Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

Oh look another - stupid comment from you. You shouldn't make such stupid half-assed comments that really make no sense at all. :dozey:

I am also still waiting for you to justify that lame opinion of yours that some how the Tories can be blamed for the complete and utter failings of the Labour Government over the last 13 years? :rolleyes:

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

unwaranted below the belt attack :mad:

Having attacked the Nurses you then complain when someone does it to you. :rolleyes:

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

Arthur - you are another one who really need to consider what you are posting.

For instance - Labour's motto on Crime was:

"Tough on crime - tough on the causes of crime" That is a Labour Hype pure and simple.

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

Thank you!!

---------- Post added at 19:54 ---------- Previous post was at 19:51 ----------

Yeah,the difference being attacks on nurses are unfair.

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

To be fair, I think Flyboy was being ironic about the "lazy nurses"...

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

Yeah,the difference being attacks on nurses are unfair.

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

I think that the "Right Honourable" Mr Brown should have a read of this :rolleyes:

http://www.liberty-human-rights.org....illusion.shtml

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

:clap: :clap:

In answer to your questions: No and Yes..... :D

---------- Post added at 22:18 ---------- Previous post was at 22:16 ----------

Too true!

---------- Post added at 22:21 ---------- Previous post was at 22:18 ----------

Yes, according to how some people post around here anyone would think Thatcher had been in power for the last 13 years..... :D

---------- Post added at 22:22 ---------- Previous post was at 22:21 ----------

It's that selective amnesia again you know.... :D

Arthur - how does "A future fair for all" rank in your list of populist, political hype?

---------- Post added at 22:24 ---------- Previous post was at 22:22 ----------

Well Brown has previous when it comes to being economical with the facts.....

---------- Post added at 22:30 ---------- Previous post was at 22:24 ----------

Opposition parties getting flak from Brown and his cronies for not being explicit about where the cuts will come from is a bit rich coming from people with full access to the accounts of UK PLC, who not that long ago, were refusing to admit cuts would be necessary at all. Now of course they're trying to claim that somehow there's all this waste in the system that can be cut without pain but it can't be done now because it'll harm the 'recovery'.... Utter tosh!

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

People should be thinking about more than just the economy when deciding who to vote for. Just think about the further damage to the country that has been planned.

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

Erm, I thought about it, and (as usual) your post doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Who's planning to damage the country, and what are the ways they/who/she/whatever are planning to 'damage' the country? Oh, and why are 'they' planning to 'damage' the country?

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

I take you are going by what the main parties have stated so far in this campaign, because regardless of which of the three main parties you vote for we are going to be royally screwed whoever gets in power.

A Conservative government will not make any real impact as they will have their own agenda, nor will a new Labour government change anything.

As for any hung parliament that requires the help of the Liberal Democrats for either party to gain the upper hand then we will be dead in the water as they wring their hands.

The last hung parliament was a fiasco and any future coalition will go the same way.

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

I wish the Lib Dems would get off the fence and clarify whether their support for PR extends to who they're going to support in the event of a hung parliament. I heard Nick Clegg dodging the question again last night..

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

To be honest this sitting on the fence ability of there's is what i would have expected if they ended up in power so nothing new there. The libs Dem's sit on the fence till they see which way the wind is blowing then make a statement.

They don't seem to have the ability to make there own decisions which is another reason i cannot trust them to defend this country in time of need. In fact they remind me of the actions of Italy in WW2

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

If the Lib Dems want to be taken seriously they have to get to grips with the difficult decisions which have to be made and this isn't helping that cause one little bit. They've been unequivocal in their support for PR for years and it really ought to be easy for them to spell out exactly what the basis of their role in a hung parliament would be. If they can't do that it seems that any clarity on this issue is being sacrificed in a desperate quest to get votes from disillusioned Tory and Labour supporters.

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

Why? Until a hung parliament is a reality no negotiations could or should take place. Every party is out to win based on their manifestos. Only when there is no clear winner can any horse trading commence.

Look at it another way - How would Tory supporters feel if DC were in talks with NC before the results were known. Then throw in to that scenario the corresponding reaction from Labour. :dozey:

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

They don't have to name which side they'll support, they just have to be honest and open about the process they'll go through to decide. Will they support the side which wins most votes in line with basic PR principles and if not why not? That shouldn't be too difficult and if they have an argument for not doing that then let us hear it. As yet all I've heard from them on this subject is meaningless drivel....

