UK General Election 2015

[odykas]

So Farage resigned but remains UKIP leader due to public demand

What a circus

[Rollo]

One example, if you tax providers of capital too heavily, while you might benefit the working class short term, what work will they perform when the "capital class" (we'll call them) reduces capital availability or moves it elsewhere?

In the case of the property market in London, or where I live in Sydney then... goodbye!

Capital would leave, which would lead to a softening and maybe a relaxing of property prices and expected property yields, which would lead to a hold on rents.

http://www.theguardian.com/money/201...P=share_btn_tw
There are only 43 potentially suitable homes in London currently available that would be “affordable” for the typical young family buying their first property, according to research by Shelter.
- The Guardian, 29th Apr 2015

I applied the same tests as The Guardian did to Sydney and found that there were 15 properties for sale with at least two bedrooms; assuming that the household had an income of A$77,030 a year (USD 66,766)

[BDunnell]

Americans attempting to comment on British politics — no, please no.

[Starter]

Is it?

If I deposit $5000 in the bank, they then lend out that money to people who then pay their debt to the bank with interest. That interest doesn't magically fall out of the sky, it's paid back with money gained from real work.
Ultimately, ALL money is derived from real work or the production of goods and services. That's pretty well much what the definition of money is, a medium of exchange which allows people to store and trade goods and services.

If you think that it is a a straw man argument, then please explain where you think that the money generated to pay for interest comes from.

You're kind of overlooking the fact that the original $5000 deposited in the bank was earned from "real work". What follows downstream of that is up to the person/s who did the real work. If they are wise enough to invest it toward their retirement and old age so that they won't have to live in reduced, sometimes dramatically reduced, circumstances after working for forty or so years, why would you wish to tax it at those kind of rates?

[Rollo]

You're kind of overlooking the fact that the original $5000 deposited in the bank was earned from "real work". What follows downstream of that is up to the person/s who did the real work. If they are wise enough to invest it toward their retirement and old age so that they won't have to live in reduced, sometimes dramatically reduced, circumstances after working for forty or so years, why would you wish to tax it at those kind of rates?

No I'm not. The original $5000 deposited in the bank was earned from "real work" and has already been subject to regular taxation rates. The interest that it then goes on the generate is passive but is paid for by someone else's real work.
I'm not suggesting taxing capital but taxing passive income.

[rjbetty]

I have been doing a lot of thinking over the last few days.

I am suddenly very worried about where things could be going.

Within days of getting into sole power, the Conservatives are announcing changes and policies. The fox hunting ban is now being repealed, despite something like 80%, including myself, being against it. Theresa May announces moves towards all emails and online browsing being monitored: Though it may not be that extreme straight away, I am quite sure it will get to that point soon, in the name of 'security' or something.


Benefit Cuts
Benefits are being cut for people who desperately need them. I could only possibly agree with this if they were painful austerity measures we all MUST go through to get free. However, what is happening to the people higher up? They are recording higher profits than ever apparently, all enjoying their lives, holidays, golfing, and now fox hunting. It appears this is the basis for claiming the uk is doing well, even though most people lower down are in for an increasing world of pain. Would I absolutely be paranoid to wonder "what gives"?

Benefits are being cut. While this supposedly gets rid of wasters who are totally able to work, pensioners and other people can not see a way out, and suicides are increasing. Could it be that some people actually do need some financial assistance, and some are actually telling the truth?

A little of my own situation too
I am worried as I myself am becoming ill from overwork. I do 60hrs a week, nights, only sent home whenever a manager says so, regardless of scheduled finishing time, regardless of what you need to do during the next day before your next 10/12hr + night shift again and again, minimum wage, NO night pay, NO overtime pay. I spent the last few years painstakingly getting myself out of debt, going without enough food for a prolonged period (2yrs+), still reeling from my last relationship which caused me a lot of problems. I am now up to £0 but can't break above as stuff keeps happening. The fact is, this has taken it's toll on my once healthy and fit body, now quite skinny and getting wracked.

The fact is, I do need a rest. I have tried and tried to continue, and always will, but I do need a brief rest. Yet anyone calls me a faker, lazy etc. I am worried about people in worse situations than me who like me, APPEAR able and well (only because you HAVE to stay strong) but truthfully simply can't carry on and in reality just need a little support for a short while so they can get on their feet.

People who are sick and disabled are now being made to work. There is a story of a man who was given an extremely simple physical test by his doctor, that basically anyone can do, and on that basis forced to work there and then. He died of a heart attack on his 6th day in work.

But that's ok as long as a few fakers are maybe weeded out? Is that really the way the deficit is going to be dealt with

If austerity is what it takes to get free from debt/deficit, so be it, but what about the Tory friends getting richer? Does this stack up?


