Inequality in Britain

[????]

Students - free tuiton and free grants, for those that are truly academically capable and up for it. IE reduce student numbers by say about a third. University education as a right is a symptom of pointless, wishy wash 'entitlement' ideology.

[Ladymuck]

???? Wrote:

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

> THEY DON'T WANT TO TAKE IT AWAY, WE CAN'T AFFORD

> IT......

I know, I know...there is no more money and all that, but I've been SO looking forward to my bus pass at 60.:(

Why don't they tackle the non-doms and get them to pay a fairer share of tax, then perhaps we could keep our bus pass? Booo Hoooo.

PS: there was no need to SHOUT! LOL!

[Loz]

Odyssey Wrote:

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

> Loz, they have betrayed their voters when it comes

> to the health service. No-one voted for the

> wholesale privatisation of part of the NHS.

Privatisation is a fantastically scary buzzword which is always good for scaring the horses - but is it the truth? Seems to me all the 'reforms' are doing is moving funding from PCTs to groups of GPs. Yes, NHS hospitals will be allowed to do more private work - but hey, if they want to charge lots of money to insurance companies to fund NHS work then fine.

Personally I don't think the changes will work and will probably cost as much as it 'saves'. But hey, like managers, that's what governments do - rearrange things unnecessarily to make it look like they are doing something.

Why Odyssey - how do you see this 'privatisation' happening?

[Ladymuck]

Loz Wrote:

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

> Ladymuck Wrote:

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

> > The LDs have breached the trust of those who

> > voted for them - big time.

> I disagree LM. It's probably the party's own

> fault, but people projected onto the LibDems what

> they wanted to, without really understanding

> where the party stood. Like all political

> parties, the people involved often made statements

> designed to attract voters which also muddied the

> waters.

There is probably an element of truth in what you say, but to suggest that the LDs haven't breached the trust of those who voted for them is a little disingenuous IMO. I did not vote for them, but if I had I would be pretty angry.

[Ladymuck]

Brendan Wrote:

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

> As someone who has supported them for the last 8

> years (not that I?d describe myself as a ?libdem?

> but because I see then as the best option in a bad

> bunch) I don?t feel let down.

Seriously Brendan? You don't feel let down? (Not even a bit?). You are the first LD voter I have heard say that.

[DJKillaQueen]

I think Loz is right....the NHS reshuffle has more to do with being seen to so something.

As for the bus pass....well the Coalition will be gone in 4 years LM so it should be reinstated in time for you :)

These kinds of cuts, like the bus pass, seem like trimming at the edges to me. Someone on the politics show made a point in which he said that there wasn't anything like the amount of inneficiency in the public sector that the government thinks there is - that a process of improved efficiency has already been going on for years, so the only thing that can be cut are jobs and even that was limited because if you cut all of the youth provision and local community funding and services, you still wouldn't get to anywhere near the level of cuts that the government wants.

Ultimately essential services will have to be cut and that means the kind of services, like social services that make significant differences to people's lives.

I wonder what the increase in income tax would need to be to cut the deficit. Why can't 2p be put on it. It's the simplest and fairest way to collect tax after all. Why are sucessive governemnts so scared of doing that? We keep getting told how bad things are, so why is income tax still like some holy grail?

[Ladymuck]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

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

> As for the bus pass....well the Coalition will be

> gone in 4 years LM so it should be reinstated in

> time for you :)

Ahem...though, of course I've another 30+ years to go before I could reap the benefit at 60...ahem...

> I wonder what the increase in income tax would

> need to be to cut the deficit. Why can't 2p be put

> on it. It's the simplest and fairest way to

> collect tax after all. Why are sucessive

> governemnts so scared of doing that?

I'm no good re. figures DJKQ but I've been banging on about raising taxation for some time now. As you say, it is the simplest and fairest way of collecting extra revenue (that and tackling those tax-shy non-doms). It's one of the reasons I voted for the Greens. Unlike the other 3 main parties, they argued for progressive taxation.