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

:clap:

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

As you are a clear Tory supporter and they are known for wanting to keep the outdated FPTP system, how can anyone say what they will negotiate on until they know WHO they will be dealing with. Different tactics are required for different situations. Who is to say that in a hung parliament that the Tories may offer more concessions on other Lib Dem policies but only by sacrificing PR. Given the Labour promises on PR would you trust them? So being rigid on one thing may end up with nothing, where flexibility will gain more. Would someone constantly ask DC this question - NO!

A long term goal of the Lib Dems is to WIN under the current system & then change it.

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

What basic PR principle says that a minority party should side with the biggest party? The basic PR principle is that a minority party will try to form a coalition with whatever party allows them to put into action the largest part of their manifesto. It's their duty to their voters.

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

This is an interesting story.

Ignoring the Mail's usual rhetoric this would make a fair amount of sense given past 'disagreements'.

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

That story was in the Times yesterday as well.

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

If that's what they believe then why not just be be unequivocal about it?

---------- Post added at 12:21 ---------- Previous post was at 12:19 ----------

Can you find me a single post in these forums in which I've urged anyone to vote Tory or even singled out one of their policies as being a vote winner? If not, I can't be much of a Tory can I? ;) I've made this point a number of times in this forum and will repeat it just for you - I'm no Tory and find the notion of being 'stuck' to the ideaology of one party a nonsense in this day and age. I am, however, very much a New Labour hater, having been badly let down ever since I voted for them in 1997. I've voted for all 3 parties over the years and the Lib Dems would be more likely to get my vote this time around if they were just clear and open about this.

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

sky link

can anyone tell me what the point is behind this load of garbage ,it seems pointless to me and discrimates against people (like me) who have been in a relationship for 20yrs but not married

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

It seems that some members feel that the Tories will do a better job if they get into power, please remember that the Tories only think of one thing, and that is saving money for themself, its like at the moment there are business's complaining about an increase in NI payments, two reasons for this, one who says the Tories won't do this, two, the big business's are probabely Tory voters anyway.

Surely this country does not want to go back to the Thatcher days, and this is what will happen, she still has some punch in the Tory circle, all this hype from Cameron about we will do this and that, remember what Thatcher said, and this country went through hell.

Like in one borough of London, one side of the road the poll tax was £300 per year and on the other it was £500 per year, and every person had to pay it. This what the Tories will do to find ways of saving money on services, and the public paying more.

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

Thanks!

Well I have no problem with Labour lurching to the left. Should make them nicely unelectable and have them lose their more centrist supporters to the Lib Dems.

It's quite amusing the parallel between UK and USA. In the USA there's a bunch of wingnuts on the right pulling the GOP (Republicans) further to the right while centrists are freaked out, here in the UK we seem to have a bunch of Union-powered wingnuts on the left pulling New Labour who at least gave lip service and some policy consideration to being centre-left to the hard left.

It's both amusing and tragic when you have the Dark Lord advocating the more centrist point of view while the incumbent Prime Minister's charade of being centrist is washed away more and more to reveal an old school socialist whose views and beliefs do indeed belong in the past.

Still a minority will still happily vote for this. I should say they won't vote for 'this' as they have no idea what they're voting for they just see 'Labour' on the ballot paper and mark it. Labour could advocate killing of all first-born children and large swathes of Wales and the North would still vote for them. Of course on the flip side the Tories could advocate similar and would still get votes from some but purely my opinion Labour have a larger base of safe seats and FPTP favours them quite heavily at the moment as it's out of date with the population and unfair, especially in Wales.

NB:

Wales - 40MPs, 2.9mill population = 72,500 population / MP
England - 539MPs, 51.5mill population = 104,600 population / MP
Scotland - 59MPs, 5.06mill population = 85,762 population / MP

---------- Post added at 12:52 ---------- Previous post was at 12:51 ----------

I would speculate poll tax isn't set for a return and Council Tax is set at a Borough level, everyone in each Borough and in the same band pays the same, please try again. If you could supply a citation for where poll tax was so granular it was set at postcode level that would be appreciated, I have never heard of such a thing and as far as I am aware it was administered in a similar manner to Council Tax.

If you could please let me know where you think all this money that will be saved will be going. I would presume that it would be going to paying off the national debt but if you know otherwise that'd be appreciated.

I would speculate that business don't like the NI increase for the same reasons I don't - it'll cost us money and isn't necessary.

