Your Prospective MP??

[iamyamyam]

Huguenot

You said in reply to Cllr Barber:

"So you delivered all your manifesto commitments despite not having been elected to do so? And you're proud? You stole control? "

I understood that equal numbers of Lib dem and Labour councillors were democratically elected (28 each) along with 6 tories and a green. Under the election system that was used ( and without going into a debate on different systems of PR) why isn't a Lib dem-tory administration representative of a majority of the people? Do you belive there should be some sort of 44% Lib dem, 44% labour, 10% tory and 2% green admin? with each party having differing policies how would this work?

Coalition government is not unusual on the continnent and it's not unusual in british councils. In fact the blending and moderation of policies means that we don't get the "winner takes all" swing of policy that polarises our elections.

[Marmora Man]

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> But do I think things will be worse under a

> Conservative government? Absolutely - I think the

> Tories are basically admitting as much

I think is called honesty - tho' I'd admit they are not being totally candid about either the extent of the problem nor the extent of the measures needed to resolve it.

[Brendan]

Or for whom it is going to be worse?

[Marmora Man]

[This will be the first Forum election and I can see that we can look forward to some calm headed debates.

/quote]

It would seem a good idea therefore to hold a Husting - either virtually via the EDF or actually in a local venue. I'm sure both the Conservative and Lib Dem candidates will be up for a discussion - not so sure about Ms HH (aka carcrashperson)

WE would need a moderator for a virtual husting - would one of the esteemed adminstrators take that on?

[Brendan]

So, are the middle classes going to get squeezed harder in order to prevent complete 3rd world poverty from occurring or are the poor going to get left to rot while those who voted tory get respite for their loyalty? They?ll probably have to spend that extra cash on security fencing though.

I know that sounds emotive but it may well be the scenario. Call me cynical but I somehow doubt the wealthy are going to have to participate in this austere belt tightening the conservatives are talking about.

[SeanMacGabhann]

I like your idea Marmora Man (if not your politics)

But calling it honesty doesn't make it any better - expecting the less well off to pay for righting the wrongs of this government whilst shrugging shoulders at the rich threat to flee the country doesn't sit well with me

I don't think it's too much to ask any/all party to put a moral onus on the rich. yes they will still move elsewheer but at least they can carry the stigma of being splitters instead of being "understood"

[Marmora Man]

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I like your idea Marmora Man (if not your

> politics)

>

> But calling it honesty doesn't make it any better

> - expecting the less well off to pay for righting

> the wrongs of this government whilst shrugging

> shoulders at the rich threat to flee the country

> doesn't sit well with me

>

> I don't think it's too much to ask any/all party

> to put a moral onus on the rich. yes they will

> still move elsewheer but at least they can carry

> the stigma of being splitters instead of being

> "understood"

There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding about "the rich", their tax and the tax system.

The entire tax take from Income Tax represents approximately 20% of the total tax take in UK - which is now close to 45% of GDP.

Of that 20%, those paying the top rate of tax probably contribute the most say 65%.

Those paying the top rate represent approx 30% of the population and are paying the bulk of income tax - yet even if their tax rates were to be doubled to 80p in the pound it would only raise the income from income tax from 20% of total taxation to just over 30%.

Leaving corporations, VAT, Council tax, Rates, Road Tax, Stamp Duty, Inheritance Tax and a multitude of other obscure and devious taxes to fund the vast bulk of government spending.

So it is economic illiteracy to assume that by simply taxing "the rich" we can resolve the years of unwise public spending. It's also worth noting that "the rich" (or those that pay the higher rate of tax) are those earning approximately ?40,000 and includes many nurses, policemen, middle ranking civil servants and so on.

I woudl also add that I have proposed in these pages before a slashing of taxes on the lower paid and a raising of tax thresholds to at leasdt ?10,000. This to be paid for by abolishing many tax credits and benefits, and making others more focussed by only being available to those on incomes of less than ?50,000. I know the Lib Dems have proposed something similar but it's been in my personal manifesto for years.

[Huguenot]

Chuckle.

Devious? They're Tory inventions.

Are you arguing thus that reducing taxation on the 'rich' will have no impact on government funding, thus we must reduce taxation on the rich?

MM, you give away your game!

In the end, you argue as always for reduced government funding. Tell us, sweetheart, what do you fancy? Less nurses? Less police? Or as my father had to do under the last tory government to pay his teachers, sell the school playing fields?

