General Election - 8th June.

xmiles wrote:

gloswhite wrote:
Maybe you can use Nats knickers when you go sailing 

Not entirely factual Glos.

Thanks xmiles, I appreciate the support.

Close enough for government work

Natasha Whittam wrote:

xmiles wrote:

gloswhite wrote:
Maybe you can use Nats knickers when you go sailing 

Not entirely factual Glos.

Thanks xmiles, I appreciate the support.

You wear support knickers?

xmiles wrote:

rammywhite wrote:

xmiles wrote:

rammywhite wrote:

xmiles wrote:Rich and poor and middle class are all relative terms but it is clear that the Tory party is only interested in looking after a tiny minority of the people in this country who for simplicity can be labelled the rich. With the help of a biased right wing media they continue to convince large numbers of people otherwise but the evidence is there if people would only look.

The evidence is not there at all. It's a blinkered view that seems to pass from generation to generation that the Tories are totally biased one way and that Labour  are totally biased in the opposite direction.. To say that the Tories are only  interested in looking after a 'tiny' minority who can be labelled rich I think is utterly naïve.
Its part of the binary divisive thinking that bedevils politics.

Here are some examples of Tory policy:

tax cuts for higher earners
reduced rates of corporation tax
no effort to clamp down on tax evasion or artificial tax avoidance schemes
underfunding the NHS, education and social care
cuts to benefits
pay freeze for public sector workers

Do you really think the impact of these policies is shared equally across society?

Why do you think the Tory party is funded almost exclusively by the very wealthy?

 Tax cuts for all earners by reducing the basic rate of tax and increasing  personal allowances.  Google the Laffer curve and that will explain why reducing the tax rates actually increases the tax take.  Basic economics.

 Cuts to corporation tax allowing higher profits for reinvestment in an attempt to drive up labour productivity where we have one of the lowest productivity figures in Europe - with employment now at its highest for decades.

All plans too reduce tax payments sold commercially must now be approved by the Treasury(that's the law!!)

Budgets for the NHS, schools and social  care have been increased in real terms since the financial crisis of 2008- and that's also a fact.

Cuts to benefits-I'll give you that.  But how does that benefit a 'tiny' minority  of rich people?

Pay freeze for public sector workers- that goes for everyone in the public sector (including me!) many of whom are paid unbelievable amounts of money. Look what the high earners employed by Bolton Council earn. That's apart form MPs of course who got inflation bustin wage rises -voted for by both the major parties

And the Tories are not funded by the 'very wealthy'. There are many people of moderate means who are members, just as there are very wealthy people funding the Labour party

You talk about  right wing media , but by the same token there is a left wing media obscuring the facts, being selective about what they wish you to believe.


Its blinkered thinking again- invent a straw man to kick lumps out of him.
Choose what you want to believe but don't let facts get in the way

The Laffer curve is a theoretical construct and there is no one single Laffer curve. It definitely does not prove that reducing tax rates increases the tax take.

The Tories have been cutting Corporation Tax rates for years but as you say we still have one of the lowest productivity figures in Europe so clearly it isn't working.

Not sure what legislation you are referring to but I can assure you there is absolutely no blanket requirement that "All plans too reduce tax payments sold commercially must now be approved by the Treasury".

We may spend more money on the NHS now than in the past but expenditure is not going to increase in real terms over the next few years and there is a need for even more money because of the aging population. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies over the 10 years to 2020, the NHS budget across the UK will not have increased enough to keep pace with the ageing and growing population. Plus we spend a lower proportion of our GDP on health than other EU countries.

In the 2015 general election for example 10 wealthy hedge fund managers donated £19m to the Tories. This far exceeds the contributions from the 150,000 members which would have been less than £800,000.

As for the left wing media, what is that apart from the Guardian?

 The Laffer curve is not simply a theoretical construct but has been used in US macroeconomic policy making and is the  one of the  bases for the single rate of tax in a number of economies where a single rate for all tax is used. Its also connected to the TIE in an economy- taxable income elasticity. Read the IFS briefing note BN 209 where the basis of policy outcomes is based on the Laffer curve effect.

Correct -the Tories have been cutting CT for years (from 28% to 19% over the last 6  or 7years), but initially taxable profits were low because of the recession - but raising it will do nothing to enhance productivity . Additionally the Tories have abandoned the very generous ACT system of taxing dividends- currently £5000 of dividends are tax free, but from next year that will be reduced to £2000. Doesn't seem to exempt the very wealthy, does it?

 As regards Treasury approval- see HMRCs  clearance rules for approved schemes

I'm glad that you agree that spending in real terms has increased and you're quite right that it will need to increase dramatically in future. Both major parties seem to think that by boosting the economy that will increase the tax take to pay for it

As regards major donors the Electoral Commission point out that Labours 30 biggest donors gave £8.7 m between 2010 and 2014.But that funding has virtually dried up since Corbyn was elected.

