The General Election Thread

[DaveBrigg]

FF - You want equality of opportunity for children, but don't think the government should spend any money to achieve this? How will it happen? The minimum wage was a start, but how else can you get round the inequality of opportunity caused when one set of parents earns two or three times as much as another? you may not have children in state education, but we all reap the benefits of a well educated workforce and population.
Does the same argument apply to health? Should we want everyone to be equally healthy, but not penalise those who are fit by spending their taxes on treating the sick?

How does demonising parents who do not take responsibility for their child's education help? Do you think they care what middle-class Tory voters think about them? Splashing them across the Daily Mail might make some people happy but will not change anything. Poor parenting is not solely the preserve of the poor however. I used to work next to a well known public school which had some of its pupils banned from the local shops because of their behaviour (and was recently involved in a far worse scandal involving pupil behaviour). We would have to demonise those who think that parenting stops at writing the cheque for termly fees as well.

I don't think that per head assessment is any more reliable than using house size as an indicator of consumption of public services. Neither are reliable. Your two pensioners may be receiving meals on wheels. The amout of rubbish put out is likely to depend more on income and spending habits. I would guess that the people I see dropping off nearly new furniture at the waste recycling centre (for landfill) are probably those who can afford to replace it every couple of years.

Your 'pint of beer' analogy would only work if people were charged for each service. £20 for a quick visit from the CO, £2 a go to take out a library book, £2000 a year if you want your children to go to school, £1.20 per kg of rubbish in the bin, 50p a week if you look at the flowers planted in the middle of the roundabout. £30 for a visit from the police, with an extra £30 an hour for any investigations. It is not hard to see the consequences of a policy like this.

 

[Feltwell]

Oops - double posted, so this one deleted.

 

[Feltwell]

Paying for local government services will always be controversial. I don't agree that everyone should pay a flat fee, but I also believe it's inherently unfair to base it purely on the value of property.

If we're into personal consumption being the metric by which we should be charged - how would that work? Is the major single area of expenditure for most local authorities not Social Services? So are we proposing that the old lady who is managing to live in her own home despite failing health should have to pay directly for true cost of her home help? Or that the parents of the severely disabled child should pay the true cost of respite care?

I am a very "light" user of local authority services, and whilst I'm not rich I do earn above the norm. I don't have any problem with contributing above what I receive back. One day it may be me who needs the home help.

 

[Flyfisher]

FF - You want equality of opportunity for children, but don't think the government should spend any money to achieve this? How will it happen? The minimum wage was a start, but how else can you get round the inequality of opportunity caused when one set of parents earns two or three times as much as another?

Grammar schools selecting for bright/committed pupils irrespective of parental income might be a start. I'd bet it would bring an awful lot of privately-schooled children back into the state system - although that might not be good for the budget of course.

Abolition of university fees and re-instatement of grants so that children from poorer/uncommitted families can benefit from higher education? - something I benefitted from and would be happy to see my taxes paying for, as an investment for the future of the country.

you may not have children in state education, but we all reap the benefits of a well educated workforce and population.
Does the same argument apply to health? Should we want everyone to be equally healthy, but not penalise those who are fit by spending their taxes on treating the sick?

So why make it more difficult for children from poor backgrounds to go to university?
The health argument is rather different as it's an insurance-type scheme; one of those things I'm more than happy to pay for but hope to never require, like any insurance really.

How does demonising parents who do not take responsibility for their child's education help? Do you think they care what middle-class Tory voters think about them? Splashing them across the Daily Mail might make some people happy but will not change anything.

You don't think social pressures can influence behaviour? Not overnight, I agree, but over time it most certainly can. Drink-driving? Smoking? My basic point was that there seems to be little shame in being a bad parent. Parents should care about their children and what they get up to. Of course there will always be bad parents whatever we do but when was the last time anyone heard a politician slating irresponsible parents and holding them responsible for their children? I'm sure many of us are old enough to recount being terrified of our parents being told if we had misbehaved at school because we were more frightened of what our parents would say or do than we were of the teachers. I certainly was. My sister-in-law left her London school after she found that many of her pupils's parents were more abusive towards her than the kids themselves if she told off their little darlings for bad and disruptive behaviour. After her own two children had been mugged for their mobile phones by gangs of 12/13 year-olds, she finally gave in and went to live in Spain and now teaches in an English private school out there. OK, not a representative sample, but I suspect we can all detect a trend in such things.

Poor parenting is not solely the preserve of the poor however.

Agreed.

We would have to demonise those who think that parenting stops at writing the cheque for termly fees as well.

Fine by me.

I don't think that per head assessment is any more reliable than using house size as an indicator of consumption of public services. Neither are reliable. Your two pensioners may be receiving meals on wheels. The amout of rubbish put out is likely to depend more on income and spending habits.

So what if they do receive such a benefit? That just makes it even more unfair to base their council tax on the size of their house. I agree (broadly) that amount of rubbish put out can depend on spending habits, but that's still not particularly relevant to how to assess what a fair payment for the collection should be is it? So, Mr Frugal who spends all his spare money on paying a large mortgage on a big house and grows most of his own fruit and veg in his nice garden will have to pay a lot more coucil tax than Mr Spendthrift in a small flat who overflows his bin with ready-made meal packaging and takes three foreign holidays a year. I can't believe anyone can really think that property-based taxes for local services can possibly be fair, although I can understand why many support them.

