If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
It's election time
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Or at least it will be soon. Since things have been pretty quite in P&D for the last week I thought I'd post something up.
So, how do people think the election is going to go? What would you actually like to see happen? Any particular issues that mean a lot to you? Why do you think the Tories poll lead has collapsed?
Or even, if you had to set up a political party, what would it be and what would be the key aims?
And, if you want to answer, how are you going to vote? Since it's rude not to answer your own question I'll be honest and say I'm not going to vote. I've made a special effort to register to vote - but I won't be since I don't see anyone I can vote for.
Know some of this was covered in the not voting thread, but I thought, what the hell, why not have a bit of room to talk about the wider issues around the election as well.
Anyway love to know what you think!
So, how do people think the election is going to go? What would you actually like to see happen? Any particular issues that mean a lot to you? Why do you think the Tories poll lead has collapsed?
Or even, if you had to set up a political party, what would it be and what would be the key aims?
And, if you want to answer, how are you going to vote? Since it's rude not to answer your own question I'll be honest and say I'm not going to vote. I've made a special effort to register to vote - but I won't be since I don't see anyone I can vote for.
Know some of this was covered in the not voting thread, but I thought, what the hell, why not have a bit of room to talk about the wider issues around the election as well.
Anyway love to know what you think!
0
Comments
For other people who are interested:
UK Polling Report told me who was standing.
They Work for You told me about my incumbent MP. Unfortunately, Des Turner is standing down this year and I suspect the Tories'll get in.
I'd vote for Des Turner if he was going to stand again. I'm not sure now that he's not.
Labour have guaranteed my job is safe. The Tories haven't.
Purely a selfish thing, but I don't care. Look out for number 1!
* not all of course, they're some very good and dedicated people who are also determined to give a good service
:yes:
i don't know anything about politics but i shall be voting this year. i shall be voting for labour purely because my job is on the line if the tories get in (which lets face it, from the sounds of it, they probably will...:()
Oi, don't forgot your birthday thread in Anything Goes
Aladdin in anti-drugs shocker
Would you like some salt and vinegar to go with that chip?
I make no excuses for disliking his company either. It is my opinion that tax avoiders are the lowest form of scum imaginable. They shouldn't be anywhere near politics, but treated like the despicable greedy selfish cheats they are. That the Tories might win the election because of the millions one of the biggest tax avoiders (and an extremely fucking dodgy character to boot) this country has ever seen is pouring into marginal seats areas amounts to buying an election.
That is a sight one could have expected to see in a banana republic, not here.
Ashcroft is not the only one of course, with the oh-so-green-and-chic Zac Goldsmith also depriving the people of this country of untold millions in avoided tax.
Labour is no strange to tax exile donors, but nowhere near this extent and direct involvement with a would-be Cabinet.
To cap it all off, if the Tories win we are likely to see the end as we know it of the single most important cultural asset this country has, the BBC.
What's to like?
Sorry for the delayed response, I was out trying to spend my trouser-busting 2010 bonus. It gets harder every year...
I never thought I could be so stupid as to have NOT ascertained all of that information from the well-coded words:
Points:
1. What does his school have to do with anything? That his parents had money is nothing to do with him. Would you prefer an educated leader or not? Also if you had the money, wouldn't you privately educate your child? I defy anyone who says that they wouldn't. I'm a massive advocate of the public school system as it's still the best education going. It's not fair, granted, but when it comes to your own children, who wouldn't educate them privately if they had the money?
2. One swallow does not a summer make, tio. Saying he's coke-snorting is at best, completely unfounded, ignorant and based on tittle-tattle, and at worst, libellous. If you're crudely attempting to refer to the *unproven allegations* that he did coke at university, big fucking wow. I did coke at university. Twice. I didn't kill anyone, didn't hurt anyone, break any (other) laws, possibly annoyed a couple of people for a short while by talking too much but that's all. It doesn't make an iota of difference in my, and most people's eyes. I would be more wary of a person, inside or outside of politics, especially one who had gone to university, who HADN'T tried drugs at least once. It's part of the fun of being young.
