General Election 2017

[markavfc40]

1 hour ago, MakemineVanilla said:

Are the electorate capable of facing the ugly truth that if they want better services, they need to pay more tax?

The Tories are happy to let the deficit increase and Labour are offering handouts.

While one party is lying the other has no choice but to lie also.

What's the solution?

You answered it yourself further up your post. Tax those of us more who can afford it and in fairness there are a hell of a lot of us who could afford to pay more.

I am not wealthy by any stretch and my household income would be around about average I would guess but me and my wife would both happily pay more in taxes if it ensured better public services, better standards of living for disabled people and the elderly who are reliant on state assistance etc. I am not beyond being selfish though and it  would also of course ensure there was a safety net for us if we ever found ourselves out of work, ensure that if me or mine ever became ill there would be good healthcare, ensure that if I ever become old and frail there are state provisions in place to help me. I also want to ensure that my children have the same life chances that my generation have had in terms of buying their own homes, ensure that my future grandchildren have the opportunity of a decent education regardless of how rich their parents are. I could go on all day but you get the idea.

Let’s be under no illusions these problems in the NHS shouldn’t have come as a shock. We have an ageing population. Whilst the Tories will claim they have put more money into the NHS the cuts in adult social care have been horrific and those services have been decimated leaving elderly people that could be cared for at home taking up beds in hospital.

I don’t understand why people would have a problem with paying more taxes and I don’t understand why those in power, or seeking it, are so scared of saying that to provide good healthcare and other public services, to provide a good safety net if you ever hit on hard times, to provide a decent standard of living for disabled people and the elderly, we are going to ask for a little more from those of us who can afford it.

Trouble is though that too many of us have turned into I am alright Jack merchants. No social conscience for those less fortunate and no foresight into what could be coming down the line for them and theirs. Whilst that is the case the Tories will get away with their ideological cuts in the name of cutting the deficit, continue to turn a blind eye to the increasing amounts of people blaming Johnny Foreigner for any woes, and going forward will blame Brexit, and some of us won’t wake up to them until it is too late and those things that many of us have taken for granted, or foolishly thought we may never need, have all disappeared.

[PieFacE]

1 hour ago, terrytini said:

We are a staggeringly wealthy country. But by and large people would rather go to the Villa, the Pub, and have Sky, than make sure they will be looked after with dignity when they are old, or have roads that aren't like Beirut, or have museums, art galleries, or Public Transport, etc etc etc.

I don't think you can really blame people for wanting to spend their money on things they enjoy doing on a daily/weekly basis. Maybe a solution is that all those things should become a bit cheaper  

[darrenm]

13 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

Was debating not voting but the thought of a coalition involving sturgeon for me is the worst possible scenario therefore I think I'm voting conservative although I really do like may.

 

A coalition between Labour and SNP has been ruled out by Corbyn this morning https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/20/election-result-not-a-foregone-conclusion-insists-jeremy-corbyn “There will be no coalition deal with the SNP and a Labour government.”

Fair play for admitting you like Theresa May. I think she's a morally vacant, contemptible husk of a human being personally.

[terrytini]

1 minute ago, PieFacE said:

I don't think you can really blame people for wanting to spend their money on things they enjoy doing on a daily/weekly basis. Maybe a solution is that all those things should become a bit cheaper  

Er, well, I DO blame them.  It is incredibly, criminally short sighted. Not spending money on things you like, of course, but being against paying the necessary amount of tax to provide all the other, important, things.

[PieFacE]

1 minute ago, terrytini said:

Er, well, I DO blame them.  It is incredibly, criminally short sighted. Not spending money on things you like, of course, but being against paying the necessary amount of tax to provide all the other, important, things.

Important for who though?

 

(I'm not disagreeing with you , just playing devils advocate) 

Edited April 20, 2017 by PieFacE

[tonyh29]

Just now, terrytini said:

I'm not disputing how at least some feel about it, but that doesn't stop it being the right answer,

And odd, isn't it, that 'furious reactions' from anti war protesters, people affected by welfare cuts etc, people demonstrating against bankers, never means policies get abandoned ?

