Re: UK General Election 2005
 

Nobody wants to pay more taxes than they need and we should ensure our politicians are accountable for our tax pennies (whicxh is harder when we are forced into indirect taxation). But at the same time, people seem to think public services pay for themselves.

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

:handshake: :)

Fairer? Maybe not in all cases, but if poor people will pay less tax, then that is better on them, and surely that is what the government should be doing?

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

100k ? - I wish I earned that. According to that calculator I would be worse off on 25k.
__________________

and who says they use the library ? or that they have kids ? They already pay for the roads with extortionate road tax, fuel tax (and speeding tax ;)) - and as for policing - that's a joke (for another thread) these days. :erm:

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

A bloke called Punky in a pin stripe? It's a nice image I'll admit :)

My comment was, admittedly, based on anecdotal rather than scientific evidence but as I've had a few Guinesses I'm sticking with it! ;)

The 1p more comment is important though because it does - I think! - illustrate that we get hung up on basic income tax rates instead of the total tax take and the equality of the tax regime. I don't want to pay more tax than I need but equally I want a fair and just society which offers equality to all (hey, we all can dream).

I'm not sure at all that you have proved poor people will be worse off. You may have proved that four people with incomes sharing a house will be worse off but that's a decidely different issue.

Ok, getting to the roots. If your mate has no money this weekend, do you buy him a beer?No, because if he can't afford a beer so tough doo-dah or yes, cos that's the decent thing to do. Extrapolate that out........










Yeah, yeah, might be time for another drink
__________________

[QUOTE=punky]:handshake: :) :hugs: QUOTE] Aaaah!
__________________

We're at cross purposes here in that we both seem to think poorer people should pay less tax (and talking as a proportion rather than pounds. shillings and pence). As far as I can judge people on the, lowest incomes, the most vulnerable, will be better off. If stands to reason ifd the the tax regime is hierarchical.

Final point before I depart for the evening. We are a rich country. As a nation (not me and thee necessarily) we can afford to pay more tax. Clamp down on tax avoidance that's what I say (said it mant times before but avoidance csts circa £25 billion annually which is an awful lot of council tax!).

Cheers all. Will check in too see if this debate is just as lively tomorrow!
__________________

So we only pay for what we personally use/do? Not sure that argument holds a lot of aqueous substance. I might not make as much rubbish as you (obviously a very keen recycler! :o ) but that doesn't mean I should pay less for it to be collected. We all make burdens on the tax system, some more than others but that''s why we're a society and not 60m individuals (motivated puely by self interest).

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

Getting down to the root of the matter, you are in favour of the income tax solution because you think it is fairer. Don't forget, I am opposing (in principal) a tax cut (and a considerable one too) because I am one of the few lucky ones. I oppose it, because of the greater good - it benefits more people

Fairer, isn't always better. Take the idea (which I support in principal only) for example. People say that gender shouldn't be a factor in car insurance premiums. Is it fair that women get charged less for car insurance, because they won the gender lottery? Of course not. Is it in everyone's best interests? Yes. If this enforced equality takes place, will men get a discount? No, women will pay more. Okay, until you look at the real world data. In quite a few households, men are the only source of income, and in the majority of the rest, they represent the bigger income. If this fairer car insurance system comes into affect, rather than improving men's lives, it will harm them because they'll be paying more, than the sexual-discriminatory previous system. Men and women will be paying more, and so be poorer. Noone wins, except for batchelors who will have their morale boosted a bit.

The idea is to burden as few a people as possible, not to burden everyone fairly. A fairer tax system that makes many poor people poorer. Is that a good idea?

Oh, one last point (I promise) :)

It depends, does he deserve a beer? There are a lot of people I am sure, can't afford a beer - do I have to go out and buy them all beers? What if my mate doesn't deserve a beer, do I still have to buy him a beer, even though I have more than him?

We should help the needy, by all means, but the emphasis should be on people that deserve our help and support - not supporting everyone regardless of the situation.

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

Another example is the retirement age, some bloke the to gov to the european court due to the sexist retirement laws which allowed women to retire at 60.
Result; women now have to work til 65.
Fair, not the result he wanted, and not the result many women wanted either!
Course we'll all be working til 75 soon anyway.

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

Yeah, great. Women get to retire 5 years before men, and they live longer.

Still, like you said, we'll all be working until we croak anyway. And if I make it to post-retirement age, i'll be forced to live on expired cat food too.

