Who Will The Geeks Vote For In The General Election

[localzuk]

no. as i said, the main parties probably understand the need to work within international frameworks and system, for want of a better phrase.

 

Some of these systems are just plain selly, like economic monetary union, but fortunately we've been able to stay out of that, although we still have to be aware of how that effects us as far as being trading partners with EMU countries.

 

Remind me again, what the libdem position on the single currency was/is ?

 

Sorry but Tories may well understand the need to operate within the frameworks, but their stance is, to put it bluntly 'lets tear it all up, and withdraw! We want to call the shots with all our trade agreements, screw working within the EU!'.

 

The lib dem policy on the single currency is similar to Labour's - don't rush in, but don't rule it out, one day. If being a part of it would make sense for the UK to do, it would look at it then, but it isn't right just yet. Compared to Tories of 'never in a million years!'.

 

How is the single currency silly by the way?

[srochford]

How is the single currency silly by the way?

I don't really know what to think about it except that not having a single currency means that a lot of people sit in the the City of London making shed loads of money buying and selling currencies at no real benefit to the majority of people.

 

I also know that some of those most vehemently opposed (Nigel Farage, for example) are barking mad so if they think the Euro is a bad idea then I reckon there must be something good about it for normal people!

[Muddyfox]

I bunged down "other" pity you couldn't extend the poll to include other but also Green (my choice), UKIP, and BNP as it's a fair guess they might all get a fair crack of the vote even amongst a select audience we have here? Edited April 7, 2010 by Muddyfox

[torledo]

Sorry but Tories may well understand the need to operate within the frameworks, but their stance is, to put it bluntly 'lets tear it all up, and withdraw! We want to call the shots with all our trade agreements, screw working within the EU!'.

 

The lib dem policy on the single currency is similar to Labour's - don't rush in, but don't rule it out, one day. If being a part of it would make sense for the UK to do, it would look at it then, but it isn't right just yet. Compared to Tories of 'never in a million years!'.

 

How is the single currency silly by the way?

 

Well, the tories and the likes of farage are right to rule it out. Even though those characters probably aren't ruling it out for precisely the right reasons.

 

the main reason the single currency is flawed, is that by joining we are giving up currency sovereignty, and a currency with a flexible exchange rate. That's quite important if we go back to the ERM debacle.

 

With the £ the gubbermint can react to events like downturns and tailor it's response based on the situation that exists in the UK, and not be constrained by european central policy. So that means we can set our own interest rates independent of the ecb, run the deficits required, devalue the currency.....all the things that the govt. has done. and not dissimilar to what the US has done. The eurozone has done similar as far as monetary policy , but it's really a one size for many diverse economies approach. Does that sound sensible ?

 

So if a politician in the uk says they won't rule it out.....what are they expecting to happen for it to be a preferable option to keeping the pound ? Answer is nothing can happen to make it a better option than retaining currency sovereignty [keeping the £] So while a million years is a long time, the reality is...it just ain't gonna happen. I think even those in labour and libdems have to accept that now, but they'd look stupid if they came out and said as much. Because they've tried to be neutral on the issue in the past. Which tells me they didn't understand it's flaws.

 

In this case the eurosceptic positon is correct, but if your one of those people who just mindlessly opposes any position that eurosceptics take for fear of being labelled a right-wing anti-EU loon....then you wouldn't have the first clue about finding out why the single currency is silly. And that's why politics isn't just about voting in the smaller parties for 'change' or about being on the left or right.

 

IF the smaller parties are just as clueless in some areas of policy, and important areas at that, then

whassapoint ?

Edited April 7, 2010 by torledo

[srochford]

I definitely won't be voting for the party that doubled the rate of income tax from 10p to 20p when I was on £12.5k a year.

 

Remember that they are also the party that cut the rate to 10% (from 23% when they came into office) - it's not as if tax was always 10% and Gordon Brown decided to put it up!

 

Also remember that Gordon Brown cut the VAT on domestic fuel (ie gas and electricity) from 8% (as introduced by the last Conservative government) to 5%. It's not a huge cut (probably not worth more then £20-£30 a year for many people) but if you're on a low income then "every little helps"

 

It's also misleading to talk about doubling the rate of tax from 10% to 20% - the 10% was only ever paid on a very small fraction of income. Yes, it made a difference and, yes, the whole process was badly handled but it didn't "double the rate of income tax."

[Muddyfox]

I don't think Brown is the best prime minister ever (not sure who was!) but there are many things which have happened while he was chancellor and prime minister that were better than when Thatcher and Major were in charge (and I'm sure some will find many which were worse). snip

 

Brown was the Chancellor who will go down in history for fouling up pensions and selling off the gold reserve - can't think of much good that happened under him - well apart from the smoking ban but that wasn't much to do with him anyhow was it!

