ringo
Tim Sherwood
Clegg sold out for a nice car and fancy job title. The price was a few years as the Tories' whipping boy, and a generation in the political wilderness for the LibDems.
-
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
Clegg sold out for a nice car and fancy job title. The price was a few years as the Tories' whipping boy, and a generation in the political wilderness for the LibDems.
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
I can see that, wouldnt argue against. I agree he would most likely at least try to implement his manifesto (of course how well that goes is another thing!)
Do you really think the policies are achievable, and if they do come in - would be worth it?
I suspect ultimately this is where we would have a difference in opinion.
I can completely appreciate that. I dont see in Corbyn/Labour what you do, but I certainly long for a party that I can actively support/vote for because they represent something I think is right - rather than the usual "least worst" voting Ive had to make.
I suspect its not, I just think it should be. And Id suggest the wind is blowing that way, itll just likely take time before its far enough along to be meaningful.
ringo
Tim Sherwood
Possibly one of the most disappointing periods of politics I have experienced. The hope of sensibly fettered capitalism dashed by the reality of a group of LibDems who were either hopeless at politics, dazzled by the prospect of power, or complicit in what followed -or maybe all three. I think I gave up on politics at that point.
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
Its the generation in the wilderness bit that seems wrong to me.
Ideologically at least, practically it seems to be the case.
Im a firm believer in taking things as presented, rather than with too much pre existing bias.
With the calamity of the Conservative and Labour parties, we are crying out for someone to come through with clarity and vision.
If that were the Lib Dems (clearly its not) then the coalition should not impact upon that, it should be about whats going forward rather than punishment for the past.
I'd say Cameron did represent sensiibly fettered capitalism. His policies and Blair's didn't end up all that far apart.
£80k puts someone in the top 5% of earners. Labours plan was to move the threshold for the 45p rate down from 150k to 80k. I don't think it seems unfair, being in the top 5% of earners might not make someone rich, but pretty well-off and comfortable imo. It's not like the rate for them is going from 20p to 45p, it'd be going from 40p (what they currently pay) to 45p -- I can't see that sending many high-earners down the local food bank. And they'd re-introduce the 50p rate (didn't Osborne get rid of that?) for those earning above £123k.
Those changes don't seem particularly radical. Likewise their corporation tax rates are basically moving them back to what they were pre 2008, which would still be competitive amongst G20 nations.
I don't think the policy fits the hyperbole of this potential Labour government wanting to nationalise your trousers and leave everyone with a tenner a week after tax.
ringo
Tim Sherwood
I could never make my mind up about Cameron. They were definitely "wet" one nation aspects to his government, but also elements that were pushing for a more extreme libertarian limited government very free market approach. I had high hopes for a Cameron/LibDem government, but either the LibDems got badly outmaneuvered, or the Orange Book David Laws element, who were further along the free market spectrum, won out.
Unfortunately my politics is a strange mixture, with some libertarian aspects, but some social justice aspects, small state in some areas, bigger state in others. There isn't a single party that captures it. And there isn't really a centrist leaning party to vote for either.
For me, as someone who is absolutely not a rich person, that represents a large hole in my finances. I don't think it's reasonable to put so much of the cost onto hardworking people who, although not on the breadline, are a long way from wealthy.
The reduction in CT was designed to counteract the increased costs being enforced with the minimum wage. The two go hand in hand as a part of the UK being competitive internationally. If Labour were to suggest doing away with both, then that would seem like a fair (but wasteful) policy.
ringo
Tim Sherwood
The message that the LibDems stint in power sent was that they didn't actually believe in anything, but were in it purely for the sake of being in power. I'm sure that wasn't true for all of them, and no doubt they managed to influence policy in a sensible direction, but they were rubbish at PRing that, whereas the Tories were exceptionally proficient at their messaging.
They bet the bank on their belief that the electorate wanted to vote for AV. They would have agreed to sell all of their firstborn for the opportunity at being a real party that a more proportional system promised.
glasgowspur
Luka Modric
It hasn't ended to well for the last SNP leader who got into bed with an unwilling partner.
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
glasgowspur
Luka Modric
Not for that fat git it's notTo soon?!
SpurMeUp
Les Howe
It's not unfortunte. I have a similar mishmash of left and right ideals that I think could coexist. Out of curiosity what areas of the state should be larger and smaller in your opinion? Like reduced spending on on wasteful government, and increased public ownership?
Last edited:
SpurMeUp
Les Howe
Isn't this just the human condition? Whatever you had, earned, owned, you will look for the next rung. You're simply looking up greater wealth, but compare our lives to people in most other countries or people on the poverty line in the UK, and you would have to say 80k per year is a lot of money.
On tax. I don't have a problem with high taxes, I have a problem with government waste. That a lot of government revenue is used so poorely.