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

Actually an old friend of mine had an interesting take on being fair (which you neatly illustrated). His attitude was that he was an equal b*st*rd to everyone (even me if I wanted something he didn't want to lend me).. It was still fair, even though no one liked it

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

Oh yes.This poor old cow has to go until she is 62.Thanks very much indeed.Mind if I was 2 years younger I'd have to go until I was 65. ;)


Oh and someone was muttering about the inequality of car insurance being gender biased in favour of women.Tell me,how many men benefit by being included on their wife's/partners insurance? If it gets the same treatment as pensions did them then these men will be paying more for their insurance anyway.

And I still can't vote because I have no idea who to vote for. :( Except I will NEVER,EVER vote Tory.

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

That is what I said to Andyl. Sometimes fairer isn't in everyone's best interests.

And men don't benefit from having women on their insurance, women are disadvantaged from having men on there (unless the woman in question has a bad record).

Still, this is getting OT. I mentioned it as an example to support an on-topic point, not to re-ignite another gender flamewar

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

Am I right in thinking your pension contributions are 8% of your earnings? (I know it was for my ex)
Yet you won't get a pension relative to that "investment"
Oh and the really awful news is that the average life expectancy of a retired teacher is only 2 years! :shocked:

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

He's your mate, of course he deserves a beer ;)
__________________

Insurance is based on average risk factors across a whole range of demographics. Men pay more because they, as a group, represent higher risk as based on historical precedent. Engineers, meanwhile, pay less than say marketing consultants, because they are a low risk group. All those factors, not just gender, come into play in determining a premium (I have an insurance company as a client). I'm sober now so I have no excuse for not really knowing what point I'm trying to respond to or make :)

I'm probably being a bit thick here but I can't get to grips with how income related tax can adversely affect the poor. As I understand under these propsals those that earn more will pay more, those that earn less will pay less. It's a tax which reflects ability to pay.

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

5 people share a property, they all earn low wages, something like £12,000 a year.
Their landlord pays the council tax.
The 5 people therefore pay nothing.
Under the local income tax they'll all start paying.

It's fair in that everyone who works pays, it's not helpful in that there's no benifit in living with others under one roof to share the cost, and the majority of house shares involve low income people because sharing the costs out makes it affordable.

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

It is like the Poll Tax - that was fairer for a single OAP living in a bungalow who paid less compared to 5 adults in a house who all had to pay but we all know what happened to that tax!

Now 5 adults pay the same as a single OAP in the same value house and the OAPs are protesting!

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

The services that council tax pay for are, by and large, unrelated to your living arrangements. Why should there be a benefit to sharing a home? The most equitable system is to charge per individual, but unlike the Poll Tax taking into account their circumstances, there ability to pay. With income tax those on low incomes will pay a lot less (or nothing) than those on high incomes, with the unemployed, low income OAPs etc excused.
__________________


Of course the 5 people pay something; the landlord recovers it through the rent.

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

I have already shown you numerous examples. Your view of the income tax verus council tax is too simplistic. Having income tax instead of council tax might faviour poor people, but only if there was only 1 person per house. We know that is not the case, and that is what makes income tax more of a liability.

Poorer people are more likely to share a house, or rent, and it is precisely these people that will be 'worse affect' (not in how much they'll pay, but in the relative change in what they have to pay). I would do better under Lib Dems because my living situation isn't common. If I was to just rent my own place, I would be worse off with Lib Dems.

Like I said before, a tax is supposed to raise money, not make people happy. Therefore the Lib Dems want to implement a more efficient tax that'll raise more money that its predecessor. Don't forget all the rest of the taxes that Lib Dems want to implement, like apparently, if you have a dog, you should be taxed too. God knows why they need so much money.

If the Lib Dems are so ethical and wonderful, why not give people a choice? If you do better with council tax, stick with it, and if you do better with extra income tax, choose that? That way the poor will be unburdened as much as possible, but the Lib Dems don't want that. It is about money, not ethics, and they need bank loads of it.

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

People will have a choice... at the general election!

They can choose to pay:
less tax - same level of public services (with less bureaucracy) - Conservative
more tax - same level of public services (with more bureaucracy) - Labour
a lot more tax - better public services - Liberal Democrat

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

LOL - do you seriously think that the landlord would reduce his rent because he no longer had council tax to pay - of course not, the people would be worse off.
__________________

You're joking, I hope ..... are they going to tax Cats, Rabbits and other pets as well ? - and who will sort out the thousands of stray dogs caused by people simply abandoning their dog rather than pay tax on it - they really are losing the plot :erm:

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

and your basing that on what?

