in the FPTP system, but I won't be the only person voting tactically on June 8.
As for the 'Tory' manifesto, for a party who seem to deride Labour at every opportunity, they don't half seem to copy a lot of their policies. First, you've got the energy price caps, a policy once described as 'Marxist' by David Cameron, then you have a pledge to build more council housing and now a promise to expand workers' rights. All traditional Labour territory. A cynical attempt by May to take the centre-ground from Labour now she has the right of the political spectrum in the bag? Just maybe.
Last edited:
- Jun 24, 2013
- 868
- 1,090
Ah this (very) old chestnut!
For anyone who doesn't know... the guy exists but he denied writing this. The source is unknown but adding 'Professor of Economics' gives it a nice authoritative touch.
For those who can see the fundamental flaw in the argument made in the text, no explanation is needed.
For those who cannot see the fundamental flaw in the argument made in the text, no explanation is possible.
It's an interesting piece though!
- Dec 18, 2014
- 1,999
- 1,050
I don't think anyone has ever said that all Tory policies are good and all Labour/Lib Dem/Greens/SNP policies are bad, or once a policy is declared by one party they have copyright and it cannot be adopted by any other party. Putting ideology to one side there are a number of policies from across the spectrum that may appeal to individual voters.
However this election, more than any other I have known since the days of Michael Foot, will be determined (in my view) by the level of confidence the electorate has in the respective party leaderships. The Labour front bench is severely lacking, even compared to the front bench that Miliband fielded last time around. Corbyn may be a nice guy, but PM ? Is anyone serious that he could perform and be taken seriously on the world stage as the leader of one of the greatest free democratic nations on this earth? Could he really control his own party and front bench to govern effectively when so many of the top flight labour shadow cabinet have run for the hills?
The labour manifesto is heavily weighted to raising more and more taxes from both companies and individuals. You have to ask what moral right do governments have to inflict penal rates of taxation on higher rate earners and deny investors profits that have been lawfully made through risk taking investments. Spending lots more money will be popular, but its not worked before, so taking everything in the round, why should it work now without causing economic chaos? I don't think that Corbyn has the persona to persuade the electorate that he's right and they should overcome their fears and vote for him. Voting tactically or otherwise I can only see 1 winner in this election and voting tactically may give you a worse result than you ever intended.
However this election, more than any other I have known since the days of Michael Foot, will be determined (in my view) by the level of confidence the electorate has in the respective party leaderships. The Labour front bench is severely lacking, even compared to the front bench that Miliband fielded last time around. Corbyn may be a nice guy, but PM ? Is anyone serious that he could perform and be taken seriously on the world stage as the leader of one of the greatest free democratic nations on this earth? Could he really control his own party and front bench to govern effectively when so many of the top flight labour shadow cabinet have run for the hills?
The labour manifesto is heavily weighted to raising more and more taxes from both companies and individuals. You have to ask what moral right do governments have to inflict penal rates of taxation on higher rate earners and deny investors profits that have been lawfully made through risk taking investments. Spending lots more money will be popular, but its not worked before, so taking everything in the round, why should it work now without causing economic chaos? I don't think that Corbyn has the persona to persuade the electorate that he's right and they should overcome their fears and vote for him. Voting tactically or otherwise I can only see 1 winner in this election and voting tactically may give you a worse result than you ever intended.
- Jun 24, 2013
- 3,400
- 2,345
Have to agree on the Corbyn PM point. But that doesn't mean I see May as a good PM either. She has a controlling streak and an inability or reluctance to relate to people. It's been said before - anyone who feels the need to parrot "strong and stable" is neither of those things.
Ultimately public services have to either exist in a viable form (and therefore be paid for) or be cut (in some cases to the point where they no longer exist). If they are to be seen as valuable to a society as a whole, the money has to come from somewhere. I don't have answers on what the most equitable solution is, but I do know that cutting funding to the bone results in inadequate services, and that taking the money off the poorest in society will not raise sufficient funds.
