Tax avoidance after the state funeral

Generali

Kennyboy66 wrote: »

1951 - 1997

46 years.

Labour in for 11 years.

Same old Tories same old lies.

Didn't WW2 end in 1945?

Kennyboy66

gropinginthedark wrote: »

And if we take the highest cost estimates and (wrongly) assume the state pays the entire cost, it might cost us as much as 20 pence each, a burden which will be borne mostly by the 14% of the population who pay 60% of the tax revenue. That % doesn't include me but as you are so concerned I guess it must include you.

They don't pay 60% of all tax revenue (but its a clever bit of obfuscation used by tories)

It is 60% of all income tax.

Income tax makes roughly 26% of UK government revenues 2012/13.

Hope this helps.

Kennyboy66

Generali wrote: »

Didn't WW2 end in 1945?

It did indeed.

Between 1945 and 1951 the UK had the best economic performance in Europe (hardly surprising) and productivity was increasing faster than the US. Inflation was low as was unemployment (considering that demob added a huge pool of labour).

"Of Clement Attlee, however, I was an admirer. He was a serious man and a patriot. Quite contrary to the general tendency of politicians in the 1990s, he was all substance and no show"

A nice quote by Margaret Thatcher

Generali

Kennyboy66 wrote: »

It did indeed.

Between 1945 and 1951 the UK had the best economic performance in Europe (hardly surprising) and productivity was increasing faster than the US. Inflation was low as was unemployment (considering that demob added a huge pool of labour).

"Of Clement Attlee, however, I was an admirer. He was a serious man and a patriot. Quite contrary to the general tendency of politicians in the 1990s, he was all substance and no show"

A nice quote by Margaret Thatcher

Who knew?

Why did Atlee get voted out in the end? (I actually don't know, this isn't a wind up). It's kinda surprising that he got 6 years, it's a funny amount.

Speaking of funny, I think it's hillarious that after all the whinging and moaning about the Tories using Thatcher's funeral for political means it turns out that most of it was designed under the Brown Government (it's hardly been a secret that she was on her way out for quite a while).

grizzly1911

Generali wrote: »

Who knew?

Why did Atlee get voted out in the end? (I actually don't know, this isn't a wind up). It's kinda surprising that he got 6 years, it's a funny amount.

Speaking of funny, I think it's hillarious that after all the whinging and moaning about the Tories using Thatcher's funeral for political means it turns out that most of it was designed under the Brown Government (it's hardly been a secret that she was on her way out for quite a while).

The 1950 election gave Labour a greatly reduced parliamentary majority, a mere five seats compared to the triple-digit majority of five years previous, despite an increase in their popular vote. This occurred because of the first-past-the-post voting system used by the UK, and was largely blamed on post-war austerity denting Labour's appeal to wealthier voters who felt they would be more prosperous under a Conservative Government.[87] It was at this time that the Opposition recovered at the expense of the declining Liberal Party. Although Attlee's second term was less radical than his first, it still oversaw the passage of a number of reforms relating to issues such as industry in development areas, the restoration of land which had been devastated by ironstone pollution, and river pollution.[88]
By 1951, the Attlee Government was looking increasingly exhausted, with several of its most important ministers ailing or having died. Attlee himself was briefly hospitalised with duodenal ulcers.[89] The party fatally split in 1951 over an austerity Budget brought in by the Chancellor, Hugh Gaitskell, to pay for the cost of Britain's participation in the Korean War.

Finding it impossible to govern successfully, Attlee called a general election in 1951, attempting to achieve a more workable majority. However, Labour went on to lose the election to Churchill's renewed Conservatives, despite polling more votes than they did in the 1945 election, and beating the Conservatives in the popular vote.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clement_Attlee

I find this bit interesting.

Swings and roundabouts.

post-war austerity denting Labour's appeal to wealthier voters who felt they would be more prosperous under a Conservative Government.

Kennyboy66

Generali wrote: »

Who knew?

Why did Atlee get voted out in the end? (I actually don't know, this isn't a wind up). It's kinda surprising that he got 6 years, it's a funny amount.

Speaking of funny, I think it's hillarious that after all the whinging and moaning about the Tories using Thatcher's funeral for political means it turns out that most of it was designed under the Brown Government (it's hardly been a secret that she was on her way out for quite a while).

And Andy Burnham had the embarrassment of complaining that the code for the funeral was operation 'True Blue', when it was given this code name under Labour.

There was an election in 1950 which Atlee won with 46.1% of popular vote compared with 49.7% in 1945.
This drop meant that Labour lost 78 seats but still had a small single figure majority.

Nye Bevan (and amongst others Harold Wilson) resigned from cabinet in 1951 in the face of an austerity budget to pay for Korean War so Atlee called an election to get a workable majority

Atlee's share of the vote went up in 1951 (to 48.8% ) and won the popular vote (Churchill 48%) but the collapse of the Liberal vote meant that Labour lost a further 20 seats and Churchill got a majority.

So a combination of Tory gerrymandering and incompetent Liberals.:)

plus ça change plus c'est la même chose.

StevieJ

grizzly1911 wrote: »

The party fatally split in 1951 over an austerity Budget brought in by the Chancellor, Hugh Gaitskell, to pay for the cost of Britain's participation in the Korean War.
.

That is strange, I always thought that the UK had no involvement in the Korean war, especially one that required an austerity budget in what was already austere times (rationing). Maybe that is a mistake it meant to say Malayan?
Just checked it out, very surprised.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1285708.stm

StevieJ

Kennyboy66 wrote: »

Atlee's share of the vote went up in 1951 (to 48.8% ) and won the popular vote (Churchill 48%) but the collapse of the Liberal vote meant that Labour lost a further 20 seats and Churchill got a majority.
.

They would die for that share of the vote today

neverdespairgirl

StevieJ wrote: »

That is strange, I always thought that the UK had no involvement in the Korean war, especially one that required an austerity budget in what was already austere times (rationing). Maybe that is a mistake it meant to say Malayan?

The UK definitely fought in Korea, and not just a few soldiers either, it was quite serious involvement. Not just regular army types but some national service men ended up there, too. It started in 1950, lasted about 3 years, and the British forces there totalled about 100,000 over that time.

There were about 5 thousand casualties in total among British armed forces - killed, injured, taken prisoner, missing.

American casualties were much, much higher, by a factor of 50 or so, I think.

Kennyboy66

StevieJ wrote: »

That is strange, I always thought that the UK had no involvement in the Korean war, especially one that required an austerity budget in what was already austere times (rationing). Maybe that is a mistake it meant to say Malayan?
Just checked it out, very surprised.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1285708.stm

We do like our wars whichever party is in power.

waterloo won on the playing fields of eton - and all that.

Although I don't fancy this old Etonian in hand to hand combat.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/video/2013/mar/01/george-osborne-skipping-contest-video

(short unavoidable advert before video)