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

Newsnight on BBC2

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

and newnight said that those are the 3 options....:dozey:

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

In a slightly more roundabout way, yes.

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

No it's not because the Poll Tax levied the same charge against everybody, regardless of ability to pay
__________________

Not actually true as I understand it. All three parties are looking at roughly the same tax take, it's just how they plan to get it that differs.
__________________

No. The number of people in a household is irrelevant. Ability for each adult individual to pay is far more important. What has how you live got to do with anything in relation to provision of public services (I mean you could argue that those who share a house als share expenses so they're better off than those who live alone; but it doesn't matter because charges should be levied against an individual's circumstances).
__________________

Sorry I don't understand that point.
__________________


Have you posted details about the dog thing?
__________________


That's just ridiculous.

As I said, my understanding is that all 3 parties are looking at roughly the same overall tax take; this proposal looks to be just trying to make recovery of that take more equitable by ensuring those who earn more, pay more. Surely administration costs will also be much lower.

This from The Guardian incidentally:

"Labour attacked the Liberal Democrats yesterday over their economic proposals, in preparation for the party's "alternative budget" today.

Alistair Darling, the transport secretary, argued that switching from council tax to a local income tax would mean "a couple on average earnings" of £41,000 losing £208 each year.

But those figures are based on a dual-income household in which both the man and the woman earn the average wage. In fact, the median household income for the country is £21,700 . The Liberal Democrats say such a household would gain £461 a year.

Vincent Cable, the party's treasury spokesman, has also promised to raise the threshold at which stamp duty is levied from £60,000 to £150,00 0, lifting more than 400,000 buyers out of paying the tax."
__________________

The aim of Lid Dem local income tax policy as stated by a local council spokesperson (following an anti Council Tax protest by OAPS):

""The next Liberal Democrat Government will abolish council tax and replace it with a system of local income tax. So those who could afford it would pay more for local services and those on very low incomes would pay little or nothing."

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

As I understood it, although the Lib Dems were looking to reduce the tx paid by people on lower incomes they were also looking to increase their overall tax take to pay for more investment in schools and hospitals. (I seem to remeber a higher income tax bracket at 50% was being discussed.)

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

Although relating specifically to Scotland this is an interesting read regardless of which side of the fence you're on ... http://news.scotsman.com/opinion.cfm?id=149422005


My selective quote is: "As council tax takes no account of salary, the elderly who choose to keep living in their family house pay the same as a millionaire living in similar-sized accommodation - as a result, pensioners have led the protest against council tax.

THE Liberal Democrats and Scottish National Party have the same solution: a local income tax to shift the burden on to fewer, but richer shoulders. The results, however, would hit Middle Scotland hard. Working couples would feel the pain most. A couple paid the national average wage, using the Lib Dem figures, would instantly face a 23 per cent council-tax increase. For many others, council tax would instantly double."
__________________

That's pretty much it. The new national income tax rate band would see earnings above £100k pa (and only earnings above 100k) being subjected to a 50% rate. Richer would pay more, poorer pay less. The overall tax take - the tax generated for the nation - would remain the same.

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

Paul M: I'm not joking about a dog tax. It was mentioned on the Politics Show on BBC1, do a search for dog tax and Lib Dems.

No, it isn't. If people share a house, and they have to pay council tax (which excludes 95% of rented accomodation), then the council tax is divided between the residents, not multiplied (like with income tax)

Also, people can choose their council tax, in the sense that can select the house in the banding they can afford.

They are two ways you can apply "worst affected" with this new tax system. You could say the rich are worst affected, because they will pay substantially more than what they did before. You could also say the poorest will be worst affected, because although they won't pay as much more as the rich, poor people outnumber rich people, so a greater proportion of British people will be paying more under this new system.

They idea is not to burden the poorest people in society with taxes.

Well, I thought it made sense if a government wanted to be fair and ethical. In fact if a government wanted to be fair and ethical, why do I have to subsidise everyone's kids through school? Because if only people with kids in school had to pay, they sums wouldn't add up. A tax is designed to be unfair, unethical, and designed to get as much money out of us as possible.

Lib Dems say "on average" people will be better off. Great if you are in a situation like me, or you are "average", but there will be a lot of poorer people. Struggling nurses, teachers, who won't be better off.

