Bollitics: VT General Election Poll #2

[Demitri_C]

In terms of personability I agree that Cable came off best, however the rest of the Lib Dem team are so clearly inept that the only way he will get anywhere near the No. 11 hotseat is as part of a coalition government.

i agree with this

furethermore how amny lib dems do we actually know? how can you vote for people you dont even know who they are!!

[Jon]

In terms of personability I agree that Cable came off best, however the rest of the Lib Dem team are so clearly inept that the only way he will get anywhere near the No. 11 hotseat is as part of a coalition government.

i agree with this

furethermore how amny lib dems do we actually know? how can you vote for people you dont even know who they are!!

erm, you get to know them. You become informed.

how many labour or Tory MP's do you know Dem, out of interest?

Do you know who would be on the front line of the first tory cabinet Dem?

[Awol]

Here is a good example of the Lib Dem's general lack of credibility concerning some of the bigger issues which are outside of Cable's remit, from the politics show on Sunday - via the Beeb.

On the subject of immigration:

Waffling shite

Nick Clegg was asked about his party's plans on immigration, particularly the idea that people should only be allowed to move to sparsely-populated parts of Britain.

Brian Craddock wanted to know whether, if they lost their jobs there, they would be allowed to move. Nick Clegg said quite simply "No."

So would immigrants be given unemployment benefit? Would they be deported? Could Mr Clegg say whether regions like the West Midlands were full?

The Liberal Democrat leader said he could not go into that kind of specific detail - but insisted his party's plan would give Britain the benefits of immigration while reducing the demands it made on the country.

Couldn't go into specific detail like whether they'd be paid unemployment benefit or be deported?? I'd say that's a pretty fundamental question. How about when an immigrant hires an ambulance chasing 'no win no fee' yuman rights lawyer to fight the restrictions on where they can settle? It's frankly laughable and displays the total lack of clarity in the Lib Dems thinking. They want to sound 'tough' because they recognise the importance of the isssue in the country but can't even properly work through the very basics of putting together a policy to address it.

They are not fit to govern yet, BUT they probably would make quite an effective opposition for the next four to eight years while they mature as a party and develop some more concrete ideas.

[Jon]

Cable came across slightly the best. If the Lib Dems get as much coverage as this and do as well in the other TV things, they'll likely do well in the election itself.

The problem there being that The Cable Guy won't be getting any more appearances.

The 3 remaining debates are leader only debates AFAIK?

Interesting steal here from the Beeb, on why Vinny came across so well ...

"In terms of the grammar of the debate, tonight was fascinating. What happened was that Alastair and Vince attacked George and George and Vince attacked Alastair. The moderator challenged George and Alastair, but Vince somehow managed to sashay through the middle posing as the 'voice of the people,' and as the 'anti-politician.' It worked brilliantly, but at no point did anyone challenge anything he had to say and there was absolutely no scrutiny of his policies whatsoever. It was quite extraordinary. This ought to lead to a review of how the leaders' debates are to be conducted."

[Gringo]

Ol' red eyes is back

back from all the lies he told before

Ol' red's in town

Carrying all that cash has worn him down

But Mandy has called

And he's back to save brown

Ol' red is back

Watched him on sky giving his warm up speech to his old sedgefield party.

Still the best 'politician' around - we might not like his politiics - but he makes blair-lite and cam-lite look like stuffed shirts - even cracked a joke about all his new found wealth.

[tonyh29]

Still the best 'politician' around

think that is debatable ... but i get your meaning

I wonder if he will be a help or a hindrance to Brown ? The Iraq war hit Blairs popularity big time .. although it's not strictly "him" , there is also "Ghost " coming out soon which could damage Blair a bit depending on how far the public feel the analogy goes

BTW Don't labour realise that every time they praise Darling in a speech the whole world knows that Brown tried to remove him from office in favour of Ed Balls ..a rather baffling strategy isn't it ?

[Jon]

Inspired by The Lord of the Grings:

Old Red eyes is back

Red from the night before the night before

Walked into the wrong bar like a political toadying whore

Old Red's in town

And sitting late at night he doesn't make a sound

Just adding to the stockpiles of his Millions of Pound

They're only red from all the tears that I should've shed

They're only red from all the taxpayers that I could've bled

So when you look into these eyes I hope you realise

They could always be blue

They could always be blue

They could always be blue

They could always be blue

Listen up Old Red

You never listened to a word the WMD Inspectors said

They told you if you went to war in Iraq, there'd be millions dead

Old Red Eyes is back

His shoulders ache all over and his brain is sore

He pours a drink and listens to the Tory election roar

They're only red from all nightmares caused by Gordon's lack of cred

They're only red from all the Parties I could have lead instead

So when you look into these eyes I hope you realise

They were always true blue

They were always true blue

They were always true blue

They were always true blue

Blue is a street without an end

Red is the colour of my hell

Blue is a greeting from a friend

Red is the colour of farewell

Old Red he died

And every single PR company in the country cried

A "Blair Years" autobiography laying by his side

A lazy little tear running from each eye

That will always be blue

That will always be blue

That will always be blue .....

FIN

[Gringo]

Still the best 'politician' around

think that is debatable ... but i get your meaning

I wonder if he will be a help or a hindrance to Brown ? The Iraq war hit Blairs popularity big time .. although it's not strictly "him" , there is also "Ghost " coming out soon which could damage Blair a bit depending on how far the public feel the analogy goes

But the book blames everything on the giftaholic cherie - so that would make everyone happy - even littlejohn.