The singular damning failure of the 'left' of British politics (admittedly given a hard task by their lack of influence in the media) has been to make the case out, every day, in detail, for the last forty years.

I started to reply to Mark and kinda got sidetracked , but I guess it can as easily go here ..

I think the problem is we haven't really had a left politics since New Labour ..he asks why people would vote for more of the same from the Tories ... but the Tories are only really more of the same of New Labour , who were more of the same of Thatcher .... Labour gave contracts to Atos , the Tories took it further , the Tories started privatisation , Labour continued it , then the Tories continued it again , Labour started privatising parts of the NHS , the Tories have continued it , and depending on who you speak to want to take it all the way to a fully privatised conclusion ( I disagree with this conclusion fwiw)  

 

Now it does appear as though Corbyn is offering a left alternative and a chance to break a way from red Tory / Blue Tory  .. but when his own party keep trying to depose him , how can a public be convinced to give him a  chance , vote for change  .. when the time in government for each party doesn't really differ that much   ,it's sorta inevitable that you're gonna get more of the same from the Tories  , and that the public are ambivalent to it   ...  

To some extent , a Labour demolition may be the best thing for them , maybe the party will split and you'll get a sorta New New Labour who are like the Tories , maybe even with some Tories jumping ship to it if they get the right balance on Europe  , but you'll get an old Labour that will offer a true left wing alternative without the internal fighting and bickering .. and maybe given a chance for these populists policies we keep hearing about to be promoted

it wont happen overnight , but given time it might happen .. of course it comes down to funding , where would the Union affiliations etc go to 

[Straggler]

23 minutes ago, MakemineVanilla said:

All very well but where are the solutions?

Take the NHS for instance.

This government is spending more of the Nation's wealth on the NHS than Labour were in their final years in power: 9.1% of GDP 2007-8 v 9.9% in 2014 (£197bn)

The OECD average is 9%.

The present government are running a 9.2% deficit on what it spends and what it takes in (Germany +1.5%, France -5.9%, Greece -8.6%).

According to many the UK economy is about to either flatline or get smaller.

If the aspirations for the NHS are to be met, it looks like the nation needs a tax hike.

With inflation now creeping up, interest rates likely to rise and incomes still stagnating despite low unemployment, are the electorate likely to vote for a tax increase for themselves?

Middle earning households used to be significant net tax contributors but are now net beneficiaries.

Are the electorate capable of facing the ugly truth that if they want better services, they need to pay more tax?

The Tories are happy to let the deficit increase and Labour are offering handouts.

While one party is lying the other has no choice but to lie also.

What's the solution?

I could talk about this for days, but will try and contain myself.  The easy answer is to effectively tax the very rich and multinationals.  Stop the tax dodging and shut the legal loopholes, even introduce a law that allows the government to fine companies that break the spirit of the law.  Call it a stop taking the piss with your tax dodging shenanigans law.  The burden should not be with the middle class, and it need not be if everyone pays their fair share.  I do understand that when I say it is the easy answer that it is much easier to say than to do.   The simple fact is that we are a rich enough nation to fund the NHS properly if we choose to.

I would also like to point out what the alternative is.  We all want to be treated when we are sick or have an emergency, so it is not like it is an option stop providing hospitals and doctors and nurses and all that other good stuff that keeps us alive.  So if we stop publicly funding the NHS the other option is private health care and insurance.  Like they have in the USA. 

I've mentioned this in other threads, but my other half is an American and I have seen close up how insurance there works.  It is horrific.  My mother in law died of cancer over a 4 year period.  Before she was diagnosed she was a wealthy self employed woman who ran a small chain of care homes.  She had several properties a bunch of cars and health insurance.  By the time she died, even with insurance she had lost all of her businesses, all of the cars and all but one of the properties (the family home).  A few weeks after she died and the bill came in for that (yes a bill for death, palliative care costs money too), the remaining family lost the last home too, all they managed to keep were the photo albums and their own personal effects.  They have a phrase over there that goes something like "when the Dr diagnoses you with cancer you may as well declare bankruptcy".