Basically:

You will be worse off with Lib Dems if:

1. You rent your property.
2. You own your property, jointly with other people
3. You own your property, but earn a good wage.
4. You qualify with a council tax emeption (and their are enough of them) There are no exemptions to income tax if you are working. You can't choose what level of tax to pay.

I will only be better off under Lib Dems because I don't earn a big wage, but the house I am in is well "above my means". However if I moved out into a flat, i'd be even better off under Tory/Labour, but worse off under Lib Dems. Ok, so I would be hundreds of pounds better off with Lib Dems, if I stay where I am, because I am lucky (no other word for it really). All my mates will be screwed.

I can't explain it to you any more. If you still can't see how large, poorer parts of the nation will do worse under Lib Dems new system, then we'll have to draw a line under it and move on. If Lib Dems dropped this silly idea, then they will actually do quite well in the elections, as young professionals like teachers and nurses, are their usual fan base. They are going to push them to Labour if they push this new tax forward.

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

Funny, that Wellslabour quote is word for word the same as MIchael Howard's statement on conservatives.com!!

Dog tax? Is that on the spot fines for dog fouling (the only reference I've yet found)?

Why should a tax which is not related to a house be divided by its occupants? Please explain. We all have to contribute towards society and the Lib Dems are saying if you are in a position to contribute more then you should.

People can only 'choose' their council tax where they live. What about those scenarios where one side of a street falls in one borough, the other another?

I'll come back to to your other points later - gotta go pick up the kids!

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

:eek:

They are mad - who on earth is going to vote for a party that obviously wants to tax everyone to death.

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

Well some of us are prepared to pay more tax in return for better services and a more equitable society but as I said before all the three main parties are looking to secure around the same tax take, just by different means. And if 'dog tax' is fines for fouling then that just a stupid bit of politicing by the Tories.

I tell you who is mad; anyone who votes for parties that enable, encourage or ignore tax avoidance.
__________________


The poorest in society will be better off, the richest worse off under thse proposals. That is immediately more just than the existing and previous two systems. Those between rich and poor will be affected, but not as greatly. Me, I'd tax the very rich more and protect our beloved Middle England.
__________________

__________________

Eh?! The tax system should be designed to be fair and ethical, but at the moment isn't. We all use services to a greater and lesser extent and benefit from them. Just because you don't have kids doesn't mean you won't benefit from others being educated; education is vital for a lot of things, including the health of economy. Those kids are future tax payers. Should I only pay for the NHS if I need to use it?
__________________


My partner works with disadvantaged young people who rerally struggle - and I mean struggle - to get by. They are the poorest not those with modest incomes - and they and other poor people wiull benefit from this system

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

I do not know where you got that 95% figure from. The majority of people I know who rent (myself included) have to pay council tax and even those who do not have to pay it directly to the council end up paying it indirectly through higher rental charges.

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

EXACTLY!!!

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

Ah cr@p! I'm going to have to unsubscribe.I can't take any more.

Every fecking day there's a damned announcement but not the one we want which the date. :mad:

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

It is going to be 5th May 2005 unless something really BIG happens between then and now ;)

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

Lightweight!! :)

I'd stake an arm a leg and a more delicate part of my anatomy on it being May 5th.
__________________


Bob, can you fix that?

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

Then I'm definitely unsubscribing.That's far too long a time for this politicking. :mad:

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

Where can you get good information about the partys? As the media seem to think that every thing labour do is bad. People dont even bother to understand the policys they just want it hate the policy anyway.

Is there any way to know the good stuff labour has done

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

The minimum wage. Increased NHS funding (which is now starting to have an impact). NHS Direct. NHS walk in centres. Starting to campaign for serious debt relief. Ok, I'm struggling now!

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

I thought the NHS was worse....NHS direct is good though

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

Dog tax! Found it.... I think. The Lib Dems would require all dogs to be micro-chipped so that irresponsible owners and stray animals can be better dealt with. Registration fees would pay for chips, the register and wardens. Not high on my list of priorities admittedly (though it's hardly a LD flagship policy either) but sounds sensible and inoffensive enough to me.

Tory and New Labour scaremongering at work again. The fact that the phrase 'dog tax' is being bandied around against the LDs without anyone knowing (or explaining) what the policy is only goes to show the banality of political debate through the media in this country.

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

Well, do not go to Labour's website as they will tell you everything they have done is good ;)

Seriously, I do not know of anybody or any newpaper, TV company, etc. that is not biased one way or another. Personally, I find it difficult to think of anything that Labour has done that is good as (for me) the bad stuff massively outweighs it (scrapping student grants, introducing tuition fees, introducing top-up fees, doubling council tax, increasing income tax on the sly by calling it a NI increase but without a cap, etc.) and I cannot say I have noticed any improvements in services (my wife works for the NHS).