Because that's what happens. This time all the playing fields have gone, so what.... no books?

Or the end of universal healthcare and education?

The reality is you don't give much of a monkeys - your kids are educated and fled the home (on someone elses taxes), and you dont't want to pay the bill. You deny climate change, because you'll have expired before it has an impact.

Gosh mate.

[Huguenot]

BTW 56% voted against, and yet they got every one of their manifesto commitments through?

Something evil this way comes....

[????]

How's that 20% tax rate in the 'great and flourishing' Singapore Hugenot...still loving it whilst lecturing us on how much we should pay back in bankrupt old blighty and accusing individuals of greed and indifference? Tsk....

[Marmora Man]

Are you arguing thus that reducing taxation on the 'rich' will have no impact on government funding, thus we must reduce taxation on the rich?

No I'm arguing that the total government spending must be reduced - while maintaining the current, ridiculously high tax take to deal with the structural deficit that this government has created. Once that problem is under control I would argue that reduced government spending will allow them to reduce the total tax take - and propose that the first beneficiaries of reduced tax take should be those on lower incomes, by raising tax thresholds and reducing the rate.

I would also argue for reduced tax rates across all bands - losing the 50p rate but only AFTER the reduction at lower rates. I only argue for this to placate you and your fellow thinkers as, in reality it won't generate any real income for government but it is, now, seen as symbolic and I don't underestimate the power of symbols.

[Magpie]

Brendan - a way to help your friend would be a re-alignment of the tax system that removed the very high level of marginal tax that the low paid face - ie essentially benefits are withdrawn in direct proportion to the amount of money made, the result being at very low incomes the marginal rate of tax becomes close to 100%.

Huguenot - I think we'll keepm the polic and nurses, just get rid of the quangos, outreach workers, formfillers etc. The state expanded in size by c700k people in the last 10 years - I think some savings could be found . . .

[Huguenot]

Magpie & MM, the challenge is that all the tories are saying is "I think some savings could be found" and then listing emotive issues like "quangos and formfillers".

The reality is that whilst emotive, these "quangos and formfillers" don't exist in a meaningful economic way. You can't cut them and impact on the tax bill by more than 0.5%.

(Wierd that you lumped 'outreach' into that, presumably you hate all those dedicated types who speak to poor people or disabled people? Let them rot, eh?)

The ONLY way you can cut the tax bill meaningfully is to slash core spending.

The last time this was done it meant destroying schools and hospitals, and it means the same this time.

It's why tories are predominantly 40+ and rich: their kids have left school, and they pay private health insurance.

re. Singapore taxation - it's a city state; I once saw a calculation that explained if 'London' was a country then its residents would pay 0% income tax. Nevertheless, SG provides for its citizens on much the same basis as the UK, including the NHS, at higher quality.

However, I didn't come here for the tax - I spent 2 years in Beijing at a higher tax rate than the UK.

I'm simply requesting the Tories to be honest, they mean to slash funding, and they don't care because they've already had the benefits and don't want to keep paying the premium.

[MitchK]

Labour will be cutting spending too if they get back in but they will wait until after the election before telling you. They have had 12 years of increased spending on schools and hospitals and it has achieved very little. Their method of improving standards in schools is to make exams easier. They are now engaged in the politics of jealousy - anyone who earns a good wage should be ashamed of themselves, a bit like anyone who is above average at school needs to be held up so the slowest kids are not left behind. Let's name and shame all those naughty bankers who have done well for themselves (not the regulators who are actualy to blame), boo hiss. Perhaps we should put them in the village stocks next?

Looking after the poor in society is very important but in the long-run, they will not benefit from a stagnant economy with a massive and inefficient state sector. And there are plenty of people in the country, maybe even in East Dulwich, who think they should be entitled to keep a bit more of what they earn.

[Magpie]

Huguenot - arguing that any cut in expenditure will hurt teachers and nurses is also emotive - so don't be a hypocrite

The fact is that the last 12 years has seen a huge increase in the size of the state both in terms of the share of overall income, and in terms of employment. The result is a bankrupt country, and a country where in some parts the non-wealth creating part of the econnomy (ie the state) accounts for 70% of all employment. To pretend that this is sustainable is ridiculous - who is going to pay for them? You seriously believe that that within all this extra expenditure and employment that no savings can be found? Really?

Quangos are a perfect example, why do we need a London Development agency or a South East Development agency when these regions are among the richest in the world? Its sheer waste, and represents a huge gravy train for self serving civil servants.