Obama did make it a little bit better, Trump is trying to make it oh so much worse.  He is trying to make it so that if you don't have insurance and you get cancer, you die.  If you have a pre-existing condition you can be denied insurance and you die. If you are poor and sick, you don't get treated.  Never mind that the cost of healthcare in the USA per head is way more than we spend here. 

What we have is not perfect, but in comparison to most of the rest of the world it is a stand out service.  We should be protecting it, prioritising it over other spending and damn it we should be treasuring it.  I have not seen or heard of a better model of health care than we have here.  It may seem expensive and I can't argue that we spend a lot of money on it, but what we get is a good value for money service*.

I don't see how there can be a question about should we continue to fund the NHS.  It is a world leading service in both results and value for money.  We can fund it if we choose to, we just need everyone to pay their fair share.  What we are doing to it now under the Tories by deliberately under funding it and running it into the ground is disgusting and if we end up getting rid of the NHS altogether it will be one of the greatest mistakes of self inflicted stupidity and selfishness of all time.

Some stats to back up the idea that the NHS is affordable by almost any measure that you care to apply.

https://tinyurl.com/hn9gjd6

Quote

Whatever the flaws of international comparisons, it’s clear the UK is currently a relatively low spender on health care – as the Barker Commission pointed out – with a prospect of sinking further down the international league tables. The question is increasingly not so much whether it is sustainable to spend more – after all, many countries already manage that and have done for decades. Rather, it is whether it is sustainable for our spending to remain so comparatively low, given the improvements in the quality of care and outcomes we want and expect from our health services.

 

* https://tinyurl.com/oxw3w2l

Quote

Britain’s healthcare has been lauded as the best out of 11 of the world’s wealthiest countries, following a far-reaching study by a US-based foundation.

In a report entitled “Mirror, Mirror on the Wall,” the quality, efficiency, cost and performance of the US health system was compared to Canada and nine other countries in Europe and Australasia.

Conducted by The Commonwealth Fund, the report ranks the UK first overall, scoring it highly for its quality of care, efficiency and low cost at the point of service, with Switzerland coming an overall second.

 

[tonyh29]

Just now, terrytini said:

Why ? Which of the policies of the SNP do you find would create the 'worst possible scenario ?' if they were in a coalition government ?

Because I have to admit, that compared to Mays "I need a bigger majority" I find most of these compelling, especially if tempered by coalition. 

(From their last manifesto, so cant guarantee all of them)