SpurMeUp
Les Howe
I agree with a lot of this:
The whole point of Conservatism is not to submit to the siren call of teleology: the belief that history has an implacable direction. In a crisis of this nature, the proper role of Tories should be to cut through the infantile rhetoric, robotic platitudes and Vogon insistence that “resistance is useless!”, and show true statesmanship. Instead, we see – with some outstanding exceptions – a party cravenly fetishising the 2016 referendum as if no further expression of popular opinion on Brexit were possible; behaving as if the only thing that matters is to get out of the EU by 29 March, regardless of the overwhelming empirical evidence that there is no viable deal, and that a no-deal exit would be a total catastrophe (necessitating, among many other unpleasant measures, a framework for martial law).
Look at them all: fiddling with the backstop while the treaty of Rome burns (or at least the page that bears Edward Heath’s signature). It is uniquely dispiriting to see intelligent Conservatives cheerleading or appeasing this drive towards disaster.
Politicians always tell me that the demands of the life are worth it because of the agency you get to exercise. Well, where is that agency right now? Where are the Tories prepared to risk their careers and to say that the instruction given by the electorate in 2016 cannot be delivered in a way that does not do terrible harm to those same voters and their children?
To be clear: I haven’t undergone a conversion. My values have not changed. But the Conservative party is morphing into something I find alien and repellent. Like a listing galleon, holed below the waterline, it sails away stubbornly; dragging the nation towards a storm of unknown adversity, peril and pain.
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ry-values-conservative-party-repellent-brexit
The whole point of Conservatism is not to submit to the siren call of teleology: the belief that history has an implacable direction. In a crisis of this nature, the proper role of Tories should be to cut through the infantile rhetoric, robotic platitudes and Vogon insistence that “resistance is useless!”, and show true statesmanship. Instead, we see – with some outstanding exceptions – a party cravenly fetishising the 2016 referendum as if no further expression of popular opinion on Brexit were possible; behaving as if the only thing that matters is to get out of the EU by 29 March, regardless of the overwhelming empirical evidence that there is no viable deal, and that a no-deal exit would be a total catastrophe (necessitating, among many other unpleasant measures, a framework for martial law).
Look at them all: fiddling with the backstop while the treaty of Rome burns (or at least the page that bears Edward Heath’s signature). It is uniquely dispiriting to see intelligent Conservatives cheerleading or appeasing this drive towards disaster.
Politicians always tell me that the demands of the life are worth it because of the agency you get to exercise. Well, where is that agency right now? Where are the Tories prepared to risk their careers and to say that the instruction given by the electorate in 2016 cannot be delivered in a way that does not do terrible harm to those same voters and their children?
To be clear: I haven’t undergone a conversion. My values have not changed. But the Conservative party is morphing into something I find alien and repellent. Like a listing galleon, holed below the waterline, it sails away stubbornly; dragging the nation towards a storm of unknown adversity, peril and pain.
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ry-values-conservative-party-repellent-brexit
Even someone on minimum wage, having to take government handouts to make ends meet, can find someone in the world somewhere worse off than them.
All I can say is that I don't think the public perception of that salary matches reality. In the South East, the mortgage on a modest family home will take a large chunk of that. It's not enough to pay for decent schooling, holidays need to be saved for, cars bought with loans, etc. If something in the house breaks and needs fixing it still hits your finances and means missing out on other stuff.
At that salary, life isn't massively different than for most, just fewer financial concerns. Nicer house, cars and holidays, etc. but it's not fois gras and Ferarris. Back when our total household income was around £80k, my wife was a teacher in a rather poor area. Half of the kids there, living in council houses had parents with significantly more expendable income than we did. Consoles for Christmas, Florida holidays every year, etc.
Yet the impression our Shadow Chancellor would have you take home is that people on that salary are sitting on piles of cash, that they have excess income that isn't needed by them - so why not cycle it through the waste machine that is our government's grubby pockets? Why not take away the money they work so hard for and fritter it away on whatever pointless scheme some ladder climbing civil servant has dreamt up and made flavour of the month?
If Labour want to tax the rich, fine - it's the cost of people being stupid enough to vote in a Labour government. But their targets are set far too low - by more than half.
Gutter Boy
Tim Sherwood
That sounds fairly Green. The green movement is left libertarian - i.e. against the social control authoritarian instincts of Labour. But it wants to use the state for a few big things - a planned economy and environmentally progressive infrastructures
The Greens don't have good leadership at the moment though (other than in the House of Lords). They are a bit wet and too remainery (greens are traditionally eurosceptics). But it should be the home for those who think the power of both the corporates and the bureaucratic state need curbing
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...on-tax-cut-to-cost-billions-more-than-thought
The government’s planned cuts to corporation tax look set to cost the public purse billions more in lost revenue than previously thought, according to new analysis.
The tax rate on company profits is slated to be cut from its current level of 19% to just 17% by the end of the decade. But even before the planned cuts, the UK already had one of the lowest corporation tax rates in the developed world.
