Labour & the Conservatives

Moby

Devon_Sailor wrote: »

Afternoon Moby,

Hope you enjoyed your day in the sun yesterday!

Wrt the Stalin line, it was a little facetious I admit; but I was using it as an example of how all sides have things to be ashamed of. It was in response to the general impression on this board and others that Conservatives are all evil baby eating scum, only held in check by the righteous upstanding fluffy members of the Left.

I entirely agree that the waste must be targeted - my 10% across the board cut would be a starting point, not an end. The State is too large. Whilst the media, Unions and the Opposition have been keen to portray the Coalition as being savage and ruthless, the fact is that very little real term cutting has been done to any budgets - certainly not as much as is/was required. Im more of a sticking plaster approach man. Short, sharp pain and then let the recovery start in earnest. By fudging the first couple of budgets, Osborne managed to loose the grudging acceptance of the population that "something" needed to be done.

Would we be in a better place now if that first 2010 budget had been more radical? Who knows. But it is clear that the constant drip of bad news, trimming at the edges and u-turns on policy has hurt the Government badly. One could also hypothesise about how things would have turned out if the media hadn't got it's knickers in such a twist after the first election debate; blowing Nick Clegg up from mediocre political leader into the new Gladstone overnight! A coalition naturally fudges through necessity.

I also agree there have been massive problems about how to introduce changes - hence my idea to publicise or create carrots, just as much as the stick.

Having met the man in person on a couple of occasions, I genuinely believe that Iain Duncan Smith is a good man at heart; and actually he is a champion for the less well off and socially disadvantaged. The Left may vilify him because of the post he now holds, but I bet all the money in my pocket (of which there is not a lot! :rotfl:) that he is more on the side of proper social equality than any other Cabinet minister.

I also disagree with your idea of Parliament: "A Govmts job is to lead and represent everybody." No, it isn't. That may be an ideal, but the role of the elected Govnt is to represent the interest of the country. We live in a Parliamentary democracy - we vote for MPs who we then trust (perhaps naively) to take the important (often hard or controversial) decisions on our behalf, for the greater good.

To end on a conciliatory note, I couldn't agree more about the abominable "deserving v undeserving" poor. I think this is more a product of an archly extreme media and 'talking heads' industry. Lets face it, after the election, NOONE was happy; The Cons were cheesed off because they somehow managed to blow a near dead cert majority Govnt. Labour were equally shell shocked that the Libs went in with the Tories. The Libs were just shocked that they actually had to put their money where their mouth was for a change and open themselves up to public approval/disapproval of their ideas rather than just snipe from the sidelines from their ivory towers...... traditional Left leaning papers hated what the Libs did, and then the weakness of an Opposition leadership in the face of a weak Govnt. The Right wing ones are apoplectic that they could be looking at another period of opposition in just a few years, and blame a weak Con leadership and of course the Libs.

Without a strong leader in ANY of the parties, the various "wings" are able to let loose without fear of being slapped down. Both sides are dog whistling and whipping up their hardcore loyalists....

My own personal view is that the whole deserving/undeserving mantra is decidedly un-Conservative. The vast majority of people I know feel that the social safety net should not only remain in place, but indeed be strengthened for those that truly need it. It is unfortunate however that we are hated and abused for being the only Party who will willingly stand up and say - enough. It is not working. We need to rethink this, re-vamp it and make darned sure that only those who truly need it (for whatever reason) are claiming it, so that those who do, might get enough.

If a Labour leader got up and said he would reform the welfare system so that it's archaic, dysfunctional, inefficient and patently unfair way of doing things was consigned to history, he would be feted as a radical social thinker. Any Tory who opens their mouth on welfare reform is labelled Toff scum.

Crazy world, but its the one we appear stuck with! :rotfl:

Regards,

D_S

Afternoon Devon Sailor...just wish the sun would come out again"!....again....agree with much of the above.

Devon_Sailor

Hi Clapton,

In response to your points -

1. By Brown Field, I was referring more to those sites already sitting derelict within the confines of an existing population centre, or its suburbs, in the first instance. Eg, the swathes of abandoned terraced housing and old commercial zones in the likes of Liverpool and Manchester. I accept, I should have "narrowed" my definition better. Hopefully the immediate building of the 400,000 houses already granted permission would nullify the need to build on flood plains!

