We are all in this together

[Aleman]

If we had a proper coalition where they actually had to agree, Quite frankly whoever sees the Lib Dems as a check to the Tories needs to remove the blinkers . . . The whole idea of following the party whip is ludicrous too, back benchers are there to challenge the front bench, and vote against them if their constituencies feel that way, and we are certainly already past the third term Maggie stage.

First year tories were in our local council made 20 Million pounds worth of cuts (400 Jobs)
Sencond Year They made 15 Million Pounds worth
Third Year they were told 8 Million . . . . But The chancellor changed their minds . . . Its 18 million
Next year it will be required to make 24 million pounds worth

From an organisation where 40% of the costs are staff related . . .and the remaining 60% is really devoted to Essential Services . . . Like Child Protection (funds ring fenced as it needs improvement), Adult Social Care (Well where do they go when the NHS hasn't funds for them?), Rubbish Collection (down to fortnightly at the moment . . . lets make it monthly shall we), Education, Planning, Registrars, Road Maintenance, Sea Defences

 

[Dave1970]

3 - I don't think this would help us be any more sure who's here. This would involve everyone on the Electoral Register having to vote, it wouldn't make those who want to remain 'under the radar' any more likely to register

4 - Yeah conflicts of interest are a massive issue and I'd agree I think they lead to lots of 'almost corruption' that's not quite against the rules.

6. that's 'cos we're crap at coalitions. The LD's were IMO naive going into this coalition. To take the example of tuition fees that should have been a line in the sand for the LD's and they have been seriously damaged by the mistake. A compromise position should have been reached not just going with the Tory policy. The obvious compromise would have been that they stayed at the £3k they were at rather than increasing to £9k. This would have been between the positions of the 2 coalition members.

 

[johnnyboy1965]

Once again...excellent debate...I really like listening to other peoples POV.
1, Is the voting system wrong, what would be fairer/more representive of the electorate.
2, Do you believe in your elected MP...does he/she represent your thoughts?
3, would you back a non elected MP of your contituancy (sp) I aint even going to try and spell that word, even though your chosen candidate didn't win the vote

 

[johnnyboy1965]

Aleman....As you have stated ...this is Local Government, not "Government"

 

[BarnsleyBrewer]

VOTE LABOUR!!!!!!! Nuff Said....

BB

 

[calumscott]

VOTE LABOUR!!!!!!! Nuff Said....

BB

Why?

 

[johnnyboy1965]

VOTE LABOUR!!!!!!! Nuff Said....

BB

And what would a Labour Government do for the country?
If you are having a political debate...you cant just say "Vote XXXX...Nuff said" it doesn't mean anytihink.....

 

[Dave1970]

1, Is the voting system wrong, what would be fairer/more representive of the electorate.
I'd say PR is definitely fairer - it does bring some disadvantages in exchange for that fairness - as you imply in point 3 it might mean an MP representing a constituency that didn't actually represent the proportion of the vote in that constituency.
2, Do you believe in your elected MP...does he/she represent your thoughts?
No even one tiny little bit. Edward Garnier QC is an old school privileged background Tory, son of a colonel and an aristocrat, public school educated, the sort of politician we have far too many of. Saying that I've e-mailed him on an issue relating to work and he was prompt, supportive and did something about it that helped - so I'm grudgingly forced to say he does a decent job as a local MP.
3, would you back a non elected MP of your contituancy (sp) I aint even going to try and spell that word, even though your chosen candidate didn't win the vote
Not non-elected but I would one elected under PR that might not represent the vote within the constituency. It wouldn't be any different to my situation with Mr Garnier, I don't agree with him on much but he's my MP and based on limited experience he seems to be good enough at that. Even with his big majority he still only got 49% of the vote so most MP's are representing a majority of constituents who don't agree with them anyway.

Given all this I'd be in favour of a PR system. Possibly with a % threshold below which you don't get any MP's. For example I have no urge to see BNP MP's, much less be the unlucky constituency that gets one representing them. This would help to avoid minority parties gaining undue influence should they happen to hold the balance of power.

 

[Jeltz]

And what would a Labour Government do to the country?

