backhander - Member[b]I believe one of the reasons that government has got into the pickle it has has been that the opposition have not managed to protect the primacy of the parliament and hold the government more aggressively to account.[/b]
Not again, this is pathetic. How can you blame someone else for labours sh1t policy? "it's your fault you didn't stop us"
Are you aware backhander, that it is the official role of the opposition to oppose the government, aren't you ?
They are not simply "the losers" in the equation, that's why they are officially called : "[i]Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition[/i]".
And that's why the Leader of the Opposition receives an enhanced salary - for all the hard work he is expected to do "opposing" the government.
E-b
A socialist voice is a screechy grating one. It is also loud and it has an identifiable popular support, usually in the unions (despite how neutered they have become) or from state employees, and of sufficient volume to be respected. That voice has an impact in the chamber when a right wing government is at work - despite what Thatcher did to the unions, she did it when the opposition could not stop her. By the time the opposition got its act together I think it got far more punches landed.
The Tories on the other hand have little structured electorate to represent in opposition*: take, for example the rural population. Its vast and completely unrepresented. It has no identifiable lobbying body - or at least didnt until the Countryside Alliance was created - so has no political weight to influence parliament through the opposition system.
*especially while the left are wooing the middle classes.
The Conservatives have long-pledged to look at the 1998 Human Rights Act, which incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law.
From the Beeb - also wrong. The act refferd to incorporated it into English law. It was already incorporated into scottish law under the Scotland act.
He also refers to a British bill of rights. Excluding northern Ireland then and the other various islands?
Stoner - CBI ' taxpayers alliance/ murdoch press all strong tory supporters
Taxpayers alliance only existed from a few years ago.
Murdoch supported Labour until only a few months ago.
Labour government in place. c.12 years
Also, neither represent any non-labour constituency. They have their own very small interests that do not stretch out to the electorate.
From the Beeb - also wrong.
Since I havent studied constitutional law since my first year at University, you'll have to forgive me for taking things as they are. You are far better read up on the subject than me. As it happens it's not a policy on my radar, although I do hope Kier Starmer has a good pension plan in place because his approach to the Tory rhetoric isnt going to keep him in a job past May 😉
I'm rather suspicious of the CA. Their concern seems to extend no further than a chocolate box vision of rural England (hunting being an obvious touchstone), together with the usual big landowner stuff. The farming wing of the Noteeth clan were very much old "county" Tories (chairing the local NFU, running the village fete) - and those that survive find little in common with either rentagob Dan Hannan or weekending bankers prancing around their estates.
Stoner - by that logic Labour have no support either - Unions do not slavishly follow labour policy nor do public servants.
By the time the opposition got its act together I think it got far more punches landed.
By becoming politically conservative.
Murdoch supported Labour until only a few months ago.
You obviously don't read the Sun very often.
The Sun has consistently slagged off Labour since day one. Despite the fact that in 1997, 2001, and 2005, it officially endorsed Blair.
And not only has the Sun criticised Labour on a day to day basis for years through it's general articles and editorials, but it has also paid vast amounts of money to an army of rabid right-wing rabble rousing columnists, to attack the slightest hint of civilised behaviour from a Labour government.
And yet New Labour valued more highly support from Rupert Murdoch, and what the obnoxious non-voting foreigner had to say, than the opinions of traditional Labour voters.
Prediction
Hung parliament - tories most voites very slight majority but not workable Lib dems hold both lab/tories to ransom for PR + Ulster unionist hold tories to ransom and possibly euro scpetic wing do as well - not sure who cracks first, Brown sacked/resigns and possible second election before the Crown [Liz] picks one?
The only thing worse than the Tories winning the next general election would be Labour winning it or, God forbid, a hung parliament with the turncoat scum (based on what happened in Scotland) that are the Liberals getting an undeserved taste of power.
And yet New Labour valued more highly support from Rupert Murdoch, and what the obnoxious non-voting foreigner had to say, than the opinions of traditional Labour voters.
