I agree. But the SNP can't be seen to facilitate Tory rule, or they will lose a lot of the voters who have switched from Labour (who have done so due to SNP assurances that voting for them can still keep the Tories out). The ideal for them is to back Labour publicly and end up with a Tory government due to Labour doing badly in England (at the moment, in the polls, Labour have recovered well in England). Then they can mount huge pressure for another Indy ref.
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Politics, politics, politics
- Thread starter markysimmo
- Start date
I agree. But the SNP can't be seen to facilitate Tory rule, or they will lose a lot of the voters who have switched from Labour (who have done so due to SNP assurances that voting for them can still keep the Tories out). The ideal for them is to back Labour publicly and end up with a Tory government due to Labour doing badly in England (at the moment, in the polls, Labour have recovered well in England). Then they can mount huge pressure for another Indy ref.
Makes no sense for him to go on the attack.
There's little difference between a Labour vote and an SNP vote - the outcome is the same. She can, however, make him look very foolish in England where the alternative to a Labour vote will often be a Conservative one.
Out if interest, what did he say?
It will only make a difference it Labour gained enough voters back in Scotland so that they had a shot at winning the most seats and being the largest party after the election. Annnnd.........it gives the electorate in England the picture that Labour are against the SNP and not in their pocket (which is a Tory line of attack). Seems like a risk to me. Makes the 'challengers' debate more interesting now though.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics...-allegations-damning-labour-snp-david-cameron
But Miliband told Sky News on Saturday: “I think these are damning revelations. What it shows is that while in public the SNP are saying they don’t want to see a Conservative government, in private they are actually saying they do want a Conservative government. It shows that the answer at this general election is if you want the Conservatives out, the only answer is to vote Labour for a Labour government.”
Baleforce
Arthur Rowe
IF he has and IF this is an act of politic by the Tory's it could well be a genius move that dilutes them both
I'm not sure real world politicians are that clever though
If the Conservatives were even half that clever this election would be sewn up by now.
thfcsteff
George Hunt
I think it's a stitch-up.
I have little doubt that she did pass some sort of private comment about Miliband 'not being PM material' because let's face it, he's a tough sell for the big chair, but that does not necessarily mean that she would prefer a Conservative government! yes, you can come to that conclusion, I think she might simply have been expressing an opinion on Miliband himself. That the Torygraph 'broke' this should not be ignored. The spin all over is going be be flying around in the coming weeks.
Agreed. They'll all be walking the tight-rope of throwing brick at each-other, whilst trying to look above it all and statesman like.
So, Labour will scrap non-dom taxt status: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/07/ed-miliband-non-dom-tax-status-labour
I support that policy, I think a lot of other voters will too, even across party lines.
From the article:
There has also been some opposition in Conservative circles, with hostility from Richard Bacon, the senior Conservative on the Commons spending watchdog, the public accounts committee.
Bacon, at a hearing of the committee last month, complained abut the non-dom system to the head of Her Majesty’s Revenue and and Customs, Edward Troup, saying under both Tory and Labour governments “you can easily spend 80% to 100% of your time in the UK because you are resident here, and be a non-dom for tax purposes.
“No wonder people are tinkled off. It’s extraordinary, frankly, in all honesty. You are surprised that people think there is one set of rules for rich people and another set of rules for other people, when you have just told us exactly that is what there is.”
Well said that Tory.
I support that policy, I think a lot of other voters will too, even across party lines.
From the article:
There has also been some opposition in Conservative circles, with hostility from Richard Bacon, the senior Conservative on the Commons spending watchdog, the public accounts committee.
Bacon, at a hearing of the committee last month, complained abut the non-dom system to the head of Her Majesty’s Revenue and and Customs, Edward Troup, saying under both Tory and Labour governments “you can easily spend 80% to 100% of your time in the UK because you are resident here, and be a non-dom for tax purposes.
“No wonder people are tinkled off. It’s extraordinary, frankly, in all honesty. You are surprised that people think there is one set of rules for rich people and another set of rules for other people, when you have just told us exactly that is what there is.”
Well said that Tory.
Why should our exchequer be able ot get his grubby mitts on earnings made and kept overseas?
