[Yossarian]

I'm not suggesting that the Tories proposals are in any way plausible or viable or any other ble.

If they get in they'll probably find some other way of amusing themselves rather than tackle all that waste.  Or they might not.  Who knows. My point was partly that Labour have spent these last (I shudder to think how many) years coccooning everything they can get their hands on in a mass of regulatory nonsense.  I can't see them suddenly losing the enthusiasm for it.  If they Tories get in and manage to tackle this job that desperately needs doing then that would be a good thing.

Re public spending cuts - I agree that this stuff shouldn't be rushed, but then again, it's not like think tanks and policy analysts haven't been poring over this subject ever since Labour came to power. 

Re CT - According to something I read, tax take in the US increased every time there was a tax cut - under Coolidge, Kennedy and Reagan. Anyway...

It will be interesting to see what happens in the varying possible scenarios.  Personally, I'm interested in consumer confidence (as opposed to leveraged profligacy - although if people want to extend their mortgage to buy some new sofas then I not going to moan too much) and I think a hung parliament or a Labour victory is going to cripple that.

[Stu Littlefair]

Seems like we're in total agreement.

Actually, you're right about Reagan too. Adjusted for inflation, tax revenue went up 20%. Expressed as a percentage of GDP, tax revenue fell by 5%, which is where my figure came from.

[slackline]

Here is where the battle will be lost and won (apparently)

[tomtom]

I'll be voting Lib Dem as they have the most sensible policies on just about everything. Plus, Nick Clegg is the only one with the balls to admit that he doesn't believe in God instead of trying to creep to a discredited, fairytale believing, paedo controlled bunch of fantasists.

Fucking cynical attempt to get the vote of 5million guilt-ridden brainwashees, where's his self recockingspect?

I'll go with Clegg, cos his name reminds me of the loveable non-offensive last of the summer wine protagonist.

Apologies if this has been covered - (I've not read all of the thread yet...  )

I would probably vote lib dem if it were about voting for the party that you want to win. But our system does not work like that. I'll probably vote labour as I like our MP, I've met her 3 times and think she does a good job.. and with a 9800 majority theres more chance of Sloper voting Labour than her getting out...

I voted Lib Dem last election (when I lived in Aberystwyth) and would have voted labour, but they had bob hope of getting in - it was libdem or plaid... Lib Dems won by 316 votes! Both candidates were in town the Sat before the election and I spoke to both. Lib dem dude was really friendly and sincere.. the (existing member) plaid candidate had a real 'its our seat' attitude and I didnt like him. Glad to see my vote counted.

Anyway, I'm rambling - voting system daft blah blah... but we're stuck with it.. so 

[slackline]

I would probably vote lib dem if it were about voting for the party that you want to win. But our system does not work like that. I'll probably vote labour as I like our MP, I've met her 3 times and think she does a good job.. and with a 9800 majority theres more chance of Sloper voting Labour than her getting out...

Isn't this why things are in such stasis though?

If people voted for the party they want to win instead of this bullshit tactical voting of who they think has a chance then the system might work better (but I'd still like to see electoral reform anyway).

If you do it thats a majority of 9799 that Labour would have, if your mate who would have voted Lib Dem does too then thats 9798........etc. etc. ad nauseum.

[cofe]

Interesting read:

http://tmik.co.uk/?p=312

[tomtom]

I would probably vote lib dem if it were about voting for the party that you want to win. But our system does not work like that. I'll probably vote labour as I like our MP, I've met her 3 times and think she does a good job.. and with a 9800 majority theres more chance of Sloper voting Labour than her getting out...

Isn't this why things are in such stasis though?

If people voted for the party they want to win instead of this bullshit tactical voting of who they think has a chance then the system might work better (but I'd still like to see electoral reform anyway).

If you do it thats a majority of 9799 that Labour would have, if your mate who would have voted Lib Dem does too then thats 9798........etc. etc. ad nauseum.

OK - people may disagree with the definition but I'm not tactical voting - I'm voting for who I think would be the best MP for my constituency rather than which party should govern the land.