Well Arthur, just for you and courtesy of Guido here's the massive cuts that the Tories have planned for this financial year:

https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/...010/05/132.jpg

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

That's right, Arthur - the councils and government will charge more and provide less, and keep the money for themselves........

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

My apologies but you are asking for the one thing from the Lib Dems many Tories will then use against them.

Another way of looking at it would be if you were the supplier of drills but can only afford to produce one type of drill bit. You have a preference for one that deals with metal but the best chance of getting an order could be with someone needing a wood drill or a masonry drill. Would you then insist on only producing metal bits which could lose you all orders. Or would you keep quiet about your drill bits and still sell the drills.

---------- Post added at 14:29 ---------- Previous post was at 14:22 ----------

No point at all. Indeed it actually further discriminates against whichever partner does not receive this. As, if the person in receipt of this massive £150 goes off and marries someone else they keep this money where the partner left behind gets nothing. At least Child Tax Credit is paid to the main carer of the children.

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

Can you honestly see the amount of bureaucracy falling with a Tory government?

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

You appear to be answering a question with a question, rather than answering the question...;)

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

What on Earth are you on about?

---------- Post added at 13:51 ---------- Previous post was at 13:46 ----------

Seeing as Derek appeared to answer his own rhetorical question, it would have been rather superlative to add yet another answer. ;)

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

A reasoned response may have been in order, if you disagreed with his hypothesis....

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

From what I understand from my accountants the increase is going to cost one hundred and fifty pounds per employee. That represents about four thousand pounds extra oper year for my business. Not too bad, considering. Plus there's a couple of extra allowances we can claim.

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

So you cannot even remember the insult to the nurses that you gave out.
There does that remind you :mad:

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

You've got to be the first businessman I've known to be
happy about increasing cost to his business,thereby reducing his profit.

IMO the next gov should encourage hard work a lot more by lowering
income tax severly and raising VAT a lot more,say to 25 %.

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

The proposed NI increases the cost for businesses regardless of how big a profit or not they may be making. It doesn't apply to foreign businesses and so reduces the ability for UK businesses to compete here and abroad. An all round success then.:rolleyes:

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

Can your employees claim those "extra allowances"?

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

Arthur, pull your gead out of your arse mate. Tories havnt been in power for 13 years, Thatcher hasnt been the head of the Troy party since 1990. Thats 20 years (for the mathamatically challenged)
We have had to much of "Its all Thatchers fault" Well this country has been dragged into the mire crapness and there is only one party to blame and thats the Labour party.
Oh and Lady Thatcher doesnt have her hand up the arse of Cameron, so he is not a puppet of Thatcher's.

I would rather swing by the neck from the nearest tree than suffer another 4 years of Labour.

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

Not done the maths but if you like paying taxes that much that's your prerogative. Other businesses and independent think tanks seem to disagree.

A company of say 250 employees will be looking at 37.5k being taken out of the staffing budget, the equivalent of a full time staffer that won't be hired / retained on the same budget.

Fundamentally unnecessary taxation is an unproductive use of money that should be going into the economy, making people wealthier, purchasing goods and services. Having it instead going to the government and only a proportion of it making its' way back into the economy benefits no-one.

That thought is of course only applicable if you aren't of the opinion that the government is the economy as our present PM is.

---------- Post added at 15:46 ---------- Previous post was at 15:42 ----------

That would be horrendous. Income tax is a progressive tax so takes account of some ability to pay while VAT does not. Increasing VAT too highly would reduce consumption of goods and services so people spend less and would potentially reduce overall tax take due to a combination of this reduction in consumption along with increased tax evasion. People buying less would also harm the economy a great deal too. No purchases mean no jobs needed to supply the goods and services in the first place.

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

I like that idea.

I disagree. A young person starting his/her working life should be encouraged to earn money and save money. Raising income tax discourages people from earning money (ask those at the higher rate threshold), and a low rate of VAT encourages spending, not saving.

Or do you want the young person starting his/her working life to forget about saving and borrow, borrow, borrow to spend, spend, spend - just like the government?

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

yes but what you aren't realising is income tax is proportional to the ammount you earn ,VAT is not someone on minimum wage pays the same vat as someone on £50,000 so any vat increase will affect the lower earner a lot more

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

Only if they buy the same amount of stuff - most people who earn more, buy more (therefore paying more VAT).

VAT is nothing more than a sales tax.

