General Election 2015 Match Day Thread (Merged)

[Esmond Million's Bung]

Well as it is apparently "my BBC" - I'm Lord Hall of Birkenhead in your eyes - I thought you must be Viscount Harmsworth, a fellow exile in France who seems to hold similar views. He also thinks if you put tax up the wealthy will avoid paying it more. It is, after all, only the "little people" who have to pay 20% or 40%.

Anyway, this is a pointless argument because no matter what the electoral mathematics, the SNP manifesto is not going to be introduced in the UK, any more than the Lib Dems, or the Greens, or UKIP.

The whole "the Scots are going to control your destiny" thing is a desperate throw of the dice by a party bankrupt of ideas and short of genuine achievements. It's an appeal to the angry Little Englander, just as Labour has long benefitted from the idea that "London is screwing you" in northern and Scottish seats. That's where we let our industrial heartland die while the City chaps in the Home Counties got rich.

[Red-Robbo]

and of course he is correct, the Socialists here in France introduced 75% tax on people earning over 1 mil a year and it was met with a mass exodus of French millionaires averaging 15 per week, 330 of them are now domiciled in the UK, also a threat of a football strike and the loss of international investment and French entrepreneurs and of course in the lead up to the last French election many socialists including 8 who were destined to become cabinet ministers moved all of their assets using tax avoidance schemes, because of course they knew what was coming, taxing the rich simply does not and will not work it is purely a gimmick for parties to say "we are tough on the rich", should they pay more of course they should, will they pay more of course most of them will not and they are all at it tory, labour, lib dum, ukip and i'm sure even green.

The problem is that the political class of whatever persuasion, will never have the balls to introduce the sort of tax laws that force the rich to pay more, they will always leave them an escape route, because undoubtedly most of them will use a tax avoidance scheme/loophole of one description or another and claim we are the party who put up taxes for the rich, but be vague on exactly how much revenue it actually raised.

Just one simple analogy, if you worked for a UK company with offices in England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, would you be happy with Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales having better working terms, wages and conditions than you enjoyed in England?, better still would you be happy if this was a policy endorsed and voted for by your Union?.

My point is merely if the UK is truly a union then why can't everybody enjoy the same benefits? and if that is not possible then why should the parts of that union that enjoy those benefits be allowed to vote in matters that only effect that one part of the union, that surely cannot be democracy ?.

PS:- One thing I am sure is true, if Sturgeon was leader of either the tories or labour, I think she could lead either to victory, she has bigger balls than Cameron, Miliband, Clegg, Farage, Salmond and Natalie Bennett co joined together.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

You could use the "if you put tax up and people avoid paying it" logic to justify all sorts of nonsense.

"You make heroin illegal and people will smuggle it, so best legalise it".

The fact surely is those who'd avoid tax at 50% are already doing so at 45%. There isn't some sort of "magic figure" at which people stop being honest. The way to proceed is to close the loopholes rich evaders use, be proactive at seeking out those with undeclared wealth - like the German tax authorities are, and impose swingeing penalties. It is theft from everyone else. Let's have some chokey time here!

That, in my view, is a better way to run the country than just shrugging your shoulders and saying "the rich are always going to get away with it".

[screech]

He won't be able to use it, Gideon has maxed it out during the last 5 years!

[PHILINFRANCE]

I agree with every word, so why hasn't it happened?, I have lived through 11 prime ministers (that I can remember - including the Thatcher years, presumably, and a few divorces. Oh. And your dogs?) about 17 governments I make that and many of them have raised tax for the rich, has it worked? has it ****, they will always find a way to circumnavigate the tax laws because of the loopholes politicians deliberately leave within the legislation.

 

Who do we trust to change the tax laws? politicians?, well 17 governments haven't managed it in my lifetime because they simply do not have the will, because it ultimately favours them to have the current system.

 

Until the tax laws are changed and are transparent and loophole free, 'tax the rich' is just all rhetoric with no substance, but always looks good in an election year, will the 18th government in my lifetime change that, will it ****.