3. Who in their right mind would not want to pay less tax? Does it make me such a bad person to say that I wouldn't mind paying less tax? Especially from this April, when I will be pushed into the 40p bracket, I would dearly love to pay less tax. If anyone says otherwise, they're either insane, or a liar.
People moaning about Lord Ashcroft being a non-dom and paying bugger all tax should probably ask themselves whether the true source of their annoyance is down to jealousy, rather than anything else.
You should also ask yourself, who has allowed this flagrant tax dodgery to continue, and indeed increase, unfettered for 13 years?
The very tired holier-than-thou rhetoric about tax-avoidance was really brought home by this excellent article in the 'Mash, especially the last two paragraphs:
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/angry-taxpayers-demand-tutorial-from-lord-ashcroft-201003022518/
Anyway, any opinion you voice on this matter is totally irrelevant, as you're not allowed to vote in this country anyway
I think that we are heading for a smaller Labour majority or hung parliament. I don't think that the Tories offer enough hope or enough alternative for people to turn away from the status quo.
The best they can hope for IMHO is that Labour voters stay away because they are disillusioned. I don;t get the feeling that we will see the swaing that the Tories need.
A tough one, given that I don't think any party truly has the skills needed to address the country's needs.
Part of me hopes for a hung parliament so that we get more concensus politics but I'm also acutely aware that this can also make decisions harder to reach and can give the nation little sense of direction.
Health, naturally but public services in general. Like Flash I can see many "work shy skivers" who need their arses kicking and I see too much waste that needs to be addressed.
My fear of a Labour Govt is that they don't address this but exacerbate it - although the flip side is that they do, at least, realise that public services need to be properly funded.
My fear of a Tory Govt is that they don't value public services and have a culture is seeing private enterprise as the answer even though experience (see Gas, Rail and Water) demonstrates that they are no better at meeting the needs of the populace any better and actually cost the nation even more. Whilst taxation may drop, the actualy price we pay increases. Often this is then creamed off by those wealthy enough to invest as shareholders in the first place at the expense of our poorer population.
Where do I start?
The focus too much on Brown to the point that it becomes personal and makes him appear as a victim. To a point it then comes across like bullying - we see this in the attack on his letter writing to service famailes and the accusations that he is a bully even though there isn't actually any evidence of bullying. British culture then means that we side with the underdog.
They've also been pretty poor at getting their policies across - see married tax allowances. When they do get the message across Labour have attacked them very well. The whole issue of Inheritance Tax is a good example of that.
Too many own goals - changing policy several times ina day, Ashcroft, expenses - means that they don't come across as a credible alternative just as more of the same.
Lack of consistent message, I don't get the sense of any strategy they just seem to lurch from one thing to another - only taking time out to grab the nearest bandwagon. The thing that Blair and Campbell were good at was communicating what they stood for.
Finally, the leader. Cameron comes across as Blair Light and doesn't have enough credibilty of his own. I think his PR background influences that aspect of him. It's all image and nothing to back it up. Blair managed to change the Labour Party and re-brand it, effectively showing that he really did leadhis party. Cameron has failed to do that with aplomb - the whole Ashcroft thing is an example of that.
At the moment, I'm undecided. I will make my mark whatever happens, even if its only to write "none of the above" on my voting slip.
:wave:
That's me, but I don't think I'm insane or a liar.
It's not the amount of tax I pay that's important, it's what I get for it. If I get poor performance, poor roads, bad education service etc then quite rightly I want my money to be in my pocket.
However, I don't want less taxation if it means I have to pay for private education and health services, for example.
Paying less tax isn't, by definition, better and neither is more tax automatically good. Better use of my tax is.
I don't care how rich he is, the jealousy you refer to is more about not paying a fair share whilst his cleaner would - proportionally - pay more tax than he does.
I also have serious reservations that anyone - Labour of Conservative - who sits a Parliament not paying full taxation of their earnings when they determine how mine is spent.
Offshore accounts and income should be taxed at UK rates if you are a law maker. IMHO.