An interesting Map
I was shown a map yesterday of planned Tory budgets for councils un the uk, which ones will receive cuts and which will receive increases. I was quite surprised to see that map compared to a map of uk councils. The cuts are almost entirely for labour and other run councils, while many of the increases go to Tory and rich places which least need it.

Even a breakdown map of London showed almost a perfect alignment of the biggest cuts/smallest increases being in labour and other run councils while Tory councils will get it best. Surely it could only be a crackpot conspiracy theory to suggest something isn't right here...?

Surely it must be crazy to suggest this could be to stop Labour or any other party ever getting back in. Surely the Conservatives will not run a campaign in years to come saying look how bad the opposition councils have done (because they can't as their funding has been taken and diverted elsewhere)? Surely it would only be a crazy freak conspiracy person who would suggest the Tories are trying to undermine the opposition to stop them ever getting back into power?

I will try to find this map to post when I have more time.


Moving towards a totalitarian government? Maybe crazy now, but in 10 yrs?
I tend to very much dislike conspiracy theories in general, so tend to be hesitant towards going there. But what I would like to know, hypothetically, is what assurances do we have that eventually things are not moving towards the common people being helpless and the government of the future being able to enforce themselves over us, eventually bringing to life the horror of George Orwell's 1984 (in the name of security against terrorism, economy etc)?


BTW, I was a conservative guy all my life, but they will never have my vote again*. I fear this is too little too late however.

*Unless new people are able to rise up in that party, causing change and revolution into the good guys or something.

[Rollo]

http://www.theguardian.com/media/201...ness-secretary
Asked about newspaper headlines on Tuesday which said the Tories were had “gone to war on the BBC”, Javid told Radio 4’s Today programme: “Not at all.
“There is a bit of over-excitement in those headlines. First of all, John Whittingdale is an excellent choice for culture secretary. He is someone who is hugely experienced.”
...
It quoted a Tory insider as saying: “This isn’t about the wholesale destruction of the BBC – far from it – but it’s about requiring the corporation to take a long, hard look at itself, the job it is doing, the way it is funded and whether it is fit for purpose.”
But the Telegraph said the move would be seen as a “declaration of war” on the corporation, saying senior Conservatives were “furious at the BBC’s coverage” of the election.
A leader in the Sun – like the Times, owned by Rupert Murdoch – said it was “payback time” for the BBC after “decades of BBC bias against the Tories, subtle and blatant”.
- The Grauniad, 12th May 2015

Not gone to war with the BBC eh?

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/c...960215_HOC_414
Some have argued in the past that the BBC should be forced to earn its living in the private sector in the same way as many other state-owned companies have been forced to do. My support for the principle of privatisation is second to none. I strongly believe that it is not the business of government to own and attempt to run commercial enterprises engaged in the supply of products for consumers, be they television programmes, motor cars or telecommunications, but the BBC is primarily not a commercial body.
- John Whittingdale (MP for Colchester, South and Maldon) in the House of Commons, 15th Feb 1996.

Whittingdale would later propose a bill to privatise the BBC before the end of the term of the Major government and he's rattled around Whitehall for the past twenty years, just waiting to get his way again. Now that he's been appointed as Culture Secretary in an age where there's not very much left in the family silverware cabinet (because Thatcher, Major and Blair sold it all off) what's he going to suggest that should be sold off next, in the name of addressing debt and deficit?

A leopard very rarely changes its spots and a rabid leopard with a 20 year grudge isn't going to either.

[rjbetty]

I just don't know what to make of things at the mo...

Btw, I should have said I am not at all against being rich in itself, as long as it is earned and fairly done. I'm not really a fan of super-socialism as I believe someone who has worked 10 times harder is entitled to a bit more than a truly total waster with a bad attitude who wants it all for free and is perfectly able.

[Starter]

No I'm not. The original $5000 deposited in the bank was earned from "real work" and has already been subject to regular taxation rates. The interest that it then goes on the generate is passive but is paid for by someone else's real work.
I'm not suggesting taxing capital but taxing passive income.

I never suggested it shouldn't be taxed. It's the rate you proposed which I questioned.

[Starter]

I just don't know what to make of things at the mo...

Btw, I should have said I am not at all against being rich in itself, as long as it is earned and fairly done. I'm not really a fan of super-socialism as I believe someone who has worked 10 times harder is entitled to a bit more than a truly total waster with a bad attitude who wants it all for free and is perfectly able.

The problem with governments is that the conservative ones want to preserve wealth regardless of the cost to others and the liberals want to fleece the rich and middle and give it to the poor (keeping their own incomes of course). Both want to stay in power at any cost. A pox on them both.