Depressed if we have a Tory goverment.

[Theblacksheep]

this thread is nearly as depressing as the tories.

[Dos_Box]

I agree that we shouldn't have gone into Afghanistan in the first place, there were other ways of doing it. However, as we decided to go in there, then you have to commit an army and resources capable of winning, which we didn't and still haven't done.

 

I remeber being in Kosovo in 99 with my 5 rounds of ammunition, out of date morphine and body armour 2 sizes too small, and being told I was one of the lucky ones. Thanks Gordon.

[ICT_GUY]

I did write a long winded reply based on current and future threats. I pressed the wrong button and lost the lot.

 

Summery, Peak oil = New and more interesting wars to secure the resources needed to keep the western economies going. Serious people are already planning these wars and developing the technology needed to fight them. Governments are currently putting in place the necessary laws to make sure the populace can not or will not complain too loudly, usually on the back of some real or imagined terrorist threat.

 

Personally, I think military spending is where the money will be at for the next 50 years. We will pay for it by taking people off the dole and using them as canon fodder. I would put money on national service being reintroduced within the next 5 - 15 years depending entirely on the price of oil.

[Simcfc73]

this thread is nearly as depressing as the tories.

 

This election is depressing... but you can watch the election night in HD on Sky... what advertising muppet thought that was a good sales pitch to get HD.

 

I won't be voting again this time, we were sat at the pub at dinner and we agreed that if an MP came in and paid for out bar tab we would vote for them... well except the Eton boy, he would need to pay for the food too.

[localzuk]

Again, you are assuming a world in the future the same as the current one, Trident is a defence system to last 20 years plus. Also, the reason no country would use nukes against the UK is because we have a nuclear deterent, remove that and we are the kicking boy for any nuclear state.

 

Haha, that's laughable to be honest. The UK has enough conventional weapons to wipe out a large number of countries... Nukes are obsolete in a world where countries won't use them. Even the USA has said they'd only ever use them against a rogue state. The goal is to get rid of them everywhere - they have no use.

 

The only reason Russia doesn't like the idea of the USA's missile defence system is because it'll make their nukes obsolete. Why the USA doesn't just make it a UN shield instead, I do not know. Then, everyone is protected from everyone...

[teejay]

This election is depressing... but you can watch the election night in HD on Sky... what advertising muppet thought that was a good sales pitch to get HD.

 

I won't be voting again this time, we were sat at the pub at dinner and we agreed that if an MP came in and paid for out bar tab we would vote for them... well except the Eton boy, he would need to pay for the food too.

 

When you sat choosing your pub dinner, did you let the waitress decide what you were going to eat? When you went to the bar to order drinks, did you let the bar tender pick your drinks?

Even if you don't like any of the major parties, there is usually a minor party or independent you can vote for, if not then spoil your ballot paper as a protest. Just not voting is plain lazy, I would continue with all the 'we fought 2 world wars' etc...

[localzuk]

When you sat choosing your pub dinner, did you let the waitress decide what you were going to eat? When you went to the bar to order drinks, did you let the bar tender pick your drinks?

Even if you don't like any of the major parties, there is usually a minor party or independent you can vote for, if not then spoil your ballot paper as a protest. Just not voting is plain lazy, I would continue with all the 'we fought 2 world wars' etc...

 

Spoiled ballots are discarded in the same way non-votes are. They mean nothing to the election process...

[SteveBentley]

Happily I find that we have a TUSC candidate standing here, who seems to be more or less an independent, and seems to have something about her. While she plans to continue as a councillor if re-elected, she won't be pocketing both salaries/allowances, unlike the Lib Dem candidate who would have got my vote but for that.

 

So that's resolved my "I've had enough of Labour / I like the local Tory candidate but have issues with Tory policies nationally / I like the Lib Dem policies but couldn't support the local candidate" dilema nicely.

[teejay]

Spoiled ballots are discarded in the same way non-votes are. They mean nothing to the election process...

 

They are counted in the UK.