In the last general election Labours 12 biggest contributors 'lent' the party just short of £14m- and they were all seriously rich people . There's a vote of confidence- lending ,not giving money. Whether its been repaid, I've not a clue, but I suspect not. Both parties rely on wealthy donors- its not all on way traffic.

Left wing media apart for the Guardian?. Its not as if people actually read newspapers anymore but they do read the Guardian and the Independent  and listen to the BBC which has a reputation for being rather left wing in the way it reports.


Again its a matter of choosing your facts and doing what you want with them.
My view is a plague on both their houses. I've voted for both major parties in the past  and am loyal to neither of them. I won't subscribe to the school that says I'll vote Labour (or Tory) because my father before  me and his father before him voted Labour (or Tory).
 
Its a matter of looking at who is the more competent , or less incompetent , on offer at the time, and unfortunately that is the Tories this time.
 Be lemming -like if you want but the idea of the likes of Corbyn, Abbot and Watson with their hands on the levers of power is more of a nightmare than  May, Hammond and Boris having their hands there

Rammy I won't reply to all your points as I suspect nobody but us is now reading this thread but there are a couple of things I do have to take issue with you.

The Laffer curve doesn't and can't prove anything. It is used and quoted by various right wing pundits because they don't actually understand it. The best explanation of its limitations that I have seen can be found at https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=26&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiC_Yvln_fTAhVqI8AKHZXjAKwQFgipATAZ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwaitingfortax.com%2F2015%2F09%2F07%2Flaffer-curve-an-elegant-useless-idea%2F&usg=AFQjCNGERG9wHBG9cdfrptxywXmJTakDSw&sig2=cM88JN-MnuXc-DQ3WKfXLQ.

I have seen HMRCs clearance rules for approved schemes but this is categorically not a wideranging blanket approval regime. It is a very limited scheme with very little impact. The preamble on the gov.uk site clearly states that it applies to "some transactions".

The BBC's reputation for being left wing is entirely invented by the right wing press and some Tory MPs. It is anything but left wing these days as it is scared of what the Tories will do to it.

Personally I am not a fan of Corbyn or some of his policies. I just think that the Tories have consistently shown they only look after the interests of a few rich friends - tax policy being one of the simplest examples. The Tories reduce tax on the rich (cutting the higher rate of Income Tax) whilst increasing the most regressive tax (increasing VAT) which disproportionally affects the poor.

And finally for what its worth my father was a life long Tory.

rammywhite wrote:

wanderlust wrote:The irony is that he'll be re-elected because this election isn't about people, policies or performance. It's about the rich telling the poor that if they vote for them it will be a blow against the establishment (and don't let those middle class smartarses tell you otherwise!)

What's this with the 'rich' and the 'poor'. Its time we got away from all this dubious class warfare that left wing politicians rant on about. Who's to decide who's 'rich' and who's 'poor'? And don't quote me stuff about median wages ,or free school meals because I know all that.
They're just emotive expressions designed to continue the sort of class warfare that was the subject of politics decades ago, in the 1930s,  that pinprick socialists love to go on about. It reminds me of the pig ignorant student politics that I took part in decades ago based on idealism bereft of reality.
The ragged trousered philanthropist is ragged trousered no more.
He (or she)e lives in a neat semi, drives a mondeo, goes to Spain for his  (or her ) holidays  and all his (or her) kids have mobile phones better than the one I have.
 Sorry to say it, but this myth about the 'rich ' and thr 'poor' at war with each other is too defunct an idea to  mirror the realism of the times we live in in. To say,as someone on here has said that Teresa May 'is at war with' the working class simply beggars belief that anyone can believe it. Similarly that  Jeremy Corbyn 'detests' the rich is equally nonsensical. Its infantile name calling bereft of any substance.
The 'middle classes' ( whatever they are) dominate the country that we live in.
I wonder how I'm categorised- am I 'rich' or 'poor'
Come on now- someone preach me a sermon. Reclaim the moral high ground!!

Whether the class system exists or not isn't the point though is it? It's whether or not politicians can convince people that it exists because it is the perception, not the reality that determines people's opinions.

Is it not the case that 3 million voters who had never previously voted turned out for the EU referendum because they were sold on the slogan "Take Back Control" that was repeated over and over again in every media opportunity? In a democracy, who did they think they were taking back control from? Don't tell me that there was no element of wanting to stick it to "the perceived elite" - that stereotype of foreigner-loving, wet liberal git that is privileged, posh and doesn't have a proper job  involving proper work.