The two - in my opinion - should be separate... If I thought that my vote would make a difference nationally (i.e if Hull North was a marginal) then I might re-consider. So I suppose I'm being semi-tactical there - but I'm voting for who I think shuold be my MP... (just for the record.. Two of the times I have voted before have been in true blue Surrey - where I voted labour and both times they lost their deposit! Tactical voting there would be lib dem..) Hmm.. I'm obviously twitchy about being called a tactical voter! At least I'm not a floater. I used to work with an old chap dismantling cars on a bit of land he owned and flogging the bits. Once when getting our lunch in a nearby respectable (True Blue) village, a Tory candidate approached us with the line "Excuse me sirs are you floaters?" To which my old friend launched into one asking whether or not the MP thought we were turds or floating lumps of shit  A 5 min tirade against policticians involving the phrase "thieves liars and cheats" with a liberal sprinking of "cunts" ensued. It created quite a scene. Great. My I am rambling....

 

[ChrisC]

If people voted for the party they want to win instead of this bullshit tactical voting of who they think has a chance then the system might work better (but I'd still like to see electoral reform anyway).

I can see where your coming from, but...

Take Broxtowe: http://www.voterpower.org.uk/broxtowe

My views are broadly similar to most expressed on this thread (Jasper, Stu...) Fundamentally I'm left wing, fucked off with Labour of late, don't mind the Lib Dems with the exception of the anti nuclear policy etc...

If I voted as I would under a PR system, then it would probably be Lib Dem (for the first time).  However - they don't stand a chance of getting in in Broxtowe, and with the split of 41% to 37% then a vote to the Lib Dems is, in effect a boost for the Tories as it means one less for Labour - and I'm fucked if I'd want that on my conscience.

Anyway, I'm rambling - voting system daft blah blah... but we're stuck with it.. so 

[dave]

Surely the only way to get rid of the riduculous 2 party government system where we lurch from one bunch of incompetents every 10 years is to vote for people like the libdems or greens, cos only then can they ever hope to gain any ground and influence. Tactical voting is a vote for a 2 party system. The other thing is neither of lab or con would have anything to gain from electoral reform and a move away from FPTP, so if you don't like it, vote for someone who will instead of voting for the status quo.

[mini]

I've always been a fan of the Lib Dem's, and have voted for them in the past and guess I will do again. However, having just taken this test;

http://voteforpolicies.org.uk/

it seems I ought to be voting for the Greens (a lost vote in many eyes!) or Tories (who I have no faith in), all based upon policies.

Which begs the question, are we blinkered by media hype and propaganda instead of reading what each party actually propose?

Why not vote for who's policies are best instead of choosing between the big three?

[Sloper]

Just remember that the Labour / Tory two party buggins turn is only about 80 years old; about 10 years ago the Canadian Tories went from the party of government to electoral nonentities in one election.

It does happen.

PS can we try and keep this thread free of one's political allegiances (if they exist) and have a disinterested discussion about policy and the campaigns?

Actually no, let's have a fight.

[hairich]

i cant believe it took 4 days for you to start this thread sloper.was expecting it at 10 on tues when gb went to see the queen.

why dont you all realise that all the countries problems cant be sorted out by any politicians and will only be sorted out by the free market in the city as always.history shows a cycle of boom and bust in all countries on earth nothing that some eton toff posh boys or others can say or do will change that.

in 5 years we will be back to the good times and it wont be anything to do with who wins in may

[mrjonathanr]

National Insurance, does allowing people to keep more of their income take money out of the economy or put money into it?

Offshore bankers nil, winos and benefit claimants 2

[/quote]
Are the public services efficient or full of lazy and badly managed staff?
[/quote]

binary questions just confuse me After all when both answers are wrong, what's left?
[/quote]

Which is posher St Pauls or Loretto's?
[/quote]

I'm taking a punt on Loretto, nicely Italianate and a couple near me.  Have I won yet?

[tommytwotone]

I haven't really got much to add to the political debate - as it goes it looks like my ward (York Outer) is one of the new ones so weirdly I'm in the minority in that my vote does count!

I'm just looking for an excuse to post clips you know what - to illustrate that no matter how well-reasoned we all think we are, the majority of the populous is going to just go with who they like best / whose dress isn't the loudest...