The way Milibland has talked about the issue of non-doms (specifically aimed at those who don't understand it) he makes it sound as if they're not paying tax on their UK earnings - they are. He has outright lied to the public. His words were that they "aren’t required to pay taxes like you and me" - they are. They are paying UK tax rates on all of their UK earnings and all foreign earnings remitted to the UK - that's how the tax system would work if we were setting it up from scratch now.
There's no moral, legal or technical reason why if I started up a Swedish company tomorrow and paid my tax on the earnings there in Sweden, then left those earnings there (or spent them there) I should then pay Balls and his merry band of thieves a percentage of those earnings.
Also, if you want to see a real world example of how Labour's politics of jealousy will work - just look at the tax take when the top rate was increased:
http://nondom.com/hmrc-foi-2010-11
So a number of non-doms moved overseas, the overall take was roughly the same but from fewer non-doms. So that means fewer rich people spending their money here, fewer rich people employing others here, etc. Overall the increase in tax rate would have been loss-making for the treasury when focussing on non-doms. That same group of people will simply do the same again if their taxes are unfairly hiked and the government will lose out on all the benefits they bring.
Edit:
One other effect that I failed to mention is that the rich people who are still here spending money have less to spend than they would have before. It's lose all round for the treasury.
http://nondom.com/hmrc-foi-2010-11
So a number of non-doms moved overseas, the overall take was roughly the same but from fewer non-doms. So that means fewer rich people spending their money here, fewer rich people employing others here, etc. Overall the increase in tax rate would have been loss-making for the treasury when focussing on non-doms. That same group of people will simply do the same again if their taxes are unfairly hiked and the government will lose out on all the benefits they bring.
Edit:
One other effect that I failed to mention is that the rich people who are still here spending money have less to spend than they would have before. It's lose all round for the treasury.
Last edited:
Ask the Tory politician I quoted from the article. He might be on twitter.
This is a good example of why Ed Milliband is a bad party leader, let alone being a bad PM. His politics is one of 'what do I do to get Ed elected', its all sound-bites and spin. It's all populist, agenda-driven c**p.
I'd like someone to pull him up on zero-hours contracts too.
Zero-hours contracts, as they have recently become known, have been around for decades. They're a vital source of income for a lot of people.
For example, at my work we have a supplier, whose business model involves a central core of office-based admin staff who administer and pass jobs to a network of 'contracted' PI's. Each of these PI's are just that, private investigators, who have their own businesses. The contract with this hub-company, is just a regular source of work, in addition to their main lines of direct business.
So Red Ed says that zero-hour contracts are going to be banned under a Labour government. This will force operations like the above, that have been successfully trading and providing work for people for years, to remodel, probably with a small group of 'employed' investigators. They will stop handing out jobs to a large network of PI's.
So all the self-employed PI's part of the network will lose a regular and profitable source of income.
Red Ed doesn't seem to realise that a lot of companies that use these contracts use them as they are unable to justify employing someone on full-time or part-time contracts.
Yes, there has been a rise in zero-hour contracts in the last few years, but we've been coming out of one of the worst recessions of modern times, there has also been an increase in full time and part time contracts, in all types of employment!
It is not a major issue! It is a populist issue, one of PERCEPTION, if you want to spin it that way, but to have it as one of your main policies, just says to me that you have no real ideas as to how you'd run the country any better, you just have a tonne of knee-jerk poorly thought-out sound-bites that you're feeding to people who you think will buy it.
Whatever you thought of the last Labour government, at least Blair, Brown and co. seemed to have a genuine vision for the country that you could buy into.
I can't imagine he knows much about non-doms either based on his publicised opinions.
Gilzeantoscore
Justin Edinburgh
Zero-hour contracts are just another method that employers utilise to exploit workers. The ever increasing casualization of the work force is another example of how neo-liberalism is undermining basic working conditions for workers, particularly the most vulnerable. It's straight out of the Tea Party play book. Great if you want a society where many are part of the working poor. Where many have to work up to three jobs, just to survive. This is not the society I want. The other crazy thing that the Kool Aid drinkers forget, is that cutting wages, reducing conditions and encouraging casualization reduces consumer confidence and DEMAND, which has a NEGATIVE impact on the economy.