The validity of the election may be questioned if there is an unusually high proportion of spoilt votes. However, in countries such as the UK where spoilt ballots are counted, some voters will deliberately spoil their ballot paper to show disapproval of the candidates available whilst still taking part in the electoral process.

[torledo]

Haven't the LibDems at least said they will hold off the cuts (like Labour) until the economy can take it?

 

yes, they have said that. But what they, and labour are suggesting, is to undertake deficit reduction in a 'pro-cyclical' manner.

 

but here too there are valid criticisms of such a strategy. Is there ever a good time to make cuts or reduction in spending ? A smaller budget deficit means higher debt for the non-govt. sector, whether that happens during the first year or fourth year.....the end result for non-govt savings is the same. Less saving and more debt for household and private sector. That's just how these two things are effected.

 

it seems to me inevitable, that if you have target of reducing the deficit to say 4 or 5% and then maintain it at that level for a number of year [as it was during most of the noughties] and you want expansion of the economy at the same time.....it becomes a credit driven 'growth' forced by govt cuts which leads to recession eventually.

 

brown wants people to fear the double dip....i fear the boom-bust cycle which will continue even with pro-cyclical cuts.

[SteveBentley]

Just not voting is plain lazy, I would continue with all the 'we fought 2 world wars' etc...

 

I would argue that somebody who has made an active decision that none of the candidates on offer represent their views sufficiently to get their support is much more engaged with the process than somebody who votes for $party every four years simply because they're a lifelong supporter.

 

We need a "none of the above/re-open nominations" option so that people can register a non-vote whilst not being classed as lazy.

[SteveBentley]

They are counted in the UK.

The validity of the election may be questioned if there is an unusually high proportion of spoilt votes. However, in countries such as the UK where spoilt ballots are counted, some voters will deliberately spoil their ballot paper to show disapproval of the candidates available whilst still taking part in the electoral process.

 

And the candidates/their agents get to look at all the spoiled papers. This is, according to a "NOTAP Protest Vote Party" candidate (they were going to call themselves the None of the Above party, but that's not allowed, apparently), worth the deposit alone

[teejay]

I would argue that somebody who has made an active decision that none of the candidates on offer represent their views sufficiently to get their support is much more engaged with the process than somebody who votes for $party every four years simply because they're a lifelong supporter.

 

We need a "none of the above/re-open nominations" option so that people can register a non-vote whilst not being classed as lazy.

 

Yes, I agree a 'None of the above' option would be a good thing to have. At the moment, the best way of registering that type of protest vote is to turn up and vote but spoil your ballot paper by writing 'None of the above' across it. Not voting just gives the politicians plenty of other excuses for a low turnout and an excuse to spend even more money persuading people to vote.

[ZeroHour]

Yes, I agree a 'None of the above' option would be a good thing to have.

With a pic of Montgomery Brewster above it

[nicholab]

What do you do if none of the above wins?

[danrhodes]

What do you do if none of the above wins?

 

Hang Parliament, Sorry Hung Parliament, looks like its going that way.

[teejay]

Haha, that's laughable to be honest. The UK has enough conventional weapons to wipe out a large number of countries... Nukes are obsolete in a world where countries won't use them. Even the USA has said they'd only ever use them against a rogue state. The goal is to get rid of them everywhere - they have no use.

 

The only reason Russia doesn't like the idea of the USA's missile defence system is because it'll make their nukes obsolete. Why the USA doesn't just make it a UN shield instead, I do not know. Then, everyone is protected from everyone...

 

We would struggle to wipe out a city, let alone a country with our conventional weapons, we just don't have that many of them or the means to use them en masse anyway.

The reason Russia don't like the US missile defense system is becasue it stops (well, stops a large percentage but not all) of the missiles aimed at the USA, it doesn't stop the missiles aimed at Russia by the USA!!! This would cause an arms race as Russia builds their own defense system and as the USA and Russia start researching and building arms to defeat the defense system.

A UN defense system, hmmm, built by the USA, hmmmm, I can really see that happening.