Going back to the urban brown field sites, to really radicalise it, how about creating a central funding pot to loan Councils the money. Why spend money to tear down thousands of houses, and then sell on the cheap to developers, who sit on it, when you could renovate them for social housing stocks? One only has to watch a few minutes of Homes Under the Hammer or suchlike, and you can see how a few grand spent on some of these can turn them into nice pads. Councils could borrow, at low interest rates from the Govt. Buy and develop the land, with a strict proviso that it must be affordable/social housing. They can keep any profits of the sale of affordables, and deduct the build cost of the social houses from what they need to pay back to the Govt. Multiply across whole streets and you all of a sudden have regenerated an area, provided work for the building trade, got some extra profits into Council coffers for services AND improved your levels of social/affordable housing in one go. Win, win win.

2. I would hope that by raising the tax threshold by £3k each, it would not encourage the vast majority of couples to split up or stay apart for tax efficiency. (keep in mind I was proposing a "retrospective" look back to a hypothetical 2010 budget...not the current one, and all the political hot potato-ness of the Child Benefit fiasco). The country was (is) in a mess; short sharp measures. I wold have just (in theory) given you a free £6k per couple. Get back in your box and suck up the £83p/m that I have just taken away from you. Many people in much worse position......

3. WCML. Yup - my bad. Living where I do, I consider the West Coast the one that actually runs up the coast, not the one starting in London! :rotfl:.
Share the economic love with your poor Westcountry and Welsh cousins...

4. Yes, people will always try and juggle/avoid taxes. However, being honest with them and setting up a tax system that wont be changed, tweaked, fiddled with or altered over the course of an entire Parliament of 5 years, means the !!!!!!s cant jiggle more than once.

Wrt corporations, yes indeed - no laws broken, but loopholes and the "spirit" certainly was. Which is why as a Tory I would try and make business taxes much more competitive, to drive Head Offices and major operations here to the UK to do business. I would much rather they paid a lower tax, but into MY coffers, than no tax all, or to someone else.

D_S

neverdespairgirl

mildredalien wrote: »

Someone on minimum wage working 40 hours a week would earn £12875 BEFORE TAX. You think everyone on minimum wage is lucky enough to get 40 hours a week work? Imagine you are a 20 year old, not entitled to working tax credits and can only find a job that gives you 25 hours a week. You'd earn £8k a year. You don't get taxed on most of that BECAUSE YOU ONLY EARN £8K A YEAR. You can't tax what people don't have.

None of the people I know who earn £100k a year or more work 40 hours a week. They work far more than that.

grizzly1911

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

None of the people I know who earn £100k a year or more work 40 hours a week. They work far more than that.

They don't stack shelves and no doubt get more than financial stimulation out of what they do.

Nice to see you back BTW.

BACKFRMTHEEDGE

PaulF81 wrote: »

I, like many experiences individuals are moving abroad, we have had enough of trying to help, being taxed to the quick, so as of the end of next month, I offshore my experience abroad and the exchequer loses around 30k in income tax. Many others I know a doing the same.

.

So you've had your free education and you're off....

..some might reach the conclusion that it's worth £30k to be rid - just joking

....oh by the way, you'll be back, like many, when you need an operation...

BACKFRMTHEEDGE

Moby wrote: »

Also your last line....just because Stalin called himself a socialist doesn't mean he was one.. He was a tyrant dictator driven by his own personal cult. Why do you have to use his example and ignore the many west european versions of socialism as represented by people such as Willy Brandt and Olaf Palme.

Hitler was a Socialist.

Have I invoked Godwin's Law?

BACKFRMTHEEDGE

Devon_Sailor wrote: »

My own personal view is that the whole deserving/undeserving mantra is decidedly un-Conservative. The vast majority of people I know feel that the social safety net should not only remain in place, but indeed be strengthened for those that truly need it. It is unfortunate however that we are hated and abused for being the only Party who will willingly stand up and say - enough. It is not working. We need to rethink this, re-vamp it and make darned sure that only those who truly need it (for whatever reason) are claiming it, so that those who do, might get enough.

That's all great - very articulate and thoughtful - BUT I'd be much more impressed if your posts were less about benefits and more about how to make the tax avoiders pay tax. All those words you've written and you just shrug and say "Yes, people will always try and juggle/avoid taxes"...