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

what i mean is vat,on a tv for example, is not proportional to ammount that person earns ,a £500 tv is still a £500 tv for someone on minimum wage as it is for someone on £50,000 so increasing vat only hurts the lower paid realy

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

VAT will really hurt if any government decides to put it on food even if as with household fuels they only charge 8%, the impact on the lower paid will be terrible and at a time when they are promoting healthy eating.

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

I really can't see VAT being put on food - that'd be suicidal for any government. What I can see is whoever wins the next election being forced to increase VAT to 20% sooner or later. We're all going to suffer for what's been allowed to happen I'm afraid and anyone who seeks to pretend that the ordinary working man can escape his share of the pain is a fool, a liar or both.

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

All this has been going on well before 1997 when Labour got into power and anyone that believes it will change with another administration really needs to remove their rose tinted glasses.

Each party has its own agenda which has nothing to do with making it easy for us poor fools the voters, vote for Labour or Conservative if you must but do not expect them to do anything of any real substance that will help the country, unless it is helping them line their pockets and you will not be disappointed.

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

Blimey and I thought I was cynical.... ;)

I still have some faith in our politicians, however, if not our incompetent government.

---------- Post added at 17:28 ---------- Previous post was at 17:25 ----------

Yes, Brown does that a lot too. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery so they say.... :D

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

I have no faith in the present government or the next as within months we will be slating them regardless of who is primeminister for similar reasons as we do now.;)

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

The only way I'll definitely be slating anyone is if Brown manages to cling onto power. The next government will have a great many wrongs to put right and it won't be an easy or quick process so it'd be unfair to expect too much too soon and there'll be many losers no matter what else happens. That's the price of Brown's 'prudence' I'm afraid.

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

The same can be said of the Thatcher era or the Major era and the next govenment even after 3 terms will prove to be just as incompetent as the present incumbents.

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

Amen to that.

The people that so passionately believe red or blue (or yellow) will actually make any real difference worry me, I have to say.
Maybe it's something of a supporter's mentality, of wanting 'your' team to win?
Except that just as with sport, these people we support are totally self-serving and self-obsessed, and perhaps give us back 1% of what they garner for themselves.
How the poor dears cope with us being such a burden to them in the years between elections is anyone's guess.

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

It doesn't matter how I vote, my voting power is 0.015

Find out what yours is here.

Anybody on the forum in one of the most or least powerful constituencies?

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

my voting power is a big fat zero, apparently we don't exist in the north east as it returned a "no result" answer ,which i suppose answers a lot of questions :D

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

mines a bit lower than yours, makes me think why bother? Infact i probably wont bother now

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

0.326, against a UK average of 0.253.

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

0.03 :(

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

0.051 Thrilling stuff :mis:

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

I'm curious as to why you believe that the Lib Dems "sit on the fence till they see which way the wind is blowing then make a statement", "don't seem to have the ability to make there own decisions", and why they remind you "of the actions of Italy in WW2"?


For me, personally, the Lib Dems are the only one of the three main parties to consistently match the majority of my views on the things I care about or think are important.

Off the top of my head, some of the major issues I agreed with their stand (not fence sitting) on are:

The Iraq War - voted against.

Tuition Fees - voted against.

Top-Up Fees - voted against.

Foundation Hospitals - voted against.

ID Cards - voted against.

The Dark Lord's Digital Economy Bill - voted against.


They also have a habit of opposing New Labour's endless authoritarian attacks on Civil Liberties.


I know you have no intention of voting Lib Dem, & I have no wish to "convert" you into doing so, but at least read up on their policies before claiming that all they ever do is "sit on the fence" and "not make their own decisions".

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

Comparing Lib Dems to Mussolini's Italy is a new one. Have to give him that!

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

Here's another vote match quiz thing:

http://www.votematch.org.uk/


My results -


Liberal Democrats: 82%

Green Party: 62%

Labour Party: 40%

Conservative Party: 37%

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

0.123 for me - half of the UK average.

I'll still be voting, of course. I figure it is the least I can do for those who fought and died so that we live in a democracy.

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

Mine is 0.226 in Cambridge.

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

0.605 in North West Leeds.

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

I think the claim of fence squatting is to avoid actually looking properly at what the Lib Dems propose. It is such a tired old claim by other party stalwarts and the lazy press that gets trotted out election after election. :dozey:

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

0.728

Labour changed the boundaries since 2005.
If they had done it before they'd have won by 1.7% of the vote.
Hmm, I wonder if that could have possibly been one of the reasons for the boundary change...
Looking into it, yes they have taken a section of MKNW (Tory 3.3% majority) and given it to MKSW (Labour 8.1% majority) to make MKS and a smaller MKN.
Basically they've taken a load of Tory voters and moved them into a Labour area so if the vote goes the same in 2005 Labour would win both constituencies.