Of course, another option is to solve the social care crisis by telling people to take a year off work (unpaid of course) to look after other members of their family. If they are really lucky, they'll be able to apply for the £62.70 a week Carer's Allowance (but only if the person they are looking after is in receipt of a disability benefit). And if they are really really lucky the person they are taking time off to care for will recover within 12 months so that when they go back to work the problem is solved. And if they (and their employers) are incredibly lucky there will have been absolutely no changes in their job in those 12 months so they can slip back into work unobtrusively and without the need for expensive retraining. Of course, if they are really unlucky, they will by then have defaulted on their mortgage and their employers, a small business with just a handful of staff, will have gone bust trying to cover for missing employees using people who lack the training to do the job.
Voting tactically is for many the only real option. And that includes those UKIP supporters now switching to vote Conservative. Sadly for me it won't have any effect on the enormous Chope majority at a General Election, though it worked for the council one recently and at the last EU election. Though I will admit that as a constituency MP he has proved his worth.
Ultimately public services have to either exist in a viable form (and therefore be paid for) or be cut (in some cases to the point where they no longer exist). If they are to be seen as valuable to a society as a whole, the money has to come from somewhere. I don't have answers on what the most equitable solution is, but I do know that cutting funding to the bone results in inadequate services, and that taking the money off the poorest in society will not raise sufficient funds.
Of course, another option is to solve the social care crisis by telling people to take a year off work (unpaid of course) to look after other members of their family. If they are really lucky, they'll be able to apply for the £62.70 a week Carer's Allowance (but only if the person they are looking after is in receipt of a disability benefit). And if they are really really lucky the person they are taking time off to care for will recover within 12 months so that when they go back to work the problem is solved. And if they (and their employers) are incredibly lucky there will have been absolutely no changes in their job in those 12 months so they can slip back into work unobtrusively and without the need for expensive retraining. Of course, if they are really unlucky, they will by then have defaulted on their mortgage and their employers, a small business with just a handful of staff, will have gone bust trying to cover for missing employees using people who lack the training to do the job.
Voting tactically is for many the only real option. And that includes those UKIP supporters now switching to vote Conservative. Sadly for me it won't have any effect on the enormous Chope majority at a General Election, though it worked for the council one recently and at the last EU election. Though I will admit that as a constituency MP he has proved his worth.
- Jul 28, 2013
- 3,008
- 2,330
- Thread starter
- #374
The fact that people bang on about "Strong and Stable" is an odd one. It's like Corbyn doesn't say "For the Many, Not the Few", every 30 seconds, does he? Oh wait, he does. Election slogans are nothing new.
If you're going to pick on one, it's only fair to pick on them all.
Voting tactically is a risk, and it's also most likely contributes to the opinion polls being so wrong. People might be prepared all of the run up to the election to vote tactically, but when it comes to Election Day just can't bring themselves to take the risk or vote against the party they really do support.
If you're going to pick on one, it's only fair to pick on them all.
Voting tactically is a risk, and it's also most likely contributes to the opinion polls being so wrong. People might be prepared all of the run up to the election to vote tactically, but when it comes to Election Day just can't bring themselves to take the risk or vote against the party they really do support.
True, but for a party to pledge a cap on energy prices which they once described as 'Marxist', is quite extraordinary in my mind. Also, May likes to deride Corbyn and his leadership and how Labour would wreck the economy, yet is happy to endorse their policies. I just think it comes down to political opportunism. No wonder so many don't believe a word a politician says as they say one thing one minute and something completely different the next when it suits them.
I'm not saying Corbyn and his front bench are necessarily electable, but you ask - "could he perform and be taken seriously on the world stage as the leader of one of the greatest free democratic nations on this earth"? Well if an idiot like Donald Trump in America can, then anyone can if you ask me. We're living in a time of huge apathy towards the political establishment and elite, and maybe Corbyn can tap into that disillusionment with his anti-establishment policies? Again, I'm not saying he will (and all the polls are against it) but you just never know as who would have forecasted Brexit and Trump?
Also, I think questions should be asked of May's own leadership. Where does one start? Whether it's her u-turns on National Insurance and on holding a General Election, her divisive approach to Brexit or her refusal to appear on TV debates, she's hardly set the world on fire herself. So no wonder she is focusing on Corbyn rather than getting her own house in order and actually coming up with some policies of her own!