Your 'pint of beer' analogy would only work if people were charged for each service. £20 for a quick visit from the CO, £2 a go to take out a library book, £2000 a year if you want your children to go to school, £1.20 per kg of rubbish in the bin, 50p a week if you look at the flowers planted in the middle of the roundabout. £30 for a visit from the police, with an extra £30 an hour for any investigations. It is not hard to see the consequences of a policy like this.

Well we'd better brace ourselves for such consequences then (whatever they may be) because I've read of various such examples being proposed: microchipped wheely-bins to weigh rubbish, a flat-fee to visit your doctor (something dentistry has long used), road pricing . . .

The £2000 for a school place is something of an underestimate though; £5100 would seem to be nearer the mark: http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6017340

 

[Flyfisher]

Paying for local government services will always be controversial. I don't agree that everyone should pay a flat fee, but I also believe it's inherently unfair to base it purely on the value of property.

Agreed. At least a local income tax would bring the 'ability to pay' into the equation.

If we're into personal consumption being the metric by which we should be charged - how would that work? Is the major single area of expenditure for most local authorities not Social Services? So are we proposing that the old lady who is managing to live in her own home despite failing health should have to pay directly for true cost of her home help? Or that the parents of the severely disabled child should pay the true cost of respite care?

I'm not proposing individual personal consumption as a basis for determining 'council tax'. Those very salient examples are things that I'm sure everyone is willing to contribute towards, while hoping never to require such services themselves. I just think it would be fair for such costs to be spread evenly across the relevant population rather than be skewed on the basis of the value of the property you happen to live in, because such a thing is not a good indicator of one's ability to pay. Failing that, a local income tax would seem to be the next best thing because of the inherent linkage to an ability to pay.

 

[Nigel Watts]

"He’s at ease with his poshness in a way that Cameron isn’t, possibly because he went to Westminster rather than Eton and has been coached on how to turn the volume down on his patrician heritage from the age of 13.

He has other natural advantages, too. He’s better-looking than either Cameron or Brown, taller and with squarer shoulders. He uses his sex appeal well, tilting his head down slightly and looking up at the audience through those Bambi eyelashes, Princess Di-style. Both Alrene Phillips and Gurinder Chadha [in whose company the author was watching the debate] were engaged at a primordial, sexual level, in spite of having voted Labour in the last election, and I’m not surprised that Cleggover polls so well with women. He cuts through and connects with the audience in a way that the other two don’t. His performance reminded me of that old Hollywood adage: The most important thing in life is sincerity. When you can fake that, you’ve got it made."

Toby Young on Clegg. Explains a lot about my wife's current infatuation with the Liberals. "I watched to debate to find out more about the parties' policies" she told me limply. Likely story.

 

[Flyfisher]

:roll:
George Clooney for Prime Minister then?

 

[LadyArowana]

:roll:
George Clooney for Prime Minister then?

Excellent plan!

 

[Flyfisher]

Basic incompetence, honest mistake or blatent lies? - you decide: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/nickrobinson/2010/04/how_not_to_save.html

As for the proposed savings to be had by administering child benefit via the internet, our CB has been paid directly into our bank account ever since it started. It's hard to see how such a system has a high administrative overhead that could yield significant savings. Hmm.

 

[biffvernon]

I think...

Eh up. Somebody's been at the Daily Mail again.

 

[Penners]

It was my impression that the Daily Mail exists to do the readers' thinking for them.

 

[d49xc]

The snag with a local income tax for local services is that in "rich areas" such as the home counties with high average incomes the amount raised would be very high and consequently either the services very good or alternative the tax rate could be lowered.
Converely in "poor areas" with low incomes the tax raised would be low or to raise the same total amount per head of local population you would need to raise the tax rate.
But its the poor areas that need the most local support/services.

So we end up with a scenario that the richer areas (where in general there will be less reliance on the various services HMG supply) will be paying peanuts while the poor areas will be stuffed with ever higher rates of local tax to support the larger numbers requiring HMG services.

So for instance if the local tax rate was 2% in Berkshire and 8% in Northumberland this is going to means everyone wants to live in Berkshire, pushing up house prices etc. Taken to its logical endpoint we have Berkshire in my example as a mega enclave for the ultra-rich, all paying the 0.00001% local income tax.......

 

[middi]

No balanced Person can argue with with the sanity of your argument D49xc. The thing that has been fashinating me is the " D49 xc", it sounds like an operational code for a government spy ( at it's best) or a new model that volvo cars has in the pipeline ( at it's worst). :wink:

 

[middi]

No balanced Person can argue with with the sanity of your argument D49xc. The thing that has been fashinating me is the " D49 xc", it sounds like an operational code for a government spy ( at it's best) or a new model that volvo cars has in the pipeline ( at it's worst). :wink:

Please offer a clarification, I would sleep easier :wink:

 

[FamilyWiggs]

An idiot's* guide to the Election:

*on account of the fact that it directs you to the Liberals !!