My argument was about support whilst in opposition not support while in power. In opposition the Labour and Union movement generally speaking (once theyve had the kind of stand up bitchy argument any married couple must) talk with a common voice on behalf of an identifiable constituency in opposition to a Tory government.
Do any of you identify with any of the party manifestos? None of them have propositions come even close to my own ideals which include:
a fair progressive tax system that taxes both wealth and income based on ability to pay.
Equality in education and health.
The taxation of profit rather than work. High company tax on profits, low NI and taxes on reinvestment. Reduce the cost of opperating in Britain to reverse the job exporting trend.
The polluter pays and a carbon tax. A housing tax based on thermal performance and surface area, super taxes on the most polluting vehicles (anything beyond a basic Golf). Super taxes on the most polluting luxury goods such as flowers flown in from Africa.
Price fixing and margin capping on monopoly service providers
Drastic cutting of things local councils are allowed to do and spend money on. If it doesn't fall into education, health and essential infrastructure it doesn't get any money.
Reducing MP pay to the same level as priamry school teachers with the same rules for claiming expenses. MPs must have no other professional occupation or interests.
Making companies pay tax on profits at the point the profit is made - not in Ireland or other place that have 0% company tax.
Joining the Euro
a fair progressive tax system that taxes both wealth and income based on ability to pay.
Why does it have to be progressive? If you earn more you pay more tax with a flat rate system - surely that's fair?
High company tax on profits, low NI and taxes on reinvestment. Reduce the cost of opperating in Britain to reverse the job exporting trend.
Increasing tax on company profits isn't going to reverse jobs going out of the country.
Nope because the richer you are the more disposable income you have beyond income needed to pay for necessities. The pain of taxation should be shared fairly. Taking 40% of rich man's 500 000 is much less painful for him that taking 5% from someone with an income of 20 000 and essential expenditure of 18 500.
Punishing success. Cunning.
[img] 
[/img]
You can tax a company in two ways:
Tax their activity through NI, property taxes, service taxes and taxes on the goods and services they use in their activity. All these taxes increase the risk the company takes and form part of the costs it uses to compare the cost of goods sold at any production site.
Tax the profit. This in no way discourages investment, employing more people, expanding the site etc., and has no incidence on the cost of goods sold. It simply taxes profit when it is made.
Punishing success.
You only consider it being punished if you are selfish and money obsessed. Most well-balanced people would just be happy to be comfortably off and contributing to society.
[i]Punishing success. Cunning. [/i]
The alternative is creating a poverty trap and no incentive to work at all.
Tax the profit. This in no way discourages investment, employing more people
What it does is discourage where these things happen - i.e. it'll be done somewhere other than the UK.
There are arguments to tax business less, encourage them to move to the UK and therefore generate more jobs etc. and therefore more income tax from employed people.
Your proposals regarding personal and business taxation would be fine if people didn't have a choice where to place themselves and their businesses - if you move them and the jobs they create out of the UK then everyone suffers.
To answer the OP - I would have thought the Tories have it
but .........
I remember the 1992 general election when the fortunes of the two parties were pretty much reversed from what they are today
The incumbent Tory party were deeply unpopular as a government & had [if you believed the polls] no chance of hanging on & winning
They did though
You only consider it being punished if you are selfish and money obsessed. Most well-balanced people would just be happy to be comfortably off and contributing to society.
No, most well-balanced people would simply move their companies to a country where they're not punished.
can you give an example of mass emigration of well balanced people due to "punishing "tax laws?No, most well-balanced people would simply move to a country where they're not punished
Did they all leave when it was 95% ?
EDIT: NICE EDIT 5th 🙄
The world has changed. Companies choose the most efficient areas to base their workforce.
Try ordering from Dell or Apple and see where it comes from.
Company tax and personal tax all come into it. Punish people for working and they will work where they're not punished. Welcome to the 21st century.
Sorry. I edited it within seconds, not in response to your post.
DUPLICATE POST DELETED
Punish people for working and they will work where they're not punished. Welcome to the 21st century.