Even the Telegraph has recognised that class perception is guiding voters these days as in this article which states that middle class liberals were the only societal group that voted Remain

When it comes to the "facts" this thread clearly shows that we are inundated with them and that we all choose to believe one source or another, but I would argue that the facts are less important than our perceptions and resultant prejudices when it comes to deciding who to vote for. In fact I'd go further and say that our perceptions and prejudices determine which sources of information we give creedence to so it's pretty much a self-assuring process.

xmiles wrote:Rammy I won't reply to all your points as I suspect nobody but us is now reading this thread

I've been reading it with interest. Debate like this is what forums are about.

Throw in a few 'bellends' and you've got the perfect thread. And I don't mean GlosWhite.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

xmiles wrote:Rammy I won't reply to all your points as I suspect nobody but us is now reading this thread

I've been reading it with interest. Debate like this is what forums are about.

Throw in a few 'bellends' and you've got the perfect thread. And I don't mean GlosWhite.

You've not been right since Nuggy dumped you...

Tory manifesto includes a section on social care and in particularly reforms to caring for the elderly.
It's a complex proposal but the gist of it is that they want us to pay more but will collect the money from your estate when you die provided it is worth £100k or more.
This will mean that people won't have to sell their houses to pay for care whilst they are alive but there'll be nowt for the kids to inherit when they do.
It also means that care homes can maintain high prices despite increasing demand.

wanderlust wrote:Tory manifesto includes a section on social care and in particularly reforms to caring for the elderly.
It's a complex proposal but the gist of it is that they want us to pay more but will collect the money from your estate when you die provided it is worth £100k or more.
This will mean that people won't have to sell their houses to pay for care whilst they are alive but there'll be nowt for the kids to inherit when they do.
It also means that care homes can maintain high prices despite increasing demand.

A bit like an equity release scheme- where the interest rates are usually exorbitant.

rammywhite wrote:

wanderlust wrote:Tory manifesto includes a section on social care and in particularly reforms to caring for the elderly.
It's a complex proposal but the gist of it is that they want us to pay more but will collect the money from your estate when you die provided it is worth £100k or more.
This will mean that people won't have to sell their houses to pay for care whilst they are alive but there'll be nowt for the kids to inherit when they do.
It also means that care homes can maintain high prices despite increasing demand.

A bit like an equity release scheme- where the interest rates are usually exorbitant.

Faced with the prospect of not being able to leave the house to the kids, it wouldn't surprise me if there was a surge in equity release so that they no longer own the house but can liberate the dosh to pass on before they peg it.

Wander, They'll find a way around that. Probably limit the amount you can take out, if not stopping the plans altogether.

gloswhite wrote:Wander, They'll find a way around that. Probably limit the amount you can take out, if not stopping the plans altogether.

In that case, the British - who have historically been Europe's highest % owners of their own homes - may well turn to flogging the houses and renting instead, thereby staying cash rich and able to move it around more easily.

It will be interesting to see how long it takes for pensioners to wake up to the fact that the Tories intend to remove the winter fuel payment from most of them and potentially confiscate all their assets bar £100k once they die if they needed care before they died. And they say they are the low tax party.

But presumably all this will change again once a different party gets elected to government. ???

We all know what to do. Stop voting on the basis of what the media promotes as the deficiencies of the leader, and instead focus on the policies which will actually benefit the country and stop targeted victimisation. If we can bail out banks, fund HS2 and nuclear warheads etc, it's clear we DO have the money, especially if we amend the tax system so that the wealthy pay their fair share.

It seems to me that the Tories' callous disregard for the pain and suffering of easy targets is symbolised by their proposal to bring back the savagery of fox hunting.

 Question Time last night showed that the mood of the country is changing and the Tories' comfortable lead may soon shrink enough to worry them. Can we really vote for the nasty party?

gloswhite wrote:It will be interesting to see how long it takes for pensioners to wake up to the fact ......


XM, why do you insist on some sections of the public being stupid, or a bit slow, just because you have set political views and ideals ?


I'm a pensioner, as are some others on here, and I realised straightaway what the implications were, and I'm certain that the vast majority of us know what is to come. As for the fuel payment, I receive it, and have no problem losing it. I just hope the means that, when its introduced, it doesn't penalise the real needy.
I really don't like the fact that if I or my wife fall ill, we'll have have only 100,000 to leave them, and will watch our home taken off us. At the moment its valued at £350K, and I have no doubt, as someone mentioned earlier, the high prices of care will remain, or even go higher.


What I am surprised at, is that people haven't yet realised that it not only going to affect the old, but also the upcoming generations. Whats the point of striving for your own home, etc, when its nothing more than a way to finance a system that has been allowed to fall into disarray. It not only depresses the older generation, but also takes away the aspirations of many of the younger ones.

I can see why my statement could be taken as patronising but that is not what I intended (and I am a pensioner myself). What I meant was that it would be interesting to see if Tory support amongst pensioners started to drop once the implications of these measures sunk in.

You also make a very good point about the effect on future generations of this confiscatory policy.

Another empty promise to attract the UKIP vote with absolutely no prospect of delivery.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39970768