Local Elections - failure for all parties..

kabayiri

chucky wrote: »

Just to be clear... Who have the current government impacted least?

The lower earners, middle earners or highest earners... The answer is highest earners, it's the lower and middle earners who are struggling the most. How can you even try to say the richer people in society don't benefit from the Conservatives?!?!

What has more impact?

A vote for the local Tory candidate, or a £100K party donation which gets you invited to Cheese n Nibbles soiree with Dave C and chums.

That's what is happening. The electoral system is geared to keeping the status quo, with perhaps shifting the names on the MP seats now and then.

Meanwhile, business buy influence direct.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

As someone stated last night on question time, we just need some truth, quit the lies, the country is sick of it.

Let's say party A tells the 'truth' - it's going to be a grinding road to recovery that's going to involve continued rises in the cost of living, higher taxes on income, fuel and consumption and reduced services.

However party B tells the 'truth' - party A don't know what they're talking about. Yes it's going to be difficult but, hey, Rome wasn't built in a day and it's possible that by taking it slower the road doesn't need to be so grinding.

Party C also tells the 'truth'. Look we're just nice guys and we've got lots of nice fluffy policies. Obviously we are never going to win the next election so if we have a chance of a sniff of power we'll throw our principles out of the window. Oh and isn't our leader a breath of fresh air and a polite young man.

To win an election by telling the truth Party A need to do one hell of a PR job. Say Party A couldn't currently increase tax on a Cornish Pasty without looking like clowns you'd have to worry about them getting the truth across in a way that wouldn't lose votes.

Party B would have a chance with their truth even if they had a particularly uncharismatic leader.

I think we can all guess at what's going to happen to party C at the next election.

chucky

kabayiri wrote: »

What has more impact?

A vote for the local Tory candidate, or a £100K party donation which gets you invited to Cheese n Nibbles soiree with Dave C and chums.

That's what is happening. The electoral system is geared to keeping the status quo, with perhaps shifting the names on the MP seats now and then.

Meanwhile, business buy influence direct.

I'm also saying the percentage of income that is affected hurts lower and middle earners more than higher earners.

michaels

I am so wrong then.

I have seen my income fluctuate wildly over the last 3 years.

In 2011/12 I earned about 24k which I suspect is an average income. If I continued to earn that in 2012/13 I would be a fair bit better off due to the increase in the personal tax allowance and I wouldn't have lost any tax credits or child benefit. I was not eligible for housing benefit so any changes to this would not have impacted me.

Instead this year I will earn about 60k which at 2.5x average income most would consider to be a high income. I will be a lot worse off than had I earned 60k last year as I will lose 2.4k of child benefit.

Thus as far as I can see those on low and average incomes are benefitting at the expense of those on higher incomes but obviously my figures must be wrong?

Perhaps one of the posters who is so certain that higher earners are benefitting and lower ones are suffering could explain it to me?

chucky wrote: »

Just to be clear... Who have the current government impacted least?

The lower earners, middle earners or highest earners... The answer is highest earners, it's the lower and middle earners who are struggling the most. How can you even try to say the richer people in society don't benefit from the Conservatives?!?!

grizzly1911

chucky wrote: »

I'm also saying the percentage of income that is affected hurts lower and middle earners more than higher earners.

More so as we shift the burden from progressive taxation on income to regressive taxation on consumption.

Of course taxation on consumption hits the majority so harder to evade.

Mark Sowatka bangs on about £120bn of uncollected/noncollectable tax from evasion and avoiders - I wonder just how much of this would be obtainable with a little political will?

vax2002

It says that 2/3 of the population dont trust a single word any of them say and they are not even interested in hearing your promises..for we dont believe you are in charge of anything, we dont get to elect those people.
Thats what it says

grizzly1911

macaque wrote: »

This graph illustrates why I agree with the OP.

Whilst borrowing keeps rising I wonder how much of this bypasses this country in the form of foreign aid, wars, IMf/EU bail outs, EU subscription and "lost revenue" due to EU policies and inter EU immigration "costs" to this country..

Loughton_Monkey

Imagine a person who was totally honest and straighforward. Polite, but doesn't smile at you and then stab you in the back later. Always answers questions truthfully and to the point without weasel words or evasion.

Someone who made family decisions on the basis of what's best for the family as a whole. Business decisions based only upon what's best for the company rather than any individual including himself. Someone who - if running a country - would do things purely on merits rather than popularity...

Well, such people might exist. Such people might even join a political party. But be absolutely sure: That person would not be able to rise one single inch through the ranks. It would be physically impossible for such a person to garner support in a party, be selected for standing for parliament. Let alone rise amongst the ranks of MPs to lead the party.....

It is impossible to be a successful surgeon without a very good medical knowledge, good eyesight/dexterity, and practical experience.

Likewise, it is impossible to be a Prime Minister (or leader of a political party), without being a liar, disingenuous, dishonest, self-seeking, arrogant, opinionated, and domineering.

It goes with the 'profession'.

chucky

michaels wrote: »

I am so wrong then.

I have seen my income fluctuate wildly over the last 3 years.

In 2011/12 I earned about 24k which I suspect is an average income. If I continued to earn that in 2012/13 I would be a fair bit better off due to the increase in the personal tax allowance and I wouldn't have lost any tax credits or child benefit. I was not eligible for housing benefit so any changes to this would not have impacted me.

Instead this year I will earn about 60k which at 2.5x average income most would consider to be a high income. I will be a lot worse off than had I earned 60k last year as I will lose 2.4k of child benefit.

Thus as far as I can see those on low and average incomes are benefitting at the expense of those on higher incomes but obviously my figures must be wrong?

Perhaps one of the posters who is so certain that higher earners are benefitting and lower ones are suffering could explain it to me?

I guess you're figures must be wrong, looking at things from a narrow biased viewpoint never helps discussions.

Do you think consumer taxes may affect people or how about the the freezing of the tax allowance on OAPs or even the linking the start level of NI contributions to CPI.

How about all the non-financial areas that will affect low or middle earners, cuts to schools, NHS local authorities etc?

They don't affect you right??

chucky

grizzly1911 wrote: »

More so as we shift the burden from progressive taxation on income to regressive taxation on consumption.

Of course taxation on consumption hits the majority so harder to evade.

Mark Sowatka bangs on about £120bn of uncollected/noncollectable tax from evasion and avoiders - I wonder just how much of this would be obtainable with a little political will?

Some people's moral hazard is really skewed... but then again they'll do anything to defend the tories.