I personally know tons of people who live in big houses, run flash cars, send their kids to the best state schools and pay FA in tax. Why the F*** are they allowed to do that?

Why can't Tories obsess about these tax dodges instead of obsessing about people on benefits? As I showed in a previous post these tax dodgers are costing the state more than the benefit cheats.

Devon_Sailor wrote: »

If a Labour leader got up and said he would reform the welfare system so that it's archaic, dysfunctional, inefficient and patently unfair way of doing things was consigned to history, he would be feted as a radical social thinker. Any Tory who opens their mouth on welfare reform is labelled Toff scum.

If a Tory leader got up and said he would reform the tax system that is archaic, dysfunctional, ineffcient and patently unfair - now that would be radical ( and we'd all die of shock!)

The fact that the Tories want to change the benefit system well that's not a shocker...getting some of the rich to pay tax now that would be real radical....

The Coalition can't stop the ship from sinking whilst concentrating on the small holes caused by benefits - small holes can sink big ships but the big holes will sink them quicker.

Devon_Sailor

Morning BFTE,

I think if you actually read all of my posts (esp 108, although I admit, I do ramble ) I only write about benefits in direct response to other posters, usually of a Leftish slant, and usually who have posted along the lines of "Tories are scum for touching benefits system". I am certainly not obsessed by it, and think you will find most of my replies have plenty of other stuff in that have zero to do with it.

You will also read how I am actually in favour of a strengthened benefit system for the most needy and vulnerable in society. Do you not agree? If not, can I now call you Tory Scum too, despite it's inappropriateness?

Wrt taxes. The ENTIRE quote was:

4. Yes, people will always try and juggle/avoid taxes. However, being honest with them and setting up a tax system that wont be changed, tweaked, fiddled with or altered over the course of an entire Parliament of 5 years, means the !!!!!!s cant jiggle more than once.

You seem to selectively miss the point entirely. Of COURSE people will always try and avoid tax, just as some will ALWAYS try and cheat benefits - it is the law of averages!! Nothing that I said was a "shrug of the shoulders".

My position on tax avoidance is quite clear. I think it is as reprehensible as benefit fraud. Im pretty old fashioned and think that as a citizen you have a number of responsibilities to your fellows. If the Govnt tries to improve your lot in life (be it through tax reduction or anything else), you have a responsibility to contribute fairly. If you simplify the system by making it a long-term fix, then there are less loopholes, less ways an accountant can shift, move or otherwise "arrange" tax affairs and more openness between earners and the Govnt. Screwing up the tax system every budget just asks for trouble.

I ask again - did you actually read any of the earlier discussion or are you just cherry picking and jumping to conclusions about me based on the mere fact that im a Conservative? Are you DLW in disguise?!

Regards,

D_S

BACKFRMTHEEDGE

Devon_Sailor wrote: »

Morning BFTE,

I think if you actually read all of my posts

Well to be fair to me - I don't think you've read my posts - I think the Tory/Coalition government witch hunting the poor whilst ignoring the tax dodgers is reprehensible - and I don't think you referred to this at all in your long posts. You've just given us a more articulate version of Paul's posts, frankly.

Devon_Sailor

BFTE,

I am very fair and reasonable - I have indeed read all your posts, across numerous threads. Yes, your opinion of the Coalition Govnt comes through loud and clear.

Seeing as you still seem obsessed with my view on Tax avoidance, I have saved you the trouble of scrolling up half a page:

"Simultaneously crack down ruthlessly on illegal tax avoidance and close all loopholes. If you are given the carrot of a more lucrative tax situation, any attempt to circumvent it should be clamped down on - with 100% recovery of the difference, PLUS a fine EQUAL TO THE AMOUNT EVADED. That would soon stop their antics. This would apply to corporations too. NO deals would be struck between HMRC and the likes of Vodaphone/Amazon. They get the breaks, but a responsibility comes with that to pay their dues."

I cannot see how I can be more crystal clear? Perhaps your brain is just failing to compute the apparent Quantum Paradox of a hardened Tory voter who hates tax avoidance as much as you??

I would also like to add (again, to save you the trouble of reading), that the earlier post was my personal idea of the sort of budget required in 2010 - ostensibly to avoid the current situation. It was not an attempt to comment/critique on the specific policies - there are many, many threads (of which you contribute regularly!) on benefits cuts, "bedroom tax" etc, etc, etc.......

Regards,

D_S