[expat]

They promised to keep the bus passes

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/video/David-Cameron-U-Turn-On-Bus-Passes-For-Pensioners-PM-Accused-Of-Changing-Policy-Over-Travel-Passes/Video/201007315666080?lpos=UK+News_8&lid=VIDEO_019106_Has+Cameron+U-Turned+On+Bus+Passes%3F&videoCategory=UK+News

[DJKillaQueen]

OK a 1p raise in income tax would raise 4.75 billion a year (that was published in various newspapers before the election).

So a 2p increase would raise 9.5 billion each year.

The deficit is umm ?800 billion?

A third of working age adults are not in work.

And a third of those who are, earn less than ?7 an hour.

Looking at a report by the

Institute for fiscal studies

we need to get our GDP up, reduce the gap between imports and exports and get umemployment down.

It makes perfect sense. Pay people more, they pay more tax. Reduce unemployment we get more tax and the benefits of higher GDP and exports speak for themselves.

So why on earth the government grant was cancelled to Sheffield Forge is beyond me. Cameron is expecting Banks and entrepreneurs to bring about recovery. He needs to get real and understand we need vast investment in industry, education and whatever it takes to get Britain producing again - ALL of it...not just London.

I do think Vince Cable more than anyone understands this, but I think he'll struggle to convince Cameron.

[????]

So we need to get our imports down and exports up...er, this meens we need to be competitive...let's pay everyone loads more, that'll solve the defeciet and make everyone more competitive. It's simple isn't it. La la land stuff from you again DJ...increasing cost makes us more competitive??? How FFS?

[????]

2.5% on VAT raises ?20bn annually with almost no extra implementation cost.... yes, at the margins it can be proved to be slightly regressive but the bulk of vAT will come from electronic goods, car sales, petrol, etc. Basics are non-vAT able and the increase isn't being applied to fuel despite your crap claims eralier. The EU largely has a 20% rate and Labour would have introduced it anyway. 2.5% increase on luxuries is NOT a big deal FUll STOP and the bleeting is the sound of politics rather than any grasp of reality....

[????]

Interestingly in the Prince of Darknesses book extracts this week he said that Brown and Darling had a massive argument on this (VAT increases) as Darling knew absolutely that it was neccessary whereas Brown lives in fooking cuckoo land when it comes to economics - as we are all finding out now.

[DJKillaQueen]

Of course we need to be more competitive but not in areas where we can't complete. I understand what you are saying but we cannot sustain our economy on high unemployment and low wages.....we just can't. The IFS report says that.

Investment in the short term costs for sure, but long term pays for itself. We have been very short sighted in terms of investment for two decades. There are countless examples of British innovation by British people that ends up abroad because we don't invest in it.

I'd much rather have that as a long term stratedy than some vain hope that banks (in the aftermath of their worst period in 80 years) will miraculously start lending to business and entrepreneurs. It's not going to happen. And in the mantime the British economy will get weaker not stronger.

[DJKillaQueen]

???? Wrote:

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

Basics are non-vAT able and

> the increase isn't being applied to fuel despite

> your crap claims eralier.

See that's what happens when you read what you want to read...go back a read it again...I made a distinction between utilities and fuel (i.e petrol for vehicles) and then apologise.

>The EU largely has a 20%

> rate and Labour would have introduced it anyway.

This is true and btw I haven't said what I think either way on the VAT increase. I merely took the view it would impact on the low waged more than those with disposable income....basics maths.

> 2.5% increase on luxuries is NOT a big deal FUll

> STOP and the bleeting is the sound of politics

> rather than any grasp of reality....

See yet more personal insult...you can make a point without it...are you on the stella again lol.........I know it's that time on Friday night again lol

[????]

:)-D

[DJKillaQueen]

LOL...me too!

[Ladymuck]

expat Wrote:

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

> They promised to keep the bus passes

Thank you expat...

...wotta lying toad!

(Cameron! not you...)

[????]