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

Did you put a space in the middle of your postcode? I didn't and got the same result. When I included a space it gave me a result.

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

cheers for that

0.118 now i feel realy empowered :D

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

As incompetent as New Labour?? I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that one.. :)

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

All they did was try to be a poor imitation of the tories and failed miserably and all Dave will do is line the pockets of big business by selling off more of the country, we are nothing to the likes of him and most other politicians, we are just the idiots who give them Carte Blanche to screw us into the ground.

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

But Molly, the money for public services has to come from somewhere - Labour tried to ignore this fact, and it has come home to roost.

We need to live within our income, investing where appropriate (Health, Education, Police, and re-focussing Defence spend), but not just spend for the sake of spending; Labour have had 13 years to find efficiencies, isn't it strange they find them just before an election?

And I differ from you in the view of politicians - I think people like Cameron and Brown do want to do what is best for Britain and it's people; it's just their definition(s) of "what is best" may vary from ours (and each other).

I think it is a minority of "career" politicians have tainted it for the rest of those who do want to be public servants - call me Pollyanna if you wish.

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

Yes.

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

0.232 is the index for Brighton Pavillion which is judged as a "fairly safe" Labour seat.

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

So, you won't be castigating "Dave" for his broken promises, when he raises VAT and extends it to include food?

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

"Flyboy", why don't you put "Gordon's" or "Tony's" names in quotes, as their names are "John" and "Anthony"?

Good to see you still promulgating Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt - you forgot to mention that Alastair Darling has refused to rule out raising VAT.What about Liam Byrne's (Labour's Chief Secretary to the Treasure) statement last month And the source of your information - those unbiased people, Mandelson and Balls.:rolleyes:

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

LOL do you think that's some form of tough question for me? If so, you're sadly mistaken. If Cameron, or anyone else for that matter, imposes VAT on food I will categorically castigate them!

For someone who hardly ever answers a question relating to Bliar and Brown's abysmal record you sure like asking them of others don't you. You even get quite indignant when other people adopt your own tactic...

How about you start answering a few questions around here, just for a change? I haven't counted but I think you owe Foreverwar more than a few answers from various topics so you might like to start with them..

---------- Post added at 11:01 ---------- Previous post was at 10:56 ----------

What you mean like Brown's done with the bankers??.. We haven't got much left to sell off have we?

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

Where the is money to be had the are businesses to be sold and I mean anything that is still publically owned and regardless of the buyer being from the UK or abroad.

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

We would have had a lot more money if that idiot Brown had not sold the gold off so bloody cheaply, Prudence my arse

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

And we know even as chancellor he was not prudent.;)

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

Looking at the poll on here i see there has now been 9 votes for the racist BNP. Thats a few more than i expected.

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

They may be getting some of the UKIP vote......

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

Less than I expected. More people vote BNP than you realise but due to public attitudes, they just don't talk about it.

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

I presume Flyboy that this is quite acceptable to you given your stubborn refusal to condemn anything Labour do?

Between this, dodgy Twitter activity suggesting that people try and defraud the Tories, using a mother of a murder victim to justify the authoritarian DNA database and the other dirt and cynical opportunism used by Labour looks like a high quality and policy based campaign they are running.

Presumably next will be some terrorist alerts and comments on how only New Labour can keep us safe by obliging us to have microchips installed in us and CCTV in our own homes, those being about the only place that isn't covered by it now.

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

Whoever wants to win this election needs a plan B.

Plan "B":

Promise the electorate that if you are elected you will expunge everyone's credit history for the past six years and that you will, in doing so, force banks to honour their promises to lend to homebuyers, businesses and individuals.

In order that the electorate might keep you to your word it will be a legal requirement for the banks to publish monthly statistics on their lending and borrowing activties, both commercial and personal.

Have clearly defined guidelines in relation to loan application assessments and make illegal any "automated decision making processes" in relation to same.

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

And it's hacking people off - Labour are damaging themselves by all this negative campaigning, which we've seen on TV, newspapers, and on this forum.