• Increase the NHS revenue budget
•  expand the Golden Jubilee hospital in Clydebank and establish five new elective treatment centres in Aberdeen, Inverness, Dundee, Livingston and Edinburgh
• Implement a new £100m cancer plan to improve prevention, early diagnosis and treatment of cancer
• Create an additional 1,000 training places for nurses and midwives
• Invest £150m in mental health services, with a ten year plan to transform mental health in Scotland
• Protect free prescriptions and free personal and nursing care
• Almost double the amount of free nursery education for all three and four year olds, as well as the most vulnerable two year olds, from 16 hours a week to 30 hours a week by 2021
• Ensure that every child in early education in the most deprived communities will have access to an additional teacher or childcare graduate by 2018
• Deliver £750m in additional investment through the extended Scottish Attainment Fund
• Introduce national standardised assessments in primaries 1, 4, 7 and in S3 to provide better information on how children are progressing
• Oversee a "revolution in transparency" about school performance
• Protect free university education
• Expanding the Small Business Bonus to exempt 100,000 premises from business rates
• Investing in infrastructure to ensure all of Scotland has broadband, building 50,000 affordable new homes and continually improving transport links
• Double the number of living wage accredited employers to 1,000 by autumn of 2017
• Deliver 30,000 new Modern Apprenticeships a year by 2020
• Freeze the basic rate of income tax for the duration of the next parliament and increase the tax free allowance to £12,750 by 2021/22
• Not proceed with the UK government's plan to raise the the higher rate of tax threshold to £50,000
• Abolishing the "Bedroom Tax" as soon as its has the powers to do so
• Not means testing or cutting disability benefits and raising the allowance paid to carers to the same level as Jobseekers' Allowance
• Introducing changes to how Universal Credit is paid to ensure that vulnerable people are better supported
• Implementing the new powers contained in the Scotland Act 2016 and making the case for "even greater powers" over tax, welfare and the economy to be devolved to Holyrood
• Ensuring the UK government delivers in full on the commitments it made for a more powerful parliament and protection of the Barnett formula
• Campaigning for Scotland and the UK to remain in the EU
• Defending the rights and freedoms of trade unions
• Opposing UK government plans to repeal the Human Rights Act
• Arguing for the abolition of the House of Lords
• Opposing plans for a replacement to the current Trident nuclear weapon system
• Deliver superfast broadband to every property in Scotland
• Invest £25m in rural housing
• Introduce a new Climate Change Act, with a new target of cutting emissions by more than 50% by 2020
• Empower island communities through an Islands Bill
• Maintain the Road Equivalent Tariff on all current ferry routes and reduce ferry fares on routes to Orkney and Shetland
• End anonymous ownership of land in Scotland by introducing a mandatory public register
• Ensure there is no fracking in Scotland "unless it can be proven beyond any doubt that there is no risk to health, communities or the environment"

 

all paid for by the endless pot of North Sea oil ?

Probably the worst thing that could ever happen to the SNP is they get their independence .. at the moment they sorta do ok out of mismanaging their funds and always have the Tory Bastards in Westminster to blame  ... Once they go it alone , and the free cancer drugs end and they have to increase taxes , cut benefits and what not and they don't have someone to blame , I doubt Scotland will SNP for long

[terrytini]

1 minute ago, PieFacE said:

Important for who though?

 

(I'm not disagreeing with you , just playing devils advocate) 

Proper infrastructure is important for everybody. If you read my Post about my job as a Trading Standards Officer you'll see my work covered every aspect of everybodys life.  We ALL need health services, we all need education, we all need roads and transport, we all need homes and at some point we will all need end of life care. To name but a few.

 

[terrytini]

4 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

all paid for by the endless pot of North Sea oil ?

Probably the worst thing that could ever happen to the SNP is they get their independence .. at the moment they sorta do ok out of mismanaging their funds and always have the Tory Bastards in Westminster to blame  ... Once they go it alone , and the free cancer drugs end and they have to increase taxes , cut benefits and what not and they don't have someone to blame , I doubt Scotland will SNP for long

IF you don't think it could be paid for, and that's why you think they would be the worst case scenario, fine.

I happen to believe paying for most of those things is both relatively straightforward, and, more importantly, necessary, and there are many ways to do it. 

But  - don't be offended - I aint getting into the finances here ! Worn Out !

I was more interested in which of their Policies the OP thought so harmful.

[tonyh29]

Just now, Straggler said:

The easy answer is to effectively tax the very rich and multinationals. 

How did that work in France with the 75% tax rate ... Seem to recall it raised 500m , a fraction of what was projected  .... I believe parts of London did well out of though as loads of wealthy French people moved there .

again I read somewhere that when the top rate in the UK was reduced form 98% in the 70's to 40% , revenue received through tax rose around 37% as a result (from memory ,I'll have to try and dig the evidence out)

 

Rich people don't sit around waiting to be taxed  .. I guess you did say effectively , so I guess it depends on that definition

[tonyh29]

Just now, terrytini said:

I was more interested in which of their Policies the OP thought so harmful.

All of them seeing as the English are paying for them  

 

[Demitri_C]

14 minutes ago, darrenm said:

A coalition between Labour and SNP has been ruled out by Corbyn this morning https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/20/election-result-not-a-foregone-conclusion-insists-jeremy-corbyn “There will be no coalition deal with the SNP and a Labour government.”