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

I doubt many of those sites exist because most people vote on principal rather than reality. Some people say they will never vote for Conservatives, or Labour, regardless of what they plan to do, or how well they do it. They don't care if a certain party will make their lives better, their principals won't allow it.

It would be interesting though to see how policies do compare, without the spin, side by side.

Andyl: I think we are going to have to draw a line under this, as we don't seem to be getting anywhere. I was a bit miffed though that you took one of my quotes deliberately out of context, which is misleading.

I am only better under the Lib Dems' income tax, because my wage is relatively low AND the house I am well out of my means range. If I moved into rented accomodation, I would be worse off, and if I owned my own place, the council tax would be much lower, and would be about the same or just lower than the Lib Dems' income tax idea.

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

OK Punky, line drawn (but I'm right :D :D :D !!). Only joking.
__________________


You could look at all the parties pledges, manifestos press releases etc via http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/81344.stm then try and work out who is lying the least and is going to let you down the least.

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

Apparently we would be better off to the tune of about £470 a year :erm: :D

I suspect this is because our household income is derived entirely from my wages (Mrs T is a full-time mum) so the 'hit' is not as big, with there being no second income to take tax from.

Link to Lib Dem local income tax calculator for those who want to try:
http://www.axe-the-tax.org.uk/localtaxcalculator.html

I am becoming more and more convinced by the Lib Dems, largely because of their approach to ID cards. I can't help admitting a £500 bribe would go down nicely though. ;)

EDIT

Scratch that ... I am better off by a mere £127. The headline council tax figures quoted by Scottish councils still include water rates, being as we're not privatised up here.

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

Not sure which party to vote for?

This test will decide on a suitable one for you:

http://www.selectsmart.com/FREE/sele...ukelection2005
__________________

Then again, the test seems to be quite poor

#1 Democratic Unionists (:erm: :td: )
#2 Ulster Unionists (:erm: :td: )
#3 British National Party (:erm: :shocking: :td: I'd never vote these people)
#4 UK Independence Party (:td: Nope)
#5 Conservatives (:tu: Yes, I would vote these)
#6 Respect (Hahaha, who the hell are these?)
#7 Sinn Fein (Nope.)
#8 Social Democratic and Labour Party (Non)
#9 Liberal Democrats (Hmmmmm maybe)
#10 Plaid Cymru (Nope)
#11 Green Party (Nope)
#12 Scottish National Party (Nope)
#13 Labour (No, in the right position, but I'd still vote for these before I'd ever vote for BNP)

Wow, quite shocking that it thinks my 3rd choice would be BNP.

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

Where's the "Drown all Politican's at Birth" Party (assuming the human genome project manages to discover the politics gene)

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

weird to say the least

#1 Respect - George Galloways lot erm no
#2 Green Party - Quite possibly (if they have a candidate)
#3 Sinn Fein - (Ha Ha Ha NO!)
#4 Social Democratic and Labour Party (who)
#5 Scottish National Party - (yay viva revolution!)
#6 Liberal Democrats - normally gets mine
#7 Ulster Unionists - (how many parts of the country can I vote in)
#8 Plaid Cymru - anythiing to get rid of labour
#9 Democratic Unionists - another NI based party
#10 Conservatives - I'm in John Majors old constituancy but still no
#11 British National Party - No surprise here
#12 UK Independence Party - Actually voted for them in the last euro election.
#13 Labour - No surprise here either
__________________

Quite amusing that the 2 lists published so far have labout at the very bottom...

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

Christ!!! I think I am an uber-nazi in disguise.... :erm: It didn't help that the questions were a bit too simplistic.

This test is b****cks though, if I was as racist as this test made out, I would have less than half the friends I have now.

#1 UK Independence Party (Hardly... OK for getting us out of EU but then what?)
#2 Conservatives (Most Likely)
#3 British National Party (F**king never)

<skip loads foreign parties>

#12 Green Party (Bahahahaha. If I want a one issue party, i'd go for UKIP)
#13 Liberal Democrats (They don't deserve to be last. I'd even consider voting for them if were a bit more moderate and didn't insist on milking me dry in tax.)

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

If you don't know then you are probably too young to vote.:monkey:

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

Yes, thanks for that.