[featured_spectre]

If none of the above wins then it shows that the people have lost faith in the government. At a time like that it is the DUTY of the MONARCH to step in and take control. None of the above was on the voting slips when Queen Victoria was in power, and it was actually removed from the ballot papers when King George V came in as monarch (according to several history teachers in various schools).

[Jamo]

I really don't want blue

 

Blue = sad

 

I agree with some of the policy ie child tax credits etc, but I seriously strongly object to reducing any taxes on the very rich from what they are now. Inheritence tax for couples is already over 600,000 pounds.... It just shows where the priorities are. its very, very sad.

[torledo]

I really don't want blue

 

Blue = sad

 

I agree with some of the policy ie child tax credits etc, but I seriously strongly object to reducing any taxes on the very rich from what they are now. Inheritence tax for couples is already over 600,000 pounds.... It just shows where the priorities are. its very, very sad.

 

hasn't that only recently been changed [the threshold for IHT has been increased] and as a result of the tories IHT pledge which was ages ago.

 

this is the thing to understand. The policies might not make much sense, but it's undeniable that issues like stamp duty and IHT were a major issue for a lot of people based on the rates where they were previously at.....tories went first with proposals prompting labour to make their own changes. i think the IHT pledge from the tories may also have been made prior to the recession.....in less govt. finance constrained times.

 

not saying i agree with it, just pointing out the way it's forced labour to respond.

[teejay]

I really don't want blue

 

Blue = sad

 

I agree with some of the policy ie child tax credits etc, but I seriously strongly object to reducing any taxes on the very rich from what they are now. Inheritence tax for couples is already over 600,000 pounds.... It just shows where the priorities are. its very, very sad.

 

Inheritance tax is charged on the estate of the person who dies, so quotiong it for couples is pretty misleading. It currently stands at 40% for over £325,000, which with the current value of properties especially in the SE, its not exactly that high.

[Jamo]

Inheritance tax is charged on the estate of the person who dies, so quotiong it for couples is pretty misleading. It currently stands at 40% for over £325,000, which with the current value of properties especially in the SE, its not exactly that high.

 

So for 325000 pound house currently, you would be spending 1600 pound per month on the mortgage over 35 years.... if you can afford that much per month ( 60% over my take home pay ) then you are not in need of "saving". I'm sorry anything over that much money is a huge house and its not like you pay the tax up to that amount anyhow.

[ZeroHour]

but I seriously strongly object to reducing any taxes on the very rich from what they are now.

+1. If you tax all over a certain rate they all get the beat down. Its obviously worth something BBC News - Tax take from the rich to boost government income

[teejay]

So for 325000 pound house currently, you would be spending 1600 pound per month on the mortgage over 35 years.... if you can afford that much per month ( 60% over my take home pay ) then you are not in need of "saving". I'm sorry anything over that much money is a huge house and its not like you pay the tax up to that amount anyhow.

 

Thats for a houses current value, not what you paid for it.

There are a lot of people who bought houses in the SE for £30k or less say 30 years ago which are now valued at over £300k. Don't think these are big houses, in London thats the value of one bedroom flat in some places.

You also have to remeber that IHT applies to estates when the beneficiary is not married or in a civil partnership with the person who has died, so for instance a couple living together, one of them dies, they could lose the house if they can't pay the inheritance tax.

There is also the argument that if you've worked hard, paid your taxes etx etc and have saved your money to give as an inhertinace, why shoudl that be taxed again when inherited?

[torledo]

Thats for a houses current value, not what you paid for it.

There are a lot of people who bought houses in the SE for £30k or less say 30 years ago which are now valued at over £300k. Don't think these are big houses, in London thats the value of one bedroom flat in some places.

You also have to remeber that IHT applies to estates when the beneficiary is not married or in a civil partnership with the person who has died, so for instance a couple living together, one of them dies, they could lose the house if they can't pay the inheritance tax.

There is also the argument that if you've worked hard, paid your taxes etx etc and have saved your money to give as an inhertinace, why shoudl that be taxed again when inherited?

 

does IHT actually apply at all to the 'family home' under the current rules ?