[Red-Robbo]

I agree with every word, so why hasn't it happened?, I have lived through 11 prime ministers (that I can remember) about 17 governments I make that and many of them have raised tax for the rich, has it worked? has it ****, they will always find a way to circumnavigate the tax laws because of the loopholes politicians deliberately leave within the legislation.

Who do we trust to change the tax laws? politicians?, well 17 governments haven't managed it in my lifetime because they simply do not have the will, because it ultimately favours them to have the current system.

Until the tax laws are changed and are transparent and loophole free, 'tax the rich' is just all rhetoric with no substance, but always looks good in an election year, will the 18th government in my lifetime change that, will it ****.

I think some are more likely to improve implement it then others. A party where quite a number of donors utilise such tax loopholes is less likely to put any serious effort into closing them than one, say, funded by union subscription.

This isn't about punishing the wealthy because of some sort of class war agenda. It's about fairness. Which is why the non- dom rule should be scrapped, even if some billionaires take their butlers and Lamborghinis elsewhere. Why should 52% of my income (conservative estimate) vanish in some sort of taxation while the guy next door pays 0.5% of his?

[Red-Robbo]

I voted today via a postal vote. I was undecided but when it came to putting my cross on the paper I chose the Conservative candidate. He hasn't got a chance (Liverpool Riverside )but I wonder how many other undecideds will, when it comes to it, opt for the Cons. Dan Hodges at the Telegraph thinks it's one of the factors that will see Cameron back as PM:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/politics-blog/11573434/David-Cameron-is-still-on-course-for-Downing-Street.html

Not me! I'd rather shag a decaying corpse than vote to keep the present lot in power.

After some humming and hawing, I voted for my sitting MP as she is extremely hard-working (officially held more surgeries than anyone else in politics) and stands up for local interests.

I dunno if she'll be returned, as the seat I live in had been Tory for generations before 2010, but as I said elsewhere, she's winning the "battle of the signs".

[Esmond Million's Bung]

I think some are more likely to improve implement it then others. A party where quite a number of donors utilise such tax loopholes is less likely to put any serious effort into closing them than one, say, funded by union subscription.

This isn't about punishing the wealthy because of some sort of class war agenda. It's about fairness. Which is why the non- dom rule should be scrapped, even if some billionaires take their butlers and Lamborghinis elsewhere. Why should 52% of my income (conservative estimate) vanish in some sort of taxation while the guy next door pays 0.5% of his?

 

for the 2nd or 3rd time, "I AGREE WITH YOU", but tax rises without legislation is impotent.

 

Union subscription funded Labour had 15 years to put serious effort into closing tax loopholes and.............................................I for one won't be holding my breath.

 

it will never happen, because most of the political class use loopholes, I wouldn't mind betting about 400 present MP's and at least 100 prospective MP's are getting their tax affairs in order before any legislation can hit 'THEIR' assets as we speak.

[chipdawg]

http://www.theguardian.com/business/ng-interactive/2015/apr/29/the-austerity-delusion

This is long (I'm only part way through) but incredibly interesting view point from an incredibly interesting and intelligent economist. Paul Kruger is unashamedly a political 'liberal', but he's won a Nobel Prize In Economics so he presumably has a certain level of authority on such issues

[Stoke_Gifford_Red]

I voted today via a postal vote. I was undecided but when it came to putting my cross on the paper I chose the Conservative candidate. He hasn't got a chance (Liverpool Riverside )but I wonder how many other undecideds will, when it comes to it, opt for the Cons. Dan Hodges at the Telegraph thinks it's one of the factors that will see Cameron back as PM:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/politics-blog/11573434/David-Cameron-is-still-on-course-for-Downing-Street.html

Conservative papers (and commentators in them) always exaggerate the likelihood of David Cameron winning next week, and the Labour supporting press do the same about Labour. In reality, it looks like they will be very closely matched in terms of numbers of seats. Ane average of all the polls shows Consrrvatives ahead by about 0.5% which will translate into about 5-10 seats more. However in this prediction the "anti-Tory" parties outnumber the "pro-Tory parties", so Miliband is favourite to become PM, latest estimate I saw was 59% according to the betting.