Fixed that for you

 

[johnnyboy1965]

So, I think that you all must agree...Every elected Government is wrong..So what would your policies be...
Please dont forget that this is a non political/sexist/racist website, so state your policies and your reasons, without being offensive.

Ill start...Stop all foreign aid...we just cant afford it

 

[johnnyboy1965]

And what would a Labour Government do to the country?

Fixed that for you

Ill think, yule find, I was correct in my grammer

 

[Dave1970]

reverse this trend (or at least the post 1979 part of it)

EDIT: that's an answer to the policy question, not the What would a Labour govt do question - the trend from 1997 suggests that a Labour government no longer does anything about this

 

[Jeltz]

If you distribute the income more "fairly" you reduce the number of people paying top rate tax and give those paying lower rate tax more, that sounds fair doesn't it.

However the net result is that the tax income to the country reduces and there isn't enough money in the pot to support those who can not earn, as I think I may have said previously 30% of all income tax collected is paid by the top 1% of earners.

 

[Dave1970]

true up to a point Jeltz but income tax only represents 29% of government revenue, the 2 next biggest contributors are National Insurance and VAT (34% in total) and middle & lower earners pay much more of these (as a proportion of income). Middle & lower earners tend to spend a much higher % of what they earn so they pay more VAT as a proportion of income. NI is paid at only 2% on earnings above £41450 so again the wealthy pay less as a proportion.
Putting an increasing % of wealth into the hands of the top 1% tends to lock the money away in investments, expensive properties, offshore funds. Putting more in the hands of the many gets money moving around the economy helping everyone, aiding economic recovery and often allowing the government to raise more taxation every time the money changes hands

 

[Jeltz]

NI is a tax to fund the areas that the wealthy are least likely to avail themselves of. They save the country a fortune by using private health and education.

VAT is a tax on spending so its related to outgoings not income so to compare it as a proportion of income isn't wrong as those that save some of their income rather than spend it all will always pay less as a proportion and those that spend money on credit which they don't have will also pay more. I do think there should be a shake up of VAT though as its not supposed to be charged on necessities but it is. For example clothes, last time checked if you tried to walk down the street without any you'd be arrested. There is scope to have a sliding scale for VAT with an entry rate for fuel, cloths and other things which people do need, a higher rate for consumer goods, and a top rate for true luxury items, indeed I think that certain brands would see qualifying for the highest rate of VAT as a mark of exclusivity.

 

[Aleman]

Aleman....As you have stated ...this is Local Government, not "Government"

Yes, in support of my statement that this government is no different to Maggies third term . . .They decimated the NHS and Local Government then . . . and they are doing the same now! . . . In fact they have changed the law(s) so they can do just that

 

[Dave1970]

NI is a tax to fund the areas that the wealthy are least likely to avail themselves of. They save the country a fortune by using private health and education.

VAT is a tax on spending so its related to outgoings not income so to compare it as a proportion of income isn't wrong as those that save some of their income rather than spend it all will always pay less as a proportion and those that spend money on credit which they don't have will also pay more. I do think there should be a shake up of VAT though as its not supposed to be charged on necessities but it is. For example clothes, last time checked if you tried to walk down the street without any you'd be arrested. There is scope to have a sliding scale for VAT with an entry rate for fuel, cloths and other things which people do need, a higher rate for consumer goods, and a top rate for true luxury items, indeed I think that certain brands would see qualifying for the highest rate of VAT as a mark of exclusivity.

All true, I was just pointing out that when newspapers have headlines about the very rich paying a high % they don't point out that they mean a high % of income tax, which is only one source of revenue. I understand why NI has a low top rate, and I agree about the idea of variable VAT. What I was pointing out was that whilst sharing wealth more evenly may mean a fall in income tax revenue it doesn't mean a fall in total revenue. There are so many variables..for example how much would the welfare budget fall by if wealth was more evenly spread?

We also come out as one of the more unequal countries in the OECD

Aleman, sadly I fear that this government is much more radical than the Thatcher government. Changes are deeper and are being deliberately planned to make them irreversable. What's worse is it's all happening under the "we're all in this together" banner...at least Thatcher admitted she was all about ideology and didn't hide her ideological changes behind an excuse. God help the public sector if they win a second term.