We'll have to agree to disagree on this. I think it's perfectly reasonable, and in my opinion, not that radical at all, to say that people earning over £80,000 (only 5% of all earners) to pay higher rates of tax. Tax which will fund social care, health and education, public services that need to be funded and which are being slashed by this government's cuts. I actually think this policy has the public's support, as would nationalising the railways and Royal Mail and free school meals for all pupils. If there's money for big vanity projects such as HS2 and slashing corporation tax, then there's money for all of these things.
As for spending on education and the health service causing the economic crash in 2008, that was the banks!
Last edited:
- Jun 24, 2013
- 3,400
- 2,345
Who said that last bit, Ben?
All politicians are at heart opportunist. Not that I am defending it, particularly when party political opportunism seems to take precedence over the (mythical but oft cited) "national interest".
May's "strong and stable" wouldn't grate so much if it was actually backed up with any firm policy statements, rather than shoehorned in to every comment by every Conservative politician, to the point that even the interviewers are making fun of it. Roll on the manifesto launch - though rumour has it that the Tory one will be purposefully vague in most policy areas.
All politicians are at heart opportunist. Not that I am defending it, particularly when party political opportunism seems to take precedence over the (mythical but oft cited) "national interest".
May's "strong and stable" wouldn't grate so much if it was actually backed up with any firm policy statements, rather than shoehorned in to every comment by every Conservative politician, to the point that even the interviewers are making fun of it. Roll on the manifesto launch - though rumour has it that the Tory one will be purposefully vague in most policy areas.
- Jul 28, 2013
- 3,008
- 2,330
- Thread starter
- #378
Milibands Price FREEZE - This freezes the cost of energy, meaning that the energy companies would have hiked up the prices before the Price Freeze. Disasterous.
Mays Price CAP - This sets a cap on the base rate, a cap that will be set by the governing body and will be reviewed periodically, meaning prices can still fall and rise along with the costs to the companies.
Although I'm still not particularly a fan of the Price Cap, it's not the governments place to interfere, but the Price Cap could very much serve its purpose, where as the price freeze would have been a disaster.
- Dec 18, 2014
- 1,999
- 1,050
But what right have you to remove yet more income from those earning over £85K - they already lose around 50% of their income over £43K. So the doctors that everyone care so much around are going to get hammered along with the rest of the professional classes. The harder you work, the more you study, the more risks and responsibility you take - the more you get hammered to pay for others. What message does that send out to those professionals we need to bring into this country and the youngsters we want to be the leaders of tomorrow? This politics of envy and raiding the pay cheques of hard working professionals has to stop - or many will up sticks and make for foreign climbs.
As for the company taxes, meddle at your peril. Even the mayor of London is saying that the new financial transaction tax is a nonsense !
Public services and their costs need to reflect what can be afforded by everyone within reason, not what people think should be provided at the expense of others. That's not equality, its expediency. No one should lose over half their income - that's extortion in my view. If labour really want to spend huge amounts on services they should raise all the tax bands - but they won't do that as people wouldn't vote for it. Its only OK whilst some one else pays !!
As for the company taxes, meddle at your peril. Even the mayor of London is saying that the new financial transaction tax is a nonsense !
Public services and their costs need to reflect what can be afforded by everyone within reason, not what people think should be provided at the expense of others. That's not equality, its expediency. No one should lose over half their income - that's extortion in my view. If labour really want to spend huge amounts on services they should raise all the tax bands - but they won't do that as people wouldn't vote for it. Its only OK whilst some one else pays !!
- Jul 28, 2013
- 3,008
- 2,330
- Thread starter
- #380
What Labour will do, because they're untrustworthy, is say "WE WON'T RAISE THE TAX RATE FOR LOW EARNERS", then decrease the Personal Allowance Threshold which will hit the lowest earners the hardest.
I'd genuinely put money on that, how else can they remotely afford all these things they promise?
I'd genuinely put money on that, how else can they remotely afford all these things they promise?