All parties should be selling themselves on the benefits, not on how bad others are - could you imagine car ads being like that? "Don't buy Toyosan - they are going to cut their quality control staff in the future, and will put you and your family at risk!". :erm:

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

here's a nice little snippet from Clegg

so they plan to allow more migrants in but spread them out a bit so no-one notices
would've been a great idea 20 yrs ago

---------- Post added at 12:38 ---------- Previous post was at 12:35 ----------


good point :clap: ,i would like to base my voting preference on how good a parties policy is not how bad the others are

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

I'd like to know how they intend to separate the 'good' immigration from the 'bad' and how they'd go about ensuring that the 'good' migrants go and stay where they're told.... :confused:

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

yeah i wondered that to

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

Sorry,I disagree.
It's much better to tax consumption than work.After all,I'd like to see work and entrepeneurship being rewarded again in our beloved country. 15 % flat tax on all income,next to no benefits and 25% VAT,I could live with that!

Oh,and by the way,my voting power is 0.858 :D Hove,East Sussex

---------- Post added at 13:24 ---------- Previous post was at 13:20 ----------

well,only let those immigrate who are a clear benefit to the country,well-qualified,with money,and the willingness to do something with their lives when they are here.

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

but that would only impact the low paid

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

If they did that they would get my vote.

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

Do you think the LibDems would change our laws to do that? I don't get that impression. We have virtually no control of immigration from the EU and I really don't see the Lib Dems getting tough on migration from elsewhere. If I'm wrong about that I'll be delighted to read their proposals on how they'd aim to achieve Clegg's aim.

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

:clap::clap:

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

Yes and after all the success they've enjoyed over the last 13 years you'd have thought New Labour and their supporters would be armed with a myriad of reasons why we should vote for more of the same... :rolleyes:

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

No,they probably wouldn't.None of the mainstream parties would,as they don't want to be 'racist'. I would call it sensible and looking after oneself,but that's just me.... ;)

---------- Post added at 13:36 ---------- Previous post was at 13:34 ----------



well,ummmm,well,aahh,well.... I give up :D

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

So have they I reckon.... :D

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

What about if things happen and you are forced to use the social security safety net that has been reduced to 'next to nothing'.

Smacking VAT up like that will reduce consumption. Reduced consumption means less jobs.

I'm as much for rewarding hard work as you are but for those on lower incomes the above system would hurt in a huge way. The social harm it would cause would be quite extensive and a balance has to be struck.

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

Lumping the tax take onto VAT is a highly regressive measure that piles the burden of paying for Great Britain plc unfairly onto those with low incomes.

25% VAT may not be of any consequence to you if you have a large disposable income because you can just soak that increase up. But what of someone living well below the average wage? Paying VAT already eats up proportionally more of their income than it does yours (I'm assuming you're not a low earner). Increasing VAT simply magnifies that problem.

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

Not at all - those on higher incomes spend more money on VAT-able items, which makes it a progressive tax.

Again, people should be encouraged to save. A combination of low income tax and higher VAT does just that.

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

Make VAT so high that it becomes viable for me and people like me on higher incomes to make large purchases outside the UK and import them I'll do just that and there's nothing the government can do about it, so by trying to charge 25% instead of 17.5% of that 1k LCD TV the government gets nothing while another country in Europe gets 20% along with an export to the UK harming the UK's balance of trade.

Encouraging too much saving isn't wise. Excessive saving cools consumption and slows the economy. Instead of money being spent on goods and services and providing jobs and economic growth it is sitting in people's savings accounts doing nothing. There was a savings glut in Japan which had some rather serious effects on their economy.

Interest rates would end up sitting very low to try and persuade people to consume and if people were to consume and inflation rise for any reason the primary instrument to control it, interest rates, is gone.

People saving drops the government's income as it's relying so heavily on sales taxes, sales taxes have to go up again to try and compensate, consumption reduces and/or goes into importation and/or grey/black markets as increased rates of taxation cause increased evasion as it becomes more worthwhile and round and round it goes.

Purely from the economic point of view it's really not a hot idea.

The idea was mooted in the US and shot down:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...dding-fairtax/

EDIT: Re: Regressive nature of this proposal:

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

Yep, there's definitely a GE round the corner....

I wonder how?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle7094911.ece

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1
 

Well their strategy seems fairly clear. Throw mud at the opposition and fire bovine excreta at us with no regard for fiscal responsibility.

The first paragraph is hysterical in the context of the second one.

Both of which will evidently cost nothing significant. Minimum wage increase and increase in paid paternity leave are both quite strongly anti-business measures. Brown appears to have sloughed off any pretence at being centrist now and is pushing a populist and potentially harmful left-wing socialist agenda with total ignorance to the costs of his bribes both to the public and private sector.