 

[Flyfisher]

Fair point about the possible impact of a local income tax giving rise to pressures on people to move to different areas. However, there are already significant regional effects on house prices and incomes with higher rates being centred around London and the south east and the country seems to accept, or at least cope with this.

But the argument that 'rich' local authorities would benefit from lower local tax rates can also be applied to the existing council tax because authorities with higher-than-average house prices (e.g. berkshire?) will have a higher proportion of upper-band houses in their areas, meaning that the 'average band' will be higher, so the local authority will be able to set lower amounts per band to collect their required revenues than a 'poor' local authority with a much lower 'average band'.

Perhaps another alternative would be to simply scrap council tax/local income tax altogether and fully-fund local authority expenditure from central government? This would not be such a big step really since council tax only provides for about 25% of LA budgets anyway, the remainder coming from local government and business rates. The result would be that service provision costs would be more fairly averaged over the entire population, thus eliminating regional variations as d49xc described, while also being fully related to 'ability to pay' by virtue of being paid from income tax.

 

[DaveBrigg]

Abolition of university fees and re-instatement of grants so that children from poorer/uncommitted families can benefit from higher education? - something I benefitted from and would be happy to see my taxes paying for, as an investment for the future of the country.

The EMA, a means tested grant to help students complete A levels, has been identified by Cameron as something he would no longer fund. He will also cut Sure Start, a scheme to help struggling parents of pre-school children. Grammar schools, would only benefit children who were already doing well, or whose parents can afford a tutor to coach them through the entrance exam.

Thanks for the more accurate figure for education cost per pupil.
If you are really against the council tax, why not blame those who introduced it. It was a response to the failed poll tax, devised by Norman Lamont. His adviser at the time? David Cameron. Labour could be blamed for not changing it, but maybe Blair felt that after three different systems in four years, it was better not to cause even more chaos.

A good summary of the Daily Mail here
http://www.dananddan.com/?p=68

Basic incompetence, honest mistake or blatent lies? - you decide

I think it sounds quite accurate "the difference you know, between us and the Conservatives is very clear, that they are going to put policing at risk and they're going to put schools at risk and they're going to put the guarantees we are giving to the Health Service at risk" I noted in the chancellor's debate that Osborne thought that the interest on govt debt would exceed the money spent on schools. He forgot that there are schools in Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland too, and forgot to include the money spent on capital projects, such as Building Schools for the Future.

The Tory panic over Libdem popularity has been amusing. They are 'idiots'; Clegg is only popular because women find him attractive; he is just as posh as Cameron, though he didn't go to such a good school; vote Libdem and the bogeyman will stay in power. It reinforces Clegg's statement early in the campaign that David Cameron thought he would take over as of right, because it was his turn. I'm just waiting to hear Cameron say 'It's not fair, I was here first'.

Given that Libdem funding is less than a quarter of the Tory's (and their total campaign budget is exceeded by Lord Ashcroft's donations from Belize), and the press have openly admitted that the Libdems were blacked out of the news, it seems that the leadership debates have brought us a little closer to true democracy.

 

[Nigel Watts]

Clegg is only popular because women find him attractive; he is just as posh as Cameron, though he didn't go to such a good school

Outrageous spin! Westminster not as good as Eton? League tables consistently put Westminster on top and two thirds of all Westminster pupils get in to Oxford or Cambridge - a much higher proportion than Eton.

Most interesting that Cleggy has now ruled out a coalition with Labour, yet he has said that electoral reform is a deal breaker. Can't see the Tories agreeing to PR in the event of a hung parliament or getting away with kicking the issue into long grass as Blair did by setting up a commission whose results he had no intention of taking any notice off.

 

[FamilyWiggs]

Nigel,

I'm not sure he did rule out Labour, just Gordon Brown as PM. He chose his words very carefully. I can see a situation where he thinks if he is 2nd in votes but 3rd in seats that he would have moral authority to be PM in a LibLab coalition. Such is the madness and grubbiness of post-election coalition stitch-ups.

If Cameron doesn't get a majority (which I still think is just about the likely outcome next Thursday) but is 1st in votes and seats, then he will most likely govern as a minority - on the basis that:

a) we need a government focussed on the economy and difficult decisions, rather than on short-term electoral advantage.

b) the other 2 parties will not vote him down for at least a year and probably two, because they can't afford another quick election (no money), and do not want to be blamed for creating market uncertainties;

c) he doesn't want to give the Libs PR. If pushed however, he may give them a Commission (a la Blair!) or some limited change but not full PR - probably the House of Lords reform first.

I'm now thinking we'll see a result around 37/28/26 with a real chance that Labour will start to go into freefall when their core vote realise they've lost badly. The polls are not a million miles away from that type of result now. Whatever the result is, Brown is very very unlikely to be PM in 10 days time .

 

[FamilyWiggs]

Of course, a really smart move for Cameron after the election will be to offer the Libs a seat or two in a minority cabinet (say Environment and Trade) but without any formal coalition deal.

Clegg would have to refuse, but will then blow apart his image of "working together".