As an aside,Dan Hodges was so confident UKIP would flop he promised to streak naked down Whitehall if they got over 6% of the vote. I am not a supporter of UKIP by any means but with them polling at 12% and 17% in the last two polls (and have only polled in single figures 4 times out of hundreds of polls over the last half a year), surely they will exceed 6%?

Source: https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/280038576283062273

Edit: PM after election betting trend showing Milband now ahead by quite a margin which is a couple reversal of about a month ago - https://twitter.com/May2015NS/status/593872957132378113?s=09

[chipdawg]

Conservative papers (and commentators in them) always exaggerate the likelihood of David Cameron winning next week, and the Labour supporting press do the same about Labour. In reality, it looks like they will be very closely matched in terms of numbers of seats. Ane average of all the polls shows Consrrvatives ahead by about 0.5% which will translate into about 5-10 seats more. However in this prediction the "anti-Tory" parties outnumber the "pro-Tory parties", so Miliband is favourite to become PM, latest estimate I saw was 59% according to the betting.

As an aside,Dan Hodges was so confident UKIP would flop he promised to streak naked down Whitehall if they got over 6% of the vote. I am not a supporter of UKIP by any means but with them polling at 12% and 17% in the last two polls (and have only polled in single figures 4 times out of hundreds of polls over the last half a year), surely they will exceed 6%?

Source: https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/280038576283062273

Edit: PM after election betting trend showing Milband now ahead by quite a margin which is a couple reversal of about a month ago - https://twitter.com/May2015NS/status/593872957132378113?s=09

Exactly this. I think it's fairly likely that the Tories will be the biggest single party come next Friday, but only by the akin of their teeth. With UKIP and possibly the DUP their only 'natural' allies, they'd be well short of a majority in such a coalition. Even if they convince the Lib Dems to get back in bed with them it probably won't be enough. The problem really is whether Labour will be able to go back on promises to not make a coalition with the SNP or whether they'd enter into an arrangement where the SNP would prop them up to keep the Tories out- a dangerous game. I actually don't think the SNP are to be feared as such, so long as you like your politics decidedly left of centre. Trident would still go through though as Tory and Labour policy is to renew

It once again serves to highlight the stupidity of our electoral system. UKIP predicted to get 10% of the vote but less than 1% of seats, Lib Dems (even with a decimated vote) are still going to get 8-10% of the vote for less than 5% of the seats. It's utterly ludicrous and not democratic

[Super]

For me Cameron was a clear winner last night.

[chipdawg]

For me Cameron was a clear winner last night.

He didn't give a straight answer to a single question for the entire 28 minutes! To be fair though, he faced some pretty aggressive and tough questions and didn't look like a complete tit so he deserves credit

I actually thought Nick did best on the night, but he was very convincing on these things 5 years ago too

[Portland Bill]

For me Cameron was a clear winner last night.

The winner in not answering a question!

Did you see the sweat above his top lip!

He was keen to have a pop at Miliband at every turn, but is scared to actually debate face to face with him.

The only one of the three who looked comfortable and natural was Miliband.

[Stoke_Gifford_Red]

He didn't give a straight answer to a single question for the entire 28 minutes! To be fair though, he faced some pretty aggressive and tough questions and didn't look like a complete tit so he deserves credit

I actually thought Nick did best on the night, but he was very convincing on these things 5 years ago too

I thought the same as you.

The Guardian poll showed Dave on 44%, Ed on 38% and Clegg on 19%.

However, people also judge the winner through their preexisting perceptions and opinions. When compared to the popularity of the respective leaders prior to yesterday Clegg vastly outperformed expectations, Miliband was slightly better and Cameron slightly worse.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

Labour playing the 'Nigel' card, the nasty BBC and the Tories loaded the audience, oh dear.

 

2 labour candidates suspended one last week and another today, it was going so well.

 

and this locally is really classy.

 

http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Labour-candidate-Kingswood-issues-apology/story-26424317-detail/story.html#comments

 

PS:- None of them answered a question they never do.

[SARJ]

[Stoke_Gifford_Red]

[chipdawg]

[Nogbad the Bad]

[SARJ]

Someone's been reading too much Daily Mail I think. It was proven by the BBC that the audience members were representative of the UK as a whole. This argument that the audience was "left wing" and "anti-UKIP" is only because the country as a whole has this opinion.