You should not confuse believing there should be limit to the taxes one pays, and believing it is okay to go to some lengths to avoid paying the tax one is due.
I had the chance as an inpatriate (is that the right term) to go offshore banking, and just as much was suggested to me by my bank when I arrived all those years ago. I refused. I believe in paying taxes.
Anyone who has interests and businesses in a country and goes to such lenghts to avoid paying the taxes everybody elses pays is an odious wanker in my book. Especially as they are usually the ONLY people who can actually afford the full taxes they'd be liable to without any detriment whatosever to their ultra-luxurious lives.
That's what really gets me: the utter, consuming greed that makes people into heartless monsters. I mean, how terrible that they should have to contribute towards the common good of their country and their people!
But I'll stop there as I do not wish to derail the thread towards a tax argument.
On other matters, after listening to Brown in the Iraq enquiry, I wouldn't want him to win at all. Had the Tories been against the war I would have been a lot more sympathetic towards them.
As you point out it's all a moot point for me as I cannot vote in the General election- though I'm affected by its outcome. In an ideal world the Lib Dems would if not win at least hold enough seats to be in a coalition government with Labour. These days I find myself closer to them in many policies than Labour.
I'd like to pay less tax, but not at the expense of the poor paying more, or a cut in government spending.
Yes, I'd like Ashcroft's money, but I'd pay my tax on it, not try to avoid it.
Perhaps you'd call me a liar for these - I don't think so - I'm entitled to free prescriptions, but pay for them.
Well between them and the Lib Dems... fuck between the BNP and the Lib Dems I'd be heil hitlering like there was no tomorrow
I would like to see the SNP win lots of seats and Scotland become independent.
Hmm, that's it really. None of the main parties in Westminster would touch Scottish Independence with a barge pole, so I'll be voting SNP.
There are lots of hopes from Scottish Nats for a hung parliament with lots of SNP seats so that the SNP hold the balance of power and can push for an independence referendum.
To the "liars", would you do things differently if you were in Lord Ashcroft's position? What I'm getting at is, is it worse that he's got mega bucks and wishes to keep as many of them as possible, or is it worse that there's a largely inept tax system which allows him to (legally) circumvent the rules that you and I cannot?
Lastly, Aladdin, not wishing to come over all Daily Mail, I believe the term for you and your sort is immigrant
And then what?
The questions you'd have to answer would be
1)Could Scotland survive without financial support from the rest of the Union?
2)What sort of influence could Scotland hope to have on a world stage? By removing itself from the union it would automatically lose its place in NATO, the G8 and the EU.
3)What would a devolved Scotland do to the rest of the Union?
Britain works better as a unified nation, I fail to see how any of the countries within the union, even maybe England could survive on their own.
It'll be all right, they've got two great banks to prop up the economy
Wait...
I think it's probably pretty difficult to make comments like 'Scotland wouldn't survive on its own' because there's so much misinformation floating around. If you look at the info written by the Nats (biased, I'll grant you) it's completely contradictory to that written by the Westminister Government (which you must concede is also biased).
I also don't understand why the argument is used 'Scotland can't survive without England'. If I was an English voter I'd be saying 'Hey, we're propping up Scotland financially, let's get rid of them!'
The arguments against giving Scotland a referendum are also pretty flimsy. Many of the parties support referendums on constitutional change at a UK level, but block a referendum on Scottish independence at every opportunity.
Here's some extracts on finances from a Scottish Government press release:
Subject: SCOTTISH GOVT CORRECTS 'ERS' BUDGET MISTAKES
EMBARGO: Sunday 31 January 2010, 00:01am
£14 BILLION HOLE IN SCOTLAND OFFICE SUMS – “HAM-FISTED” REPORT IS
EMBARRASSMENT TO ITS AUTHORS
REAL FIGURES SUPPORT FISCAL AUTONOMY AND INDEPENDENCE
SCOTLAND’S fiscal position has been drastically underestimated by the Scotland Office. An analysis of the Scotland Office report, entitled ‘Expenditure and Revenue in Scotland’ (ERS), shows that it has understated Scotland’s revenues by approximately £14 billion in 2007/08. This has been done by excluding money raised in Scotland, while at the same time adding “phantom” spending on the other side of the balance sheet.
