For those planning to watch the leadership debate...

chewmylegoff

dandy-candy wrote: »

It's interesting to hear Nick Clegg because you just don't see him enough and I was surprised how much he kept making comments about the money not being there and tough times because the papers have been saying how Tories pushing the austerity line have made them unpopular so i'm surprised Libs would mention that so much. I still think I would be more inclined to vote Lib if Vince Cable was in charge!

of course, clegg is just as much a liar and a hypocrite as the other two despite going on about how there isn't any money to fund things, he is pretending he can magic a £17bn tax cut apparently funded from increasing CGT for higher rate tax payers. CGT in a tiny contributor to tax revenues, it was raising about £5bn a year before it was cut to 18%. another lib dem fairy tale. might as well just say a penny on income tax will sort out the budget deficit.

PrivatisetheNHSnow

lib dems are more tax and spend than labour

tories the only party opposed to big government

Wookster

I'm all for tax and spend, provided it is done sensibly and equitably.

People who think government does nothing should have been born in Bangladesh. Then perhaps they'd see that they have benefited enormously in the ovarian lottery (to use a Buffetism) and perhaps they would realise that while they might be enormously successful, chances are they wouldn't have had that success or comfort in Bangladesh (or any other similar country).

I still intend to vote Lib Dems.

PrivatisetheNHSnow

if you want to help the poor, then how about reducing the appallingly high level of indirect taxation in this country, e.g. VAT, fuel, booze, cigarettes and re-establishing 10% income tax band?

that's the biggest joke about new labour - they claim to want to lift people out of poverty - but not by reducing the tax burden on the poor, but by giving them benefits that make them dependent on the state - the road to socialism

Wookster

PrivatisetheNHSnow wrote: »

that's the biggest joke about new labour - they claim to want to lift people out of poverty - but not by reducing the tax burden on the poor, but by giving them benefits that make them dependent on the state

I agree.

The state should really be empowering people through improved education which actually gives people the chance to be class mobile rather than redistribution of wealth through a tax regime (though a progressive tax regime is necessary imo to finance a world class education system).

nickmason

Sapphire wrote: »

How anyone can even contemplate voting for labour after what they've inflicted on Britain is beyond me. It just shows you how naive many of the people in this country are (though some will vote for labour because they are in the public services, or living off benefits at taxpayers' expense, etc).

Just spent a day canvassing - practically no votes for Labour (not unusual in the SW) but votes for LDs almost all came from public services who are worried about having their pay cut. Which is a bit wierd given that the LDs are claiming they will cut deeper. I think that they aren't trusted on that, just as the Tories aren't trusted not to!

And one couple who didn't like that they were being "persecuted" for not being married.

Graham_Devon

Gordon Brown has now agreed to be interviewed by Jeremy Paxman!!!!!

ninky_2

dandy-candy wrote: »

What a horrible thing to say. Even if you think they are "thick and annoying" they are still just as likely to be injured or killed as those who do meet your standards of approval.

so are the taliban. and they often have less opportunity educationally and careerwise. the majority of the taliban are prepared to lay down their weapons when paid to do so. just proves how the majority are doing it to support their family and not for ideology.

just because what you do risks your life doesn't automatically make you brave. terrorists risk their lives and even deliberately give their lives.

ninky_2

PrivatisetheNHSnow wrote: »

lib dems are more tax and spend than labour

tories the only party opposed to big government

it's a lack of government and regulation that has got us where we are now.

PrivatisetheNHSnow

ninky wrote: »

it's a lack of government and regulation that has got us where we are now.

i agree we need more regulation in the financial sector...but i don't think we need more government - it's 52% of GDP atm, with a 13% budget deficit, how much more do you want?

We need less regulation in business outside the financial sector, for example a simpler tax system would be very beneficial for small business in particular.