This issue, (reduced demand) was avoided by business in an ingenious way, back in the 80's. Underpaid workers lacked discretionary spending power, so credit was made easier to access. This way, they can be paid a pittance, demand is maintained, charge them exorbitant interest and because they're in debt it makes them passive. However, you can only stretch an elastic band so far...eventually it snaps. Still the only answer right wingers have, is the to race to the bottom. Then they have the audacity to argue it's in every one's interest. What a laugh! I'd have much more respect for them and their views, if they were honest and just admitted, our economic policies are designed to benefit the top 10%. They believe in the trickle down effect, they believe in the 'invisible hand', so why don't they argue that to the people in an election? They don't because it's a fraud and every one knows it.
This issue, (reduced demand) was avoided by business in an ingenious way, back in the 80's. Underpaid workers lacked discretionary spending power, so credit was made easier to access. This way, they can be paid a pittance, demand is maintained, charge them exorbitant interest and because they're in debt it makes them passive. However, you can only stretch an elastic band so far...eventually it snaps. Still the only answer right wingers have, is the to race to the bottom. Then they have the audacity to argue it's in every one's interest. What a laugh! I'd have much more respect for them and their views, if they were honest and just admitted, our economic policies are designed to benefit the top 10%. They believe in the trickle down effect, they believe in the 'invisible hand', so why don't they argue that to the people in an election? They don't because it's a fraud and every one knows it.
Now, why would a former Labour party member and lifelong Labour voter (am I remembering this correctly?) refer to Miliband as 'Red Ed' in the derogatory sense? Either the strangest member of the Labour party there's ever been, or someone here is full of sh1t.
Right...
Because Milibland's a red qunt?
parklane1
Tony Galvin
Sounds like he is just the same as the other party leaders.
See, that makes sense coming from you, I know your politics. It doesn't make sense coming from someone who was once a member of the Labour party.
"Yeah, I left the Labour party because the current leader is a bit more left-wing than Blair" -- is something said by nobody, ever.
I just felt the need to point out this Walter Mitty bullsh1t, as I have wasted a small amount of time debating this poster. I won't make that mistake again.
You're another (one of many) trapped in the anger and righteousness that has turned off many to British politics. There are no "right-wingers" or "left-wingers". Why do people have to be placed in a pigeon-hole?
Why do zero-hours contracts (why are they called that these days? Rather than flexible contracts or contracted positions or what they were called before), represent some kind of right-wing Tory plot to keep the poor, poor and the rich, rich?
Kool Aid drinkers? That sums it up.
Like everything, as per my original post, it isn't black and white. Your politics is agenda-driven and seeking to paint an us versus them, light versus dark etc. Zero hours contracts can be exploited, but so can ANY contract. You could employ someone on a full-time permanent contract, with sh** terms and actually, even less freedom than on a 'zero hours' contract. Remember, that nobody is forced to enter into a zero hours contract, or any contract.
Do you believe that if zero-hours contracts are banned, that the people employed under them will suddenly have permanent or part-times jobs? No, likely they will go from a zero-hours contract to zero contract. Employers use zero-hours contracts for flexible support when they do not have capacity to employ a permanent full-time or part-time member of staff. They also use them to employ casual self-employed networks. My example was of the private investigator networks, but it also applies to casual consultancy work and all sorts of working relationships.
Often, these work streams are vital for self-employed individuals, small businesses and sole traders. If you're a self-employed window cleaner, free-lance, to sign a zero-hours contract with a large office block to clean their windows, as and when they need it (with no guaranteed hours) is a vital revenue stream. Do you think that if such contracts are out-lawed that said firm is going to employ said window cleaner in any capacity? No, they'd just move to a casual relationship with a large cleaning supplier, in all likelihood.
Rather than review employment law, tribunals and other methods of policing employment in order make sure ALL forms of employment are fair for workers (rather than just one type of contract), Milliband, supported by the likes of you, seek to demonise, rule out and ban outright a vital part of our business infrastructure and means of life and support for many. Surely this is wrong? The consequences for many aren't thought out.
The rich aren't in my opinion out to exploit. Some are, of course, but most are just normal people that happen to have money, a lot of them are very driven and hard-working individuals, who started at the bottom and know what it is like.
Things aren't black and white, the rich aren't all evil, exploitative fat-cats. Banks aren't all bad. Bankers aren't all money-hungry monsters with no morals. The poor aren't all poorly educated or stupid, ripe for exploitation, etc, etc.