ERS claims to be based upon the National Statistics publication, Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland (GERS). GERS is subject to strict guidelines and is compiled in line with National Statistics protocols. All public sector expenditures and revenues are presented in a manner which is consistent with UK National Accounts. All figures and sources are clearly explained and estimates are undertaken by Government Statisticians. The Scotland Office report departs from this assessment, and in doing so makes a number of significant methodological errors. This means that the results give an inaccurate (and misleading) picture of Scotland’s public finances, and are not comparable with published GERS figures, or UK Fiscal Accounts.
For example:
* The report unilaterally excludes a number of important taxes and revenues which are raised in Scotland, and are used to fund public services both in Scotland and at the UK level. In addition to oil revenues, the analysis also excludes elements such as the surpluses from public corporations, the fossil fuel levy, water charges, 3G mobile licence fees, the television licence fee, rents, regulatory fees, renewable energy obligations, fees from the rail franchise, passport fees, revenues from the National Lottery, and a whole host of other smaller UK tax revenues. In total, the report underestimates Scottish revenues, including a geographical share of North Sea revenues, by approximately £14 billion in 2007/08.
* In assessing expenditure and revenue in Scotland, the report excludes council tax revenues but includes spending by local authorities in Scotland. This creates an artificial funding gap within the local authority sector of approximately £2 billion in 2007/08.
* The report claims to isolate depreciation and other non-cash elements from Scotland’s public sector accounts. In GERS, as with all National Accounts, depreciation enters as a balancing item (as a revenue in Gross Operating Surplus [GOS] and as an expenditure in the ‘Accounting Adjustment’). However, the Scotland Office analysis arbitrarily excludes depreciation on the revenue side by omitting GOS but includes it on the expenditure side through the ‘Accounting Adjustment’. This creates a ‘phantom’ expenditure of approximately £1.5 billion in 2007/08 which does not actually take place.
* The time series analysis is subject to error, as it uses various GERS publications not on a like-for-like basis. For example, in addition to data and methodological revisions, figures for 2001-02 to 2007-08 are now presented on an accruals basis whereas those for 1999-00 or 2000-01 are presented on a cash basis. This leads to an inaccurate time series analysis.
* Finally, the report claims that there is a net fiscal transfer from the rest of the UK because expenditures exceeded revenues in Scotland. Irrespective of other factors, this is a misinterpretation of public sector accounts. During this time, the UK Government – in line with most other countries – consistently ran fiscal deficits. Indeed, earlier analysis by the Scotland Office shows that between 1980/81 and 2007/08, Scotland ran a net fiscal surplus in nine years versus the UK’s six
(footnote 1). The Scotland Office estimates that between 1980/81 and 2007/08, Scotland ran a cumulative deficit of £23.5 billion. Over the same period, HM Treasury figures show that cumulative UK net borrowing was £462.6 billion (£627.7 billion in constant prices). A per capita share allocated to Scotland would be £38.9 billion (£56.5 billion in constant prices) – twice that (i.e. worse) implied by the Scotland Office (footnote 2) – which means that the flow of resources is north to south, not the other way round.
Additionally, in contrast to Scotland Office claims, GERS figures (footnote 3) show that Scotland ran current budget surpluses in each of the three years to 2007/08, worth a cumulative £2.3 billion, including a geographical share of North Sea revenues. In contrast, the UK recorded a deficit of £24 billion over the same period, and last managed a current budget surplus – including a 100 per cent share of North Sea revenues – in 2001/02.
1. Source for all UK figures: HM Treasury Public Finances Databank 22nd January 2010 http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/psf_statistics.htm
2. Scotland’s population relative to the UK is taken to be 8.4%.
3. Source: GERS:
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/Browse/Economy/GERS
It's the third option.
It's the fact that such loopholes exist at all.