The General Election Thread

[biffvernon]

Sorry to add a serious note to the thread again but there's a particularly good essay posted on The Oil Drum today:

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6374/

It's about that of which none of the politicians will speak.

 

[Flyfisher]

Interesting stuff but, ultimately, of no great help. No wonder politicians ignore it all.

If it was discovered that an asteroid the size of our moon was on a collision course to hit Earth in, say, 2020 and there was absolutely nothing that could be done to prevent it, would the politicians tell us? What would be the point?

 

[OddJob]

Having been laid up at home today with joint problems(a legacy of 32 years bricklaying)I was watching Sky news when they showed that unctious twonk Gordon Brown in my local Tesco,live.
Oh I was sorely tempted,hop in the car,I'd be there in 5 minutes to give him a piece of my very bloody mind!
Two problems,I couldn't promise it would have been a purely verbal assault and I refuse to enter Tesco anyway because of the way they rip off our farmers.
I took out my frustrations later on a cyclist who blatantly rode a red light instead,the exchange of profanities was much more intelligent and satisfying than anything that tw*t has to say :evil:

 

[DaveBrigg]

Please, please vote for anyone except the BNP.

Agreed. I'd even vote Tory if there was a chance of them getting in here :shock:

Unfortunately, Orange took my broadband away for a couple of days, so I missed the discussion on weddings Apologies for bringing up some earlier points.

DaveBrigg wrote: I once read the definition of stupidity as repeating the same experiment twice and expecting to get different results.

But it's not the same experiment if the starting conditions are dramatically different - or do you really think we're in the same position as 1946 Britain?

No, I was refering to the Conservative led recessions of 1981/2 and 1991/2, both of which took years to recover from because unemployment stayed so high. Recovery is bound to be slow when billions of pounds in taxes are being given to the unemployed in benefits, and businesses have fewer people able to buy their products and services.

Anyone can choose to pay more tax than they legally need to. Even you.

I do (though not a huge amount.) My bank are also offering 'seven ways to be more tax efficient', which sounds like a list of loopholes to close. Allowing tax evasion to continue is a failing of this government, but although Nick Clegg promised to tackle this, David Cameron seems to be going the other way.

The laws of Belize are a matter for their government. Such countries generally have favourable tax regimes specifically to attract such people - who knows why, but it's up to them.

That's an easy one. As well as trying to buy this election, Ashcroft also funds the party in power in Belize, who agreed the special tax rates. Just to be sure, he also gives cash to the opposition. Take the bribe or lose power?

Not so. Decide on a minimum income that people need to live on (as we currently do) and don't tax anyone below it.

In which case, it is not a flat rate system, and becomes one based on the ability to pay. Once you accept that people on low incomes should pay less tax, introducing a second threshold is just fine-tuning. Poorer people already pay a higher proportion of their disposable income on tax (although they receive more in benefits)

Brilliant. So let's double all their salaries and collect even more tax to help pay off the country's debts!

which seems to be the argument put forward by someone to justify tax cuts for the rich. A clinical support worker starts on £13,000, but with tax the govt actually pays out £10,200. If that person is sacked in an 'efficiency saving', they will need £3 300 a year in jobseekers allowance, and qualify for housing benefit up to 100% of rent costs and free NHS treatment. Any children will get free school meals added to the Govt bill. Then add in the costs to society of having fewer police, fewer road cleaners, fewer doctors, fewer social workers. I've no doubt that some jobs could be lost without too much impact, but for £12 billion to be saved, that's looking like a return to Thatcher's 1 in 8 signing on. Industry will only grow if it can sell more. If you take 3 and a half million consumers out of the economy, who will be buying? It's all well and good giving £200 000 breaks to the super rich, but that isn't going to be spent supporting the shops on our High St. In the TV debate, it was this point that Cameron seemed weakest on, lacking any explanation as to how the books would balance.

 

[DaveBrigg]

"Mr Cameron is much taken by the work of William Galston, a political theorist behind the Clinton-era welfare reforms. Galston identified three steps to escaping poverty: finish school, marry before having children and avoid teenage pregnancy. Among those who did all three, only 8 per cent were poor. Of those who did none, 79 per cent were poor

Are those percentages of poor people, or percentages of the total population?
The current government has already identified finishing school and avoiding teenage pregnancy as important areas to address. It is now harder for schools to exclude pupils, and more support is available to help these students, including 1 to 1 teaching sessions and a wider curriculum. Local authorities and schools have targets to reduce NEETs (Not in Education, Employment or Training); progress has been slow so far, but will hopefully speed up. Study United is a national scheme working with football clubs to appeal to disaffected boys. Teen pregnancy rates are falling, slowly (partly because of easier methods of cotraception). Sure Start centres have been set up which provide advice and support for new mothers, with the aim of boosting the development of children before they get to school. Primaries currently see a huge difference in the ability of children when they arrive aged 4. Unfortunately, Sure Start has been identified as a area that Cameron would cut.

The elephant in the room in education, missed by Galston above, is poverty. I suspect that at least 79% of 'poor' people in this country came from families which were poor to start with. The educational charity which provided the targets on which schools are judged uses the number of pupils receiving school meals as a key indicator of that school's likely performance. It matches GCSE attainment levels more closely than age of parents, or the marital status of the parents. To put it bluntly, children from poor families do less well at school than their wealthier peers. The area is a minefield where it is easy to lay blame or confuse cause and effect. All I know is that pupils with an unmarried mum in work tend to do better than pupils living with both parents (married) who have to wait until the end of the month to replace shoes that have fallen apart. Breaking the cycle is extremely difficult, often beyond what a school alone can achieve.

You can't just tell a disaffected teenager to work hard for qualifications and not get pregnant; making a difference is labour intensive and needs to start from a young age. This is why I wonder how it fits in with a Tory philosophy of cutting costs, reducing the 'nanny state' and moving schools out of local authority control.