[duncane]

It's also misleading to talk about doubling the rate of tax from 10% to 20% - the 10% was only ever paid on a very small fraction of income. Yes, it made a difference and, yes, the whole process was badly handled but it didn't "double the rate of income tax."

 

It would have been misleading to say "doubled the tax" - but I specifically said "double the rate of tax". It might be a small fraction of the income of someone who's better off, but it's quite a lot when you're on a low income. It was done cynically - with the idea of calling a snap election before the effects would be plain to see - but that didn't happen.

[broc]

Whatever you think of Gordon Brown/New Labour, you cannot lay all the blame for the problems with pensions on them. Pensions have been fouled up by companies keen to cut their contributions and get rid of final salary pensions; pension funds have also been hit by the reckless behaviour of Banks and the financial turmoil that resulted.

 

As far as the storm in a teacup arguments about NI increases, the reason big business are making such a fuss is that taxes such as corporation tax can be avoided by skilled accountants, whereas NI cannot. Nobody points out that NI is a fairer tax in the sense that everyone pays, both public & private sector employers & employees and nobody can duck it.

 

The Tories are kicking up quite a storm over 1% NI increase, they didn't make much fuss about Labour freezing local govt pay rises which would have been at a similar level if recent years are to go by... but of course the Local Govt Association is controlled by Tory Councils....

[Dos_Box]

The problem is that NI ,is not ringfenced for health purposes, just like road tax is just added to the pot. It is a method of general taxation. And it is a fact that we as UK workers have never been as highly taxed as we are now, it's just that most of it is by stealth.

[torledo]

Whatever you think of Gordon Brown/New Labour, you cannot lay all the blame for the problems with pensions on them. Pensions have been fouled up by companies keen to cut their contributions and get rid of final salary pensions; pension funds have also been hit by the reckless behaviour of Banks and the financial turmoil that resulted.

 

As far as the storm in a teacup arguments about NI increases, the reason big business are making such a fuss is that taxes such as corporation tax can be avoided by skilled accountants, whereas NI cannot. Nobody points out that NI is a fairer tax in the sense that everyone pays, both public & private sector employers & employees and nobody can duck it.

 

The Tories are kicking up quite a storm over 1% NI increase, they didn't make much fuss about Labour freezing local govt pay rises which would have been at a similar level if recent years are to go by... but of course the Local Govt Association is controlled by Tory Councils....

 

But if it's felt that the NI rise is required for additional revenue, why actually lose the potential for increased revenue by abolishing stamp duty payable on home purchases up to 250k ? Surely you don't give up the opportunity for potentially billions in stamp duty taxes because you plan on several billion in revenue from increased NI on earned income.

[FN-GM]

The problem is that NI ,is not ringfenced for health purposes, just like road tax is just added to the pot. It is a method of general taxation. And it is a fact that we as UK workers have never been as highly taxed as we are now, it's just that most of it is by stealth.

 

Hi,

 

I was watching something on TV a few weeks ago. In proportion to earnings at the time, percentage wise conservatives tax has always been higher than labour.

 

 

On another note, the colour bars are just right for the party they represent. Coincidence or what.

[Dos_Box]

Hi,

 

I was watching something on TV a few weeks ago. In proportion to earnings at the time, percentage wise conservatives tax has always been higher than labour.

 

 

On another note, the colour bars are just right for the party they represent. Coincidence or what.

 

That is proberbly direct taxation, not indirect tax such as road tax, pensions, fuel duty etc. Add those upand it gets quite shocking.

[FN-GM]

No idea to be honest, i aam just repeating what the BBC said

[Dos_Box]

The BBC (allegedly) just repreat what the govt says too.

[Marci]

Tonight's farce in the House of Commons just shows democracy is dead... Digital Economy Bill passed, 180 something bs 40 something. Only 30 MPs actually sat in on the Reading. Shut your eyes, throw a dart at the polling card. S'about as useful as public opinion.

 

Better install Smoothwall Guardian on all domestic PCs from henceforth if you wish to keep your net connection...

[teejay]

Tonight's farce in the House of Commons just shows democracy is dead... Digital Economy Bill passed, 180 something bs 40 something. Only 30 MPs actually sat in on the Reading. Shut your eyes, throw a dart at the polling card. S'about as useful as public opinion.

 

Better install Smoothwall Guardian on all domestic PCs from henceforth if you wish to keep your net connection...

Yep, this sort of thing makes parliament a disgrace. MP's should be required to attend at least 75% of readings/debates and votes, plus the party whip should be abolished apart from specific laws clearly stated in their manifesto.