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

It's 18.


There has been talk to lower it to 16, but it doesn't look like it is going to change.

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

i have allways voted lib dems and never ever voted labour and now i know why.This election i will use a tactifull vote and vote conservatives to get rid of hot air blair and all his useless mp"s :mad:
__________________

http://www.labour.org.uk/uploads/RTE...dwagon.jpg.jpg

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

Now you know why?

Howard is a prat in my opinion anyway. Hes only gains recently have been with the immigration issue and the travellers issue. He has relised how he will win this election and thats by attacking unpopular groups with unfair policys. The NHS issue didnt work, crime hasnt worked, so tabloid scaremongering is in order. I would rather have a goverment that makes unpopular discisions than one who will simply perform the most popular acts

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

i would like a goverment that MAKES DECISIONS ............unlike labour who just sit back and take no action on the real issues also i would like to see real policmen and women on our streets and not community support officers that have to be the bigest waste of money since the poll tax :mad:

LABOUR OUT NOW

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

But replace them with what?


The Tories?!


Still a shambles, & still not much of an Opposition. And full of stupid reactionary tabloid policies.


Lib Dems?


Some very good policies...but also some stupid policies, & they just don't have the support to challenge Labour (or the Tories) seriously.

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

What on earth are you talking about!!? They make decisions, thats exactly what they have been doing! Thats why everyone is annoyed at them. Look back at the past two years of goverment nothing but decisions, loads of them and all of them risky!

Note: The election artists are on the move, found this on another forum

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

Yeah, but lots of bloody stupid ones amongst the good ones.


Bad decisions (IMO)

The Iraq war (yes yes, I know many think it was right - but even if you agree it was right for us to go in, it was not handled properly, the aftermath was completely ballsed up, the intel was crap & they bloody knew it was & didn't care or mention, & it seems more & more likely that it was illegal afterall)

Tuition Fees (yes, the Deering Report recommended bringing in Tuition Fees - which Labour then implemented - but it also said Grants should not be scrapped - which Labour ignored)

Top-up fees

PPP for the Tube

All this PFI stuff (e.g. Jarvis & schools)

City Academies (stupid idea, & they're officially failing!)

Creeping privatisation of the NHS

All these NHS targets & the mad drive to artificially keep down waiting lists

"Choice" (screw choice, we want quality)

"House Arrest" et al

ID Cards

Super-casinos

Lack of Lords reform


and many more

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

Those just above the poorest, lest call them the poor, will be worse off if they currently share a house and therefore share the council tax between them.
Imagine this, Adam, Ben, Carla, Debbie, Frank and Eve live in a house to share the costs, as they are poor.
They've picked a property with a low council tax to help reduce costs.

They pay 800 a month, which works out at about 133 each which they can just about afford.

Lib dem idea comes into play. (all figures are used to show the example)
Carla, Debbie and Eve earn less than Adam, Ben and Frank, and it turns out they end up having to pay only 100 a month each.
Adam, Ben and Frank however have to pay out 260 a month
So, Carla and Debbie are now 33 a month better off.
Poor Adam and Ben are 127 worse off each month, they were finding it hard enough to live before, but now they have to get an extra 127.
If they try and work more hours they'll earn more, but that means their local income tax bill will go up, and they'll have no time to relax.

Next door there's Barry, now he's one of the poorest people in the country, he's currently having to find 800 a month to pay his coucil tax, with the lib dem idea, he'll be much better off.

So yes, the poorest will be better off, but the poor won't


Well, if that's your opinion of someone who successfully reduced crime in this nation, then I dread to think what low opinion you have of labour then! :D

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

im just off down the road to my local NHS DENTIST i might be back in 2 days it all depends on how long the que is ! and thats just to register for one ( THATS WHAT I CALL DECISIONS )

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

Labour have reduced most crime, in fact crime as a whole is lower . It just that certain types of crime are up.

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

Ask The Leader Of The Birmingham Police Force If Crime Is Down
__________________

ohhhhh look there goes my local community support officer now what is his name ? :td:

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

Crime as a whole is down. That comment hardly reflects the whole country

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

What do they define as "crime"


Is it only reported crime numbers which have gone down?

What?


Statistics...pah. Don't believe them. Numbers get massaged. Same as unemployment figures (which Labour, & the Tories before them, always play with)

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

Well, yes, it gave me Respect, the Greens, the Lib Dems and then Sinn Fein in fourth place!

A bit difficult since they're not fielding any candidates in England!!