An analysis based on HMRC data suggests that the loss of revenue from the planned cuts, initiated by former chancellor George Osborne but supported by incumbent Philip Hammond, could add up to more than £6bn.
HMRC recently raised its estimate for the amount a 1 percentage point increase in corporation tax could bring in for the Treasury from £2.8bn to £3.1bn per year – meaning the plan to cut taxes by 2p in the £1 could cost about £6.2bn.
Hammond confirmed in the autumn that he would go ahead with Osborne’s promises, despite the need to find £20bn a year more for the NHS by 2023-24.
There has been mounting opposition to the planned tax cuts, particularly as Britain’s public finances could come under huge strain from a disorderly Brexit.
Rupert Harrison, a former adviser to Osborne who now works at City investment firm BlackRock, said last week on Twitter that it was “hard to see why further cuts to corporation tax are good value,” while Labour seized on his comments.
Peter Dowd, the shadow chief secretary to the Treasury, said: “Even Osborne’s former adviser knows that further cuts to corporation tax are a bad use of public funds. Philip Hammond should cancel his plans for more corporate giveaways and invest in our public services.”
Labour has argued that it would reverse the cuts to raise more money for spending on public services.
But a Treasury spokesperson said: “The strength of our economy means we are expecting to collect more corporation tax in 2020 than forecast one year ago.
“Low corporation tax supports the economy by enabling companies to reinvest in their business, create jobs, and increase wages.”
Corporation tax receipts have increased since the financial crisis, although profits of firms have risen as the economy has recovered. About £60bn a year is raised through corporation tax, although analysts at the Institute for Fiscal Studies thinktank believe about £16.5bn a year has been lost from the reductions in recent years.
Business investment has consistently lagged behind other major economies, while corporate spending since the Brexit vote has entered the worst period since the 2008 financial crisis, due to the lack of clarity over the UK’s future.
Torsten Bell, director of the Resolution Foundation thinktank, said the corporation tax cut was “bonkers” given the higher spending requirements of the NHS over the coming decades, adding: “It highlights a big fiscal mistake we’re about to make.”
“There’s not even an argument for these tax cuts from a competitiveness point of view. When you’re already winning the race to the bottom you don’t need to speed up.”
The government’s planned cuts to corporation tax look set to cost the public purse billions more in lost revenue than previously thought, according to new analysis.
The tax rate on company profits is slated to be cut from its current level of 19% to just 17% by the end of the decade. But even before the planned cuts, the UK already had one of the lowest corporation tax rates in the developed world.
An analysis based on HMRC data suggests that the loss of revenue from the planned cuts, initiated by former chancellor George Osborne but supported by incumbent Philip Hammond, could add up to more than £6bn.
HMRC recently raised its estimate for the amount a 1 percentage point increase in corporation tax could bring in for the Treasury from £2.8bn to £3.1bn per year – meaning the plan to cut taxes by 2p in the £1 could cost about £6.2bn.
Hammond confirmed in the autumn that he would go ahead with Osborne’s promises, despite the need to find £20bn a year more for the NHS by 2023-24.
There has been mounting opposition to the planned tax cuts, particularly as Britain’s public finances could come under huge strain from a disorderly Brexit.
Rupert Harrison, a former adviser to Osborne who now works at City investment firm BlackRock, said last week on Twitter that it was “hard to see why further cuts to corporation tax are good value,” while Labour seized on his comments.
Peter Dowd, the shadow chief secretary to the Treasury, said: “Even Osborne’s former adviser knows that further cuts to corporation tax are a bad use of public funds. Philip Hammond should cancel his plans for more corporate giveaways and invest in our public services.”
Labour has argued that it would reverse the cuts to raise more money for spending on public services.
But a Treasury spokesperson said: “The strength of our economy means we are expecting to collect more corporation tax in 2020 than forecast one year ago.
“Low corporation tax supports the economy by enabling companies to reinvest in their business, create jobs, and increase wages.”
Corporation tax receipts have increased since the financial crisis, although profits of firms have risen as the economy has recovered. About £60bn a year is raised through corporation tax, although analysts at the Institute for Fiscal Studies thinktank believe about £16.5bn a year has been lost from the reductions in recent years.
Business investment has consistently lagged behind other major economies, while corporate spending since the Brexit vote has entered the worst period since the 2008 financial crisis, due to the lack of clarity over the UK’s future.
Torsten Bell, director of the Resolution Foundation thinktank, said the corporation tax cut was “bonkers” given the higher spending requirements of the NHS over the coming decades, adding: “It highlights a big fiscal mistake we’re about to make.”
“There’s not even an argument for these tax cuts from a competitiveness point of view. When you’re already winning the race to the bottom you don’t need to speed up.”
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
Until you read their manifesto and realise they were off their tits when they wrote it and that unicorns bricking rainbows really isnt policy.