Fair play for admitting you like Theresa May. I think she's a morally vacant, contemptible husk of a human being personally.

Darren I meant I really DON'T like may!! Can't stand her and I dislike sturgeon more so you can imagine my opinion on her

[Demitri_C]

28 minutes ago, terrytini said:

I know a trader who railed against any taxation.

He buys a certain foodstuff from abroad, breaks the bulk and remarkets it in smaller packages.

In the course of my job I had cause to visit him as it had become the case under EU Law that Local Authorities should Risk Assess their food businesses, retailers, importers, wholesalers and visit them accordingly,( long since disregarded with Austerity then the idea of withdrawing from the EU......)  In his case once every 3 years.

He resented the idea of me being able to inspect him.

 I advised him on implementing the Packaged Goods Regulations. (An EU idea from the Seventies)...  He hadn't heard of them, they had been around for years. They enabled him to pack to an average weight system (ensuring weight control by statistical sampling )rather than a minimum weight system, which in turn meant he could lower his target weight.

He reckoned it would save him £20000 per year.

I asked if that was worth an apple a week, he said he'd think on it.

True.

(And he's a Villa Season Ticket holder !! so he may be on here!! )

The reason being is I feel sturgeon only has Scotland's interests at heart and not the UK as a whole. She seems anti-uk and I for one think she is a cretin

[terrytini]

Just now, tonyh29 said:

How did that work in France with the 75% tax rate ... Seem to recall it raised 500m , a fraction of what was projected  .... I believe parts of London did well out of though as loads of wealthy French people moved there .

again I read somewhere that when the top rate in the UK was reduced form 98% in the 70's to 40% , revenue received through tax rose around 37% as a result (from memory ,I'll have to try and dig the evidence out)

 

Rich people don't sit around waiting to be taxed  .. I guess you did say effectively , so I guess it depends on that definition

The details of public finance are vast. But as a simple example, see my Post regarding the food importer. My education, and employment by an Authority,both a drain on public finance,  meant HE became far more successful, so he employed more people, and he spent more, and so did they, which raised more tax. Keynsian economics which served the world very well for a long time. And while I was getting paid, I spent money too, which went into the pockets of traders, and back into the state.....etc etc.

If you take those things away, as we've now been doing for 10 years, its the opposite.  The bacon butty seller near my old office has packed up because nobody works there anymore. Spiral of decline.

But there are other things too - it isn't just taxing the wealthy, its taxing - fairly - everybody - and making sure its paid.  Its looking at which policies reap long term benefits (say, nursery education) because they prevent future problems.

And apart from anything else, if we can find money for bombs, and wars, and tax cuts, we can find money for health, and education, and roads.

Apart from anything else, NOT financing these things simply means a slow decline.

[terrytini]

2 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

The reason being is I feel sturgeon only has Scotland's interests at heart and not the UK as a whole. She seems anti-uk and I for one think she is a cretin

Fair enough but you said in coalition - that would by definition temper that wouldn't it ?  And is there any evidence May has the interests of the UK as a whole at heart ?

[markavfc40]

8 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

Darren I meant I really DON'T like may!! Can't stand her and I dislike sturgeon more so you can imagine my opinion on her

Dem you are falling for the same kind of bullshit that Cameron spouted in 2015 when he said vote Milliband get the SNP.

One thing is for sure here you vote Tory you are getting another five years of what has gone on over the last 7 years and some.

Take your chances with something else including a coalition of Labour, Lib Dems, Greens and SNP.

[terrytini]

Bit cheesy to say it but enjoyed the mornings debate guys...........now, that football thingy.................

[PieFacE]

It's said that a lot of people voted for Brexit as a protest vote, a vote for change, a vote for "hope" by people who feel they have none.

Personally, I view a vote for a coalition to be in a very similar vain. I'm not sure another 5 years of Tories are good for anyone, so maybe we should protest vote and just hope we get something better?

 

[snowychap]

52 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

a coalition involving sturgeon

For which Westminster seat is she intending to stand?