Hadn't noticed Malcolm's comment @ 5.53 on the first airing - "what's wrong with you? It looks like you've shat a Lego garage..."

[Falling Down]

Here's Vince 'He's behind you' Cable's defence of the LibDems disastrous poster campaign from an interview on the politics show and his usual 'I'm right clever me' posturing.  Cable is a vain, self-serving pantomime dame IMHO & he would be a useless chancellor.

Jon Sopel: Let me just move onto something else, which is the poster you unveiled this week, and I think we can show it to you. A reworking of the Labour tax bombshell. This is the Tory VAT bombshell. ‘You would pay £389 more a year in VAT under the Conservatives.’ Where does that figure come from?

Vince Cable: Well it comes from taking some of the spending commitments that the Tories have made in respect of taxation. In other words their Inheritance Tax pledge, particularly their commitment to cut National Insurance which they’ve made a big deal of over the last year. We know from experience that when they’re –

JS: Sorry to interrupt, but the poster says, ‘you would pay,’ not that you might pay. The Tories have said they will not raise it. They’ve got no plans to.

VC: Well it’s a reasonable prediction based on their past form, that when they’re forced to – when they are –

JS: But you pass it off as fact.

VC: We passed it off as a reasonable prediction of the way the would behave  -

JS: No, you don’t say – the poster doesn’t say this is a reasonable prediction, this says ‘you would pay.’ I mean I just come back to you want to –

VC: Well I’m trying to put this in fairly simple language. That the Tories have an enormous problem to do explaining how they would cover this big budget deficit which they’ve been talking about incessantly for months, they’ve got no explanation of how they’d do it. They’re now making – let me just finish the argument – they’re now making extra spending commitments. We’re saying on the basis of their past history when they’ve been in government, the way they deal with this is to increase Value Added Tax. That’s all we’re saying.

JS: Would you rule out raising VAT?

VC: No, I don’t. It’s something –

JS: So therefore your position is no different to them.

VC: It is fundamentally different because we’ve taken the view that if you’re tackling the problems of the big budget deficit, you’ve got to spell out -  you’ve got to look first of all at public spending and we’ve tried to do that and we’ve identified quite a substantial list of commitments that we would make in public spending which are much more explicit than the Conservative –

JS: But just in election campaign.

VC: Let me just finish the argument. The commitments we would make, the Conservatives haven’t been willing to do that. The problem is if you’re not willing  to do that –

JS: And the figure you reach is £389. Not £390, not £388, not £388.50.

VC: But that’s an attempt – it’s obviously an approximation, that’s simple common sense, but that’s the –

JS: but it’s not truthful.

VC: Of course it is. We’re talking about a sum which equates to the gap that they are unable to explain.

JS: Sure, but then you are fighting a campaign saying we are not the corrupt politics and you’re using exactly the same tactics. I mean let’s leave aside whether or whether not there is a black hole in the Tory’s finances.  Leave that to one side. You don’t know factually, that they are going to raise VAT. That is your conjecture.

VC: It is a conjecture and it’s a reasonable assumption and I wouldn’t claim anymore than that.

JS: And that £389 is a rough figure plucked –

VC: It’s a ball park estimate of what it would require in order to fill that gap, and it seems a reasonable way of expressing that argument.

JS: Sure, but then it is not clearly absolutely truthful that that is what they would do. It doesn’t say anywhere on the poster this is your conjecture. I’m just making the point that I know that this happens in election campaigns, but the Liberal Democrats are meant to be a bit cleaner, a bit kind of more honest about these things.

VC: If we published the poster with footnotes and notes to editors of what this figure actually  means, it would be counted as rather ridiculous, wouldn’t it? We’re trying to get across a basic simple message that the Conservatives have made very large commitments in respect of tax cutting and in respect of spending, which they’re not willing to explain how they’ll do it. That, in our view, is fundamentally dishonest politics. We’ve tried to suggest what in practice that would mean, and it almost certainly would mean a big increase in Value Added Tax. We’re just trying to illustrate it –

JS: It’s a good piece of propaganda.

VC: I would prefer to be talking positively about the things we would do in tax policy in respect to public spending.

JS: Well it’s your poster, this is your first poster.