As to your comment on outreach workers, I find reading through the Society section of the Guardian a truely depressing affair, the number of non-jobs in the public sector with ?30 - 40k salaries is obscene. Not many of the job descriptions relate to "Poor people or disabled people", but lots of descrioptions including the words 2carbon neutral", "sustainability", "diversity" - ie meaningless trendy issues.

I guess its why labour voters are primarily state sector employees - they can have a good bitch about people who actually generate wealth, and how bad capitalism is, yet live off the proceeds.

[Brendan]

The state is responsible for the country being bankrupt but it has far more to do with it allowing the financial sector to run riot rather than it employing too many policy analysts.

[Magpie]

The government was borrowing far too much before the financial crisis, although it has clearly made it worse.

[ratty]

Magpie Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> As to your comment on outreach workers, I find

> reading through the Society section of the

> Guardian a truely depressing affair, the number of

> non-jobs in the public sector with ?30 - 40k

> salaries is obscene. Not many of the job

> descriptions relate to "Poor people or disabled

> people", but lots of descrioptions including the

> words 2carbon neutral", "sustainability",

> "diversity" - ie meaningless trendy issues.

>

> I guess its why labour voters are primarily state

> sector employees - they can have a good bitch

> about people who actually generate wealth, and how

> bad capitalism is, yet live off the proceeds.

Tory's seeing Diversity as meaningless - there's a thing!

Oh and the second quoted paragraph seems just a little errrr... how should I put it...... hmmmmmm.... Arrogant???

;)

[Magpie]

Oh you mean like Huguenot was in his description of Tories . . . . . . .

Diversity to me means paying someone to say what is essentially common sense and is of course already statutory law

[Brendan]

Magpie Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Brendan - a way to help your friend would be a

> re-alignment of the tax system that removed the

> very high level of marginal tax that the low paid

> face - ie essentially benefits are withdrawn in

> direct proportion to the amount of money made, the

> result being at very low incomes the marginal rate

> of tax becomes close to 100%.

Let?s be realistic. A couple of hundred quid a month extra to people in London earning 10-20K a year isn?t going to improve their lives when it comes to housing and a child care.

Now I agree that they should be working rather than dropping out of the economy and living off the state but it has to be worth it.

[ratty]

Magpie Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Oh you mean like Huguenot was in his description

> of Tories . . . . . . .

>

> Diversity to me means paying someone to say what

> is essentially common sense and is of course

> already statutory law

2 wrongs don't make a right! ;)

Nicely swerved on the racism one though - you could be a real Tory politician (or maybe you are - do you take copiious amounts of coke and cheat on your wife?)

[Huguenot]

:))

There's nothing emotive intended about teachers and nurses (I didn't discuss those anyway, I said education and healthcare), it's simply a statement of fact.

There simply aren't sufficient quangos and people 'living off the state' to make a difference to government spending.

For example, the majority of welfare spending is pensions (not scroungers) - so the only way you can significantly reduce spending is to reduce pensions. Something the tories have a track record in.

Housing benefit only represents 2% of all government expenditure - and you have to recognise that some of that is reasonable. So a moronic attack on scroungers cannot deliver any significant savings.

The entire Dept for Environment, Food and Rural affairs only accounts for 0.4% of governmeent spending, and those 'potato marketing boards' that tories love to hate are a tiny fraction of those. So shutting down all of those quangos cannot deliver any significant savings.

So where are the places that cuts can be made - Education, Healthcare, Pensions and Defence

These are simply facts, it's the tories that are bullshitters.

Tories historically don't cut Defence because it's in the family and part of their vanity. So at the end of their last tenancy hospitals and schools were crippled and pensioners lived in squalor.

If the population want cuts in these areas, then that is entirely their decision, but it would be a tragedy if they went into this with their eyes closed.

I attach a government spending map for your illumination.

[Brendan]

Listen Huguenowitall don?t come here with your communist ?figures? and ?arguments?. If people are filled with righteous indignation it is their god given right to find those with less political and financial currency, take away their pocket money and give them a stern talking to. That?s what the long term solution to society?s ills is. Show them their place.

[Marmora Man]

Andy and the local Conservative Association will be in Peckham Square tomorrow (Saturday 5th Dec) from 11.00 to 15.00 - ready to talk, discuss and answer questions.

Come along and see if we match up to Ratty's weird caricature or are, as I contend, normal sensible people just like you.

[ratty]

Can I bring some eggs?