Scandinavian countries which pay way more tax than we do don't seem to have these problems of their economies being crippled by losing high earners/the highly skilled/motivated do they?
Is that because it's bollocks, or that they have more of a concept of society, rather than a collection of greedy individuals?
5thElefant - Member
Sorry. I edited it within seconds, not in response to your post.
This is True FWIW - it was like that when I posted - no need for the roll sorry
+ what Grum said
Is that because it's bollocks, or that they have more of a concept of society, rather than a collection of greedy individuals?
Sums up the UK rather well.
Scandinavian countries which pay way more tax than we do don't seem to have these problems of their economies being crippled by losing high earners/the highly skilled/motivated do they?Is that because it's bollocks, or that they have more of a concept of society, rather than a collection of greedy individuals?
In the case of Norway it's due to a couple of unusual factors:
1) Not having pissed away their oil money
2) A much less open economy that we have, where they can tax imports to the extent that allows them to control movements of goods in/out of their economy.
I've read some commentaries that say that Norway couldn't join the EU, even if they wanted to, because of the effect a freer market would have on their economy. Wasn't totally convinced by the argument myself but it did raise some interesting points.
Don't know enough about the economies of the other Scandanavian countries to comment.
i don't know who will win but i know who will lose
You are the ones being punished not the rich. Among the 500 odd posts on the occupations thread I didn't see any that would put anyone above middle income bracket.
You pay NI, income tax, council taxes, VAT, obligatory pension contributions, fuel taxes and all the stealth taxes Brown has invesnted. You pay well over half your income in tax and the council taxes represent a significant tax on your wealth if you are a home owner.
The rich have unearned incomes which are much more lightly taxed than unearned incomes (hardly fair as you are selling your life rather than sitting on your butt adding up dividends). Many investment income are exempt from tax, forestry for example and others are accompanied by tax credits. The very rich simply stash away their money in trusts in the Bahamas and pay no tax at all even though they live in the UK. The rich spend much less of their income on things subject to VAT and don't have to pay pensions or NI.
A small to insignifcant amount of a rich persons wealth/income goes in tax but you losee over half. Is that fair? The richer I have become the less tax I have paid both as a proportion of my income and wealth and in absolute numbers. Interesting eh?
"Most well-balanced people would just be happy to be comfortably off and contributing to society."
Sounds like filthy socialism talk here..
Sounds like filthy socialism talk here..
Well done for proving my point.
A small to insignifcant amount of a rich persons wealth/income goes in tax but you losee over half. Is that fair?
I think once above a reasonable threshold (for example where the 40% bracket starts) then a flat rate for all income above that is fair. People who earn more, contribute more anyway, so it doesn't seem fair to me that the percentage of their income that is paid in tax increases.
"Tax the rich" is a hollow war-cry, mostly from people who'll never themselves build businesses, make jobs or create welth - but they know it'll win votes from people who see business as the enemy. Tommy Sheridan up here being a good example - he knows his policies will never have to be implemented but knows pandering to a certain sector of society will win enough votes to keep him in the style he likes, without actually having to work for it. George Galloway is another good example - talks about taxing the rich to help the poor form the comfort of his holiday villa in Spain.
[i]people who'll never themselves build businesses, make jobs or create wealth[/i]
Fine - but that's somewhat removed from being lectured to by arrogant RBS bankers & double dipping BarCap execs about how they are oh so "worth" it. I for one am pretty ****ing sick of hearing it.
"Earn" implies working for a living. The rich don't earn anything. Thatcher convinced the blue-collar workers they were above voting socialist, who has convinced you lot you are rich and therfore the rich should pay less tax?
Go on, how much tax does someone like [url= http://www.tax-news.com/archive/story/Bermuda_At_Centre_Of_AlFayed_Tax_Investigation_xxxx1770.html ]Al Fayed pay in tax?[/url] Sweet FA. And there are thousands like him funding the Labour party to vote tax laws in their favour.
[i]"Tax the rich" is a hollow war-cry, mostly from people who'll never themselves build businesses, make jobs or create welth[/i]
Been there, done all that.