VC: And it makes a perfectly reasonable point.

JS: Well if you would rather be talking about the positive message, you could have said, no, no, I’m sorry, let’s have a poster that deals with what we are going to do.

VC: Well, we’re having our Manifesto launched this week and you’ll be able to read all the positive things that we’re going to do and I’m very happy to talk about that.

[Sloper]

Indeed Vince seems to be regarded as a saint because he pointed out the bleeding obvious about the debt and asset bubble created by Labour.

He is now looking distinctly B-.

A shame really as I have (had) great hopes of the Lib Dems making great strides forward and taking a big chunk of the Labour vote but it seems they're shooting themselves in the feet rather than shooting at the easy targets afforded by their opponents.

[Bonjoy]

That interview comes across to me as a politician making a reasonable defence of a mildly flawed poster (find me one that isn’t!), in the face of repetitive haranguing on the same point from the interviewer. Funny how people’s bias skews the way they see things.
The point the poster (clumsily) makes is a fair one no?

[Jaspersharpe]

The Tories will raise VAT in order to pay for not increasing NI. I don't care if they haven't said they will,  they will and everyone knows it.

[Jaspersharpe]

I agree that the administration of the Tax Credits system has been a disaster but that doesn't change the fact that the policy is correct.

Why? I think it's a mad policy.

For many people it's the difference between being able to work, be a useful member of society, improve things for themselves and their families and signing on.

I actually agree with the Tory policy of reducing the scope although they are doing it as a way of cutting spending rather than redistribution to those who need it more.

As I said, the way it's implemented (and some of the people who are / aren't entitled) needs a massive rethink but the idea is correct.

Sorry, very brief but I've actually got to do some work today! 

[psychomansam]

I've always been a fan of the Lib Dem's, and have voted for them in the past and guess I will do again. However, having just taken this test;

http://voteforpolicies.org.uk/

it seems I ought to be voting for the Greens (a lost vote in many eyes!) or Tories (who I have no faith in), all based upon policies.

Which begs the question, are we blinkered by media hype and propaganda instead of reading what each party actually propose?

Why not vote for who's policies are best instead of choosing between the big three?

This site is really good, i come up 50% green, 50% lib dem, which doesn't surprise me. Much more useful to look at wider ranging longer term policies than whatever overhyped untrue election promises all the politicians are making for the cameras at the moment.

Here's hoping for electoral reform!

[Falling Down]

I'm a bit busy today but will come back on later...

[john horscroft]

(especially if Labour get back in and Balls has a go at the City, which, like it or not is pretty valuable to the economy)

Bloody hell Yoss, agree with lots that you say, but that one's a doozy!  Valuable to the economy??  That would be the city into which the taxpayer has had to pour billions of pounds to prevent economic melt-down would it?  Valuable - as a hole in the head..............Socialism for the rich, that's what this country's good at............

[Sloper]

John, 'the city' is not solely comprised of the banks which took government money.  'The city' accounted for, I think about 30% of all tax, so to borrow a phrase 'over the course of the economic cycle' 'the city' contributed far more than the banks were lent, which in time may well return a substantial profit.

Jasper the point about tax credits is that they are a very expensive way of giving people back some of their own money; far better to have used the cash to increase personal allowances and remove the penal rates of taxation for people who move from welfare to work.

What's wrong with this?

Note this is about work, the benefits for unwaged persons are a different subject.

[Jaspersharpe]

I completely agree with increasing the personal allowance. To about £10k maybe?

http://www.libdems.org.uk/siteFiles/resources/PDF/Tax%20Plans%20-%20Briefing%20Document.pdf

[Yossarian]

(especially if Labour get back in and Balls has a go at the City, which, like it or not is pretty valuable to the economy)

Bloody hell Yoss, agree with lots that you say, but that one's a doozy!  Valuable to the economy??  That would be the city into which the taxpayer has had to pour billions of pounds to prevent economic melt-down would it?  Valuable - as a hole in the head..............Socialism for the rich, that's what this country's good at............

There was an article in the Guardian of all papers which the total tax take from the City in one year was set against the bailout total, and as I recall the bailout total didn't actually look too bad at all in comparison...