[Trapper]

Yep, this sort of thing makes parliament a disgrace. MP's should be required to attend at least 75% of readings/debates and votes, plus the party whip should be abolished apart from specific laws clearly stated in their manifesto.

 

Which is why the power is with, and always has been with the whips. Most of them just turn up and vote as directed by the chief whip, no thought goes into the decision.

 

I've seen some of the debates going on, it's pitiful when only four or five MPs turn up. This is what their paid for, you'd like to think that when serious decisions are taken all MPs at least know the background!

 

At a local level things are better, I'm tweeting with my local councilor, who gets things done. It's rare to have a PM from a Tory saying "cheers dude"!

[srochford]

And it is a fact that we as UK workers have never been as highly taxed as we are now, it's just that most of it is by stealth.

 

Is it a fact? it's not one I've ever seen proved - there are plenty of stats which show that for decades the average tax level has been about the same - it's just moved around (so the last Conservative government dropped income tax and put up VAT; this government dropped income tax and put up NI) and the net effect is very little change (except for the richest who get good accountants to avoid the taxes that everyone else has to pay!)

[broc]

I think there are two sometimes conflicting forces at play within the Govt;

 

One, the traditional Labour view that says taxes need to fairly spread, and two the 'New Labour' view that tries to emulate the Conservatives....

[broc]

The traditional view is that people have no choice about paying direct taxes, whereas they have when it comes to indirect taxes such as VAT, VED, etc.

 

The reality is of course that this only applies to the poorest people who work for a living; wealthy people employ accountants to avoid taxes.

[JJonas]

shouldn't this poll have included a few of the more prominent "other" parties (Greens,UKIP,BNP Etc)

[broc]

When the politicians talk about 'cost cutting' in the public sector, emulating what the private sector is doing, be aware that for many this means cutting jobs.

 

For those old enough to remember, in the Thatcher era this meant millions of unemployed workers being paid benefits funded by oil revenues....... which we no longer have

 

Making public sector workers (like most of us) redundant means:

 

We claim benefits

 

We don't pay tax

 

We don't pay NI contributions

 

We don't make pension contributions

 

We buy less, which means we don't pay as much VAT, excise duty on the goods & services

 

Those left in employment have to shoulder a bigger proportion of the tax burden overall.

 

Think about who is promising the biggest cuts when you go to vote.......

[leco]

When this thread started I meant not to join in but ... I am old enough to remember Thatcher and I live in an area devastated by her policies, even before she was PM.

 

When reading all this political rhetoric a song continues in my head ... "We are the self-preservation society". Think hard about all the analogies, both song words and film.

Edited April 8, 2010 by leco

[duncane]

I find it ironic that the Labour government was more about the "me society" than the Thatcher government.

 

It wasn't the Conservatives that were selfish before 1997 - it was the people - and they carried on being selfish during the Labour years while patting themselves on the back for how wonderful and caring they were.

 

The Labour Party enacted things that the Conservatives would not have gotten away with because there would have been opposition from the left to hold them in balance. The Labour Party has singularly failed to police itself.

[torledo]

When the politicians talk about 'cost cutting' in the public sector, emulating what the private sector is doing, be aware that for many this means cutting jobs.

 

For those old enough to remember, in the Thatcher era this meant millions of unemployed workers being paid benefits funded by oil revenues....... which we no longer have

 

Making public sector workers (like most of us) redundant means:

 

We claim benefits

 

We don't pay tax

 

We don't pay NI contributions

 

We don't make pension contributions

 

We buy less, which means we don't pay as much VAT, excise duty on the goods & services

 

Those left in employment have to shoulder a bigger proportion of the tax burden overall.

 

Think about who is promising the biggest cuts when you go to vote.......

 

as far as i'm aware none of the parties have been specific enough about cuts - they are waiting until after the election for that. Plus, i don't think there will be any mandate for the type of slashing of spending for 2010-11 that is being attributed to some parties.

 

funnily enough, it was Darling who said that the cuts that would have to be made would be deeper than those undertaken by thatcher....if what your trying to get at is that the usual suspect is the party of cuts, and the others wlll somehow be less harsh. The truth is that we just don't know for sure because not that many details are available.

 

if it's a case of turkeys not voting for christmas then no-one in the public sector should vote for any of the main parties....but that would be an overreactoin. I don't know how feasible that is for any party to try and undertake such redundancies btw, maybe the so-called progressive parties will just do what they've been doing for years, move more provision of public services into the private sector via ppp's - ....labour have really stepped up their use of such tactics. It's inevitable that as they have quite significant deficit reduction plans, we'll see more employment transfer from 'public' to 'private' sector.