 

[biffvernon]

Whatever our politics, let's just all agree to vote Liberal. That'll shake them up!

 

[Nigel Watts]

Charles Moore gives a good reason why not:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...angely-drawn-to-the-Lib-Dems-think-again.html

 

[Flyfisher]

Not so. Decide on a minimum income that people need to live on (as we currently do) and don't tax anyone below it.

In which case, it is not a flat rate system, and becomes one based on the ability to pay. Once you accept that people on low incomes should pay less tax, introducing a second threshold is just fine-tuning. Poorer people already pay a higher proportion of their disposable income on tax (although they receive more in benefits)

[/quote]
By definition you're right that any threshold means it's not strictly a flat-tax system. But it would save an awful lot of administration costs to not have to give out benefits to bring people up to the minimum level (whatever that is deemed to be) while taxing them at the same time, so it's really just a 'tweak' rather than anything fundamental. Still, the existing regime hands out benefits with one hand and then taxes with another, so it can be done.

Anyway, that's got nothing to do with the basic point about whether progressive taxation, or council tax (or the apparently despised 'poll tax'), or various other examples are truly fair systems or ones based on envy.

To put it bluntly, children from poor families do less well at school than their wealthier peers. The area is a minefield where it is easy to lay blame or confuse cause and effect.

There will, of course, always be exceptions, but I take the general point. But I'm not really convinced it's anything to do with being wealthy as such. Surely 'being wealthy' is just a measurement, it's the score card of 'success' in our current society and the characteristics of successful people are likely to include paying close attention to the nuturing of their children to help them become just as successful, if not more so. Simple redistribution of wealth will never make lazy, feckless parents change their outlook on life and suddenly become 'successfull'. I'm rather afraid this is just a matter of human nature.

 

[Schoolmarm]

If Flyfisher was standing I would vote for him. Definitely.

 

[Flyfisher]

:shock: Good heavens. :shock:

 

[Schoolmarm]

8)

 

[Penners]

If Flyfisher was standing I would vote for him.

Me too.






Provided I'm guaranteed that overdue Knighthood.

 

[Flyfisher]

Stop encouraging me, I've got far too much work here to be an MP . . . . on the other hand, I could probably get the old place fixed up on expenses.
Hmm. :wink:

 

[Jill]

And just for info I hadn't PM'd Esselle - We all have to start somewhere, it is a big learning curve for many. Its just a pity some of you have not learnt how to welcome people and give guidance without jumping in and expressing your opinions so soon. I am just pleased that thread was locked before it got like mine. Esselle if you are still around, please join in you can learn so much and we aren't all the same.

 

[Schoolmarm]

It's too late to learn for Esselle.
Esselle has removed the LAST original feature in the house.
Just like you did.
Strange though that they joined so long ago and obviously read the forum before posting what they had done.

 

[JoceAndChris]

Oh dear. It appears that locking the thread hasn't worked. What has this to do with the election, or weddings? I agree with 'Marm, who, as FF so aptly says, is really a lovely pussy-cat, but, if it makes you feel any better Jill- the Chris half of me said "you're awful Joce, you're like those locals at the bar who sit round muttering when new-comers walk in"- of course I hit him and served burnt toast and the like all day.

I think it's possible to be friendly, and honest about your feelings at the same time.

So what's happened in the political world tonight?

 

[Schoolmarm]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:




Well everyone now loves Cleggy. Cameron has been outed as a person who actually hunted. Brown was really good.

This is what the rowdies are saying on facebook.

 

[Moo]

Esselle has removed the LAST original feature in the house.

Are you sure? Have you been to the house and inspected it in detail?
Looking at the rest of his/her post it would seem that they have the best of intentions, and I'm sure that if you were to conduct a straw poll you'd find that most of us (not you, of course) have committed sins in the past. I, for one, will hold up my hands and confess (among other crimes) to removing all the remaining upstairs fireplaces in our first house.

Surely it should have been possible to express regret at what had been done and then get on with helping them to do the best for their house. The flat statement that "It's too late to learn for Esselle." makes me cringe with embarrassment.

 

[Schoolmarm]

Moo, all the mistakes I made were before I read this forum. I tried to discuss lime with the builder 12 years ago and was shouted down. I hadn't heard of SPAB or EH
If you feel embarrassed by my post then cringe away.


To be honest I was going to delete stuff and apologise but didn't because the defence put forward in a lot of these posts is the shortage of money or time to do it correctly. I am, and have been, very short of money and now feeling old and wondering if things will get done before we move or die. I'm not going to suddenly start throwing the wrong things at my house, if I can't afford it then I will live in a slum. Simple.

If someone joins and reads my cringeworthy posts then at least they know how important some things are. Or even just casual browsers.

 

[JoceAndChris]

Some have a gift for diplomacy, others are more hot-headed and passionate in expressing strongly-held views. That will never change. If you'd got there first Moo, the thread may have taken a different direction.

I see no real reason to be nice to people when they've done something you very strongly disapprove of. It's terribly draining, and dishonest to your own self.

Esselle didn't ask any learning type questions, but asked for a builder because "we want to employ builders to put it back together how we want it (ie, insulated, boarded, plastered - roof ceilings and walls". It is too late for that house to retain much of its original appearance. Whether it's too late for Esselle to regret what has been done is pure speculation, certainly s/he's not near that emotion at present, judging by the defence of the removal of lath and plaster.

I learned a lot when I joined this forum - some opinions expressed harshly, others not. I'm very grateful for all that learning now.

I am, and have been, very short of money and now feeling old and wondering if things will get done before we move or die.

No! Don't say that! Just think how it could have been completely destroyed without you.