As it happens I do support raising the basic tax rate by 1% (or maybe more) but that's been politicised now (largely by Gordon again as he cut it) and it won't happen. And, at the time i was opposed to the 50% upper rate but now think given the circumstances it's reasonable.

[DJKillaQueen]

I agree. And maybe that money could be set aside for business enterprise grants for example.

I remember when Thatcher was in power, they didn't do a lot for the unemployed but one thing they did do was have free training for setting up a business and help with obtaining set up loans and so on. It was useful.

It seems to me that in areas of high unemployment there perhaps might be something to gain by helping the unemployed to help themselves...to create business and in turn employment. After all there are a lot of skilled people who are unemployed and former business managers. I think there is merit in offering grants to some people rather than the hindrance of a bank loan, or maybe it something the government could do in partnership with the banks - grants that match the loan.

That at least is a direct effort to enlarge the private sector.

Yes we can't really afford it but I think long term it would pay the economy back in dividends.

We can't soley rely on the Dragon's Den lol

[Loz]

Ladymuck Wrote:

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

> Brendan Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > As someone who has supported them for the last

> 8

> > years (not that I?d describe myself as a

> ?libdem?

> > but because I see then as the best option in a

> bad

> > bunch) I don?t feel let down.

>

>

> Seriously Brendan? You don't feel let down? (Not

> even a bit?). You are the first LD voter I have

> heard say that.

There's also me... wasn't that obvious? (?)

[Odyssey]

Loz Wrote:

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

> Why Odyssey - how do you see this 'privatisation'

> happening?

I can see this working in the same way as with some GPs' surgeries privatising "out of hours" work. I think that the same formula will be used when PCTs are moved to GPs who will then form private companies to take up the role of the PCTs.

When I go to see my GP I go to see a doctor - not an accountant.

[Loz]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

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

> Someone on the

> politics show made a point in which he said that

> there wasn't anything like the amount of

> inneficiency in the public sector that the

> government thinks there is - that a process of

> improved efficiency has already been going on for

> years, so the only thing that can be cut are jobs

> and even that was limited because if you cut all

> of the youth provision and local community funding

> and services, you still wouldn't get to anywhere

> near the level of cuts that the government wants.

I disagree. I'll give you an example that I think is not uncommon. On Horseferry Road in Pimlico stands a building housing the quango CEOP (the child online protection agency). Why is this situated in such a high rent area? Does it really need to be in central London?

In fact, little of the prime land between Victoria station and Westminster ISN'T some government department or quango. Some of them, like the FCO or the Treasury are probably in buildings owned by the government, but I reckon there are a lot of rents being paid out at sky-high rates.

And don't get me started on what Portcullis House cost.

[Ladymuck]

???? Wrote:

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

> As it happens I do support raising the basic tax

> rate by 1%... And, at the time i was

> opposed to the 50% upper rate but now think given

> the circumstances it's reasonable.

Quids...is that you talking...or the Stella? I can't believe it...we now officially agree on something...two things in fact!

Now, what is your view on those non-doms? Or am I pushing it...LOL...

*cracks open a bottle of coiyderr and raises it in Quids' direction*

[Loz]

Odyssey Wrote:

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

> Loz Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Why Odyssey - how do you see this

> 'privatisation'

> > happening?

>

> I can see this working in the same way as with

> some GPs' surgeries privatising "out of hours"

> work. I think that the same formula will be used

> when PCTs are moved to GPs who will then form

> private companies to take up the role of the PCTs.

I've not seen that. Do you have a link to some announcement or is this just speculation on your part?

[Ladymuck]

Loz Wrote:

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

> > Brendan Wrote:

> >--------------------------------

> > I don?t feel let down.

> > Ladymuck Wrote:

> > --------------------------------

> > You are the first LD voter I have

> > heard say that.

> There's also me... wasn't that obvious? (?)

Erm...no, it wasn't. Sorry.

So you honestly don't believe that the LDs have breached your trust? At all?

Hmmmmmmm...interesting...