 

[BarnsleyBrewer]

Tory *******s looking after their own, just like it was 30 years ago.....
I work full time on a decent wage but find it disgusting that people who are helpless are being forced out of their houses of 20, 30 or 40 years because they've a spare bedroom.....

Cameron and his rich silver spooned cronies make my fecking blood boil.... *******S!!

And as for Labour I agree that we were overspending and living above our means as a country........

Lib-dems

No comment........

BB

 

[graysalchemy]

Tony Blair and Gordon Brown F*cked things up for me big time as well b*stards, but surely what ever side of the fence you sit on it is the system which is wrong for allowing them to make such mistakes and get away with it unchecked, just as the tories past and present have and are getting away with things.

We haven't got a 'Broken Britain' we have got a Well and Truly F*cked up Westminster, which as usual passes the buck onto the people it serves instead of holding their collective hands up.

 

[Jeltz]

Tory *******s looking after their own, just like it was 30 years ago.....
I work full time on a decent wage but find it disgusting that people who are helpless are being forced out of their houses of 20, 30 or 40 years because they've a spare bedroom.....

Cameron and his rich silver spooned cronies make my fecking blood boil.... *******S!!

And as for Labour I agree that we were overspending and living above our means as a country........

Lib-dems

No comment........

BB

Well the problem with the under occupancy issue is that the country hasn't got the money to build new houses, so there are people in houses bigger than they need while we have families in B&B's sharing 1 room. The whole bedroom tax thing is being used as a big stick to beat the government but the voices of people forced to live in cramped accommodation who need that extra space are being ignored. I think that the the local authority should have to find alternative accommodation for these people for the reduction in benefits to take force but the surely it must be right that if you are receiving benefits they should cover what you need not what would be nice. The Governments money is our money so when people want more benefits than they actually need you, me, and all other workers are paying for them to have that, is that fair?

The current economic mess is because when the economy was doing well, in a sustained period of growth, the last government kept over spending (i.e. spending more than they had in in tax) running the national debt up more and more. Now when times are good you should be not only be able to balance the books but also pay off some of the debt that was previously run up.

The issue with the banks was not only foreseeable but warned about by the then Governor of the Bank of England , Mervyn King, but the government chose to ignore those warnings. Blair knew it was all going to go **** up which is why he left while he did, leaving Brown to carry the can. Since he had been chancellor you could say his chickens came home to roost. Now I don't think that in his own mind Brown thought he was recklessly spending; he kept stating that their government had put an end to boom and bust, he repeated the claim over and over. Had that actually been true then it would have been fine to put into place the kind of society they did then pay for it later, however its an exceptionally arrogant thing to say as in a global economy there are too many factors at play which no one country had control over.

The way that the banks create money in the financial system through lending was fuelling the growth and the way they were funding their lending and guaranteeing each others debts is a variation on a well established method that groups of companies use to guarantee each other's liabilities. When companies do this, lenders know that more often than not its a tool used by clever accountants to make things look better than they really are. I started off my working life in a business section of a high street bank and one of the things I had to do was try and unravel these and see what was really going on. Now if I know about these then the regulators do too, so IMO what the banks were doing was deliberately misrepresenting the true situation, I'm sure that the regulators knew that there were problems but chose to ignore them and the government must have known. If they did then its their fault for standing by and riding the wave, if they didn't know then they were incompetent, either way they were the train driver when the economy derailed. OK so we weren't the only country to be doing this but as my old mum used to say if your friend walked in front of a bus would you?

So now that Blair and Brown have gone and Milliband and Balls are at the helm they are choosing to distance themselves from the last administration but the fact is they were both part of it.

Things are going better for us than the rest of Europe (our main trading partners) so what we are doing is working but there is a long way to go to repair the damage caused by the way the economy was run up to 2008. Ultimately we could never afford the society we were being offered when times were good and they were built on a house of cards not a firm foundation anyway. Cameron and all may be rich posh boys but that doesn't change the fact that Labour screwed up the economy just as they did in the late 1970's and its ten the historic role of the Tories to come in clear up the mess and start building things up again.