 

Have to disagree. Granted I see other politicians get into heated arguments with the audience on TV, but whenever it's UKIP it seems to be angry 'hatred'.

 

For example, rather than diplomatically/politely ask Farage his reasons why he wants to reverse the smoking ban, the audience basically verbally abused him in the guise of a question, before everyone started taking digs at the bloke; he couldn't even respond due to the noise and interruptions. Even Nicola Sturgeon doesn't get this treatment.

 

And to say a select few hundred on a BBC TV show is representative of the 'whole country' is false, regardless of how well they were chosen by a polling panel. Current polls suggest UKIP are ahead of the Lib Dems, so the 'whole country' can't  possibly be againmst them.

[Portland Bill]

Interesting to see that the 'small business' woman who questioned Miliband last night and mentioned Tesco's.

Isn't actually the undecided voter she claimed she was,but a Tory activist!

https://tompride.wordpress.com/2015/05/01/supposedly-undecided-bbcqt-audience-member-set-up-company-with-tory-mp/

[Barrs Court Red]

I'd be interested to see what the candidates thoughts are on the abysmal treatment of Palistinians by Israel. An issue we don't do enough about - that goes for this government and last.

[Red-Robbo]

I too also usually keep out of political debates on here.

However there's little doubt about the traditionally left leaning QT audiences. They also seem to be far more aggressive, belligerent and downright noisy than their outnumbered right leaning counterparts.

Last night the audience split was more even and didn't it show with Miliband visibly squirming under the pressure of some intense and intelligent scrutinisation.

The sharpest, most direct and persistent questioners I can ever remember seeing on such a programme. In my opinion Cameron more than held his own, Clegg came out of it well with his chummy style suiting the occasion down to the ground, but Miliband, oh, dear, let's just say he's certainly not PM material.

You're right about Farage too. Far more than the 10-15% likely to vote for UKIP have sympathy with many of his views even if, in the final analysis, they will put their cross elsewhere this time. To say that all those who will not vote for them strongly disapprove of them is nonsense.

I didn't see it, but I know Miliband faced some Tories in the audience going on about the supposed record of the Gordon Brown government, and he fumbled his response very badly.

I don't know why he just didn't say government debt was 49% of GDP when Brown was voted out, it now is 79%. Despite enormous cuts this government is actually using "the national credit card" more than Labour did - and Labour had to borrow to stop our banking system collapsing after it was dragged into the American sub-prime mortgage disaster. National debt was 36% of GDP before that.

That sort of halts all those arguments.

[Aussie]

Less than 100 days before the election, and still no thread!!

Thought I'd better start one.

Anyone likely to be voting?

Probably Conservative.

Lib Dems are dead ducks.

Labour will have me paying 50p tax rate.

At least the Conservatives sort of help me out a bit.

Then again my district is Henley on Thames which is one of the safest seats in the country so it doesn't much matter....

Thought Cameron was easily the winner last night.

[Aussie]

I'd be interested to see what the candidates thoughts are on the abysmal treatment of Palistinians by Israel. An issue we don't do enough about - that goes for this government and last.

Without getting too in depth on the subject as a former IDF soldier, I can tell you that every single day there is provocation from the Palestinians. Be it petrol bombs, stones, rockets, driving cars at people.

You see one side of a story and it influences western opinion.

[Red-Robbo]

[Aussie]

Each to their own, I venture I already pay far and away enough tax now (more than many people earn in a year) and given I have a family to support it's not fair for me to have to pay anymore.

50% of salary is too much. That's just not on. Hence Labour won't get my vote.

[Scrumpylegs]

Each to their own, I venture I already pay far and away enough tax now (more than many people earn in a year) and given I have a family to support it's not fair for me to have to pay anymore.

50% of salary is too much. That's just not on. Hence Labour won't get my vote.

It's a fact that the poorest 10% of the population actually pay a higher percentage of their income in tax (43% as opposed to 35% to be precise). I'll bet the top 1% pay even less!!

[Red-Robbo]