BTW Don't labour realise that every time they praise Darling in a speech the whole world knows that Brown tried to remove him from office in favour of Ed Balls ..a rather baffling strategy isn't it ?

But gordo promised he would keep badgereyebrows in no 11 - it's amazing how his cred went up after an empty budget.

[Gringo]

Probably belongs on the budget thread, as it was part of the budget - but seeing as alistair didn't actually announce it and instead hid it in all the supporting documentation, let's just treat it as part of policy:

torygraph"]

Budget 2010: HMRC officers to get powers to open people's post without asking permission

Tax inspectors are to get wide-ranging powers to open people’s post without their permission for the first time, it can disclosed.

Officers will be allowed to intercept any suspicious mail anywhere in the country and open it before it is delivered, under plans being drawn up by the Government to amend the Postal Services Act.

The measure is billed as a bid to crack down on tobacco smuggling. However, a HM Revenue and Customs spokesman said the powers could be applied much more widely.

Currently, Royal Mail staff have a legal right to intercept suspicious letters and parcels in mail centres and sorting offices and pass them to HM Revenue and Customs.

Tax inspectors must then notify the addressee and agree a mutually acceptable time to open the letter or parcel, before deciding whether to take any enforcement acdtion.

However the Government is now proposing to remove the legal requirement which will now allow inspectors to open suspicious post without asking permission first.

Treasury documents say: “HMRC will no longer be required to notify the addressee and invite them to attend before such packets can be opened”.

The new measure will be passed into law as part of the Budget over the next few weeks, and amend section 106 of the Postal Services Act 2000.

Under current law, the only other enforcement officers who can open mail are border guards who can open the post without permission at ports and airports.

The change was disclosed in a Treasury document published alongside the Budget headlined “Tackling tobacco smuggling in the post”. However a HM Revenue and Customs spokesman said the powers would be applied much more broadly.

The spokesman said: "The change is mainly directed at helping to combat tobacco smuggling but the powers in s106 apply to any contraband including prohibited or restricted goods.”

She declined to say how many times HM Revenue and Customs had used the existing powers in recent years.

Accountants warned that it was likely tax inspectors would seek to use the powers in other areas once they became law.

Heather Taylor, a senior tax partner at Grant Thornton, said: “This seems like a very small and limited change, but it could be a very big step for increased powers HMRC. Once new powers are in the hands of HMRC they tend to be extended.”

Civil liberties campaigners were appalled about the increased powers. Alex Deane, a spokesman for Big Brother Watch, said: “This is a dreadful development. The post has always been regarded as near-sacrosanct in law.

“The last time our mail was opened by the authorities without notice, our country was fighting a World War. I hardly think that the situation produced by the government’s tobacco tax compares.

“Once the principle of opening our mail has been accepted, what else will the Government use as an excuse to pry into our post?”

HM Revenue and Customs are growing increasingly aggressive in their battle with tax evaders. Earlier this year it announced plans for a crack down on middle class professionals who do not pay their fair share of tax.

A Royal Mail spokesman said: "Royal Mail has no powers to open the mail and in rare cases when an item of mail clearly poses a hazard to other mail and/or the safety of our people - for example, if a noxious chemical was spilling from a package - we would call in HMRC and, usually, the police."

Chip, chip away.

[Demitri_C]

how many labour or Tory MP's do you know Dem, out of interest?

Do you know who would be on the front line of the first tory cabinet Dem?

i know quite a lot actually tories osbourne, cameron, hague, fox etc

labour brown, darling, balls, beckett, straw, need i go on?

the only lib dem ive heard of otrher than cable is charles kennedy and he is a alcholic so that isnt a good sign if i dont know of any of them.

but regardless does anyone actually believe tories, labour, lib dems we wont get the same shit?

[tonyh29]

talking of budgets , anyone notice the very subtle change in wording over Pensions .. it doesn't appear it will be implemented just yet but the "tax free" wording was changed and soon the lump sum you get from your pension "could" soon no longer be tax free

Nothing planned as of yet but it is suggesting it might get raided some point in the future

But the book blames everything on the giftaholic cherie

I thought it was a bit of both ?

[Gringo]

But the book blames everything on the giftaholic cherie

I thought it was a bit of both ?

To my reading it portrayed him as cherie's puppet as opposed to bush's poodle, and cherie as the fbi poodle. And he got his leg over with the pretty secretary - which as paddy pantsdown discovered never harms at poll time.

[tonyh29]

^^^^^ Spoiler Alert :-)

[Jon]

how many labour or Tory MP's do you know Dem, out of interest?

Do you know who would be on the front line of the first tory cabinet Dem?

i know quite a lot actually tories osbourne, cameron, hague, fox etc

labour brown, darling, balls, beckett, straw, need i go on?

ah. good stuff. What do they stand for, these names you know?

Or do you base your politics on the number of names you know from a party?

surely you'd base your political judgements on something more tangible than that?

[kidlewis]

I have to agree with Osbourne on the NI increase. If Darlings "so called" efficiency savings amount to £12bn (which I bet they don't) then why take more money from us first before stopping the waste?

It was one of the few really good points Osbourne made to counter Darling.

And he is right. Stop wasting our money, then you can ask for a bit more.

Does anyone know how much revenue VAT brings to the government? and how much more would they get if they upped it to 18%? I never understood the randomness of 17.5% VAT. why not go the whole way and put it at £17.5469321%?

EDIT: just checked 2008-2009 figures on Wiki. If sales would be the same for 2010 as for 2009 on VAT related items. a 0.5% increase to 18% would yield nearly £2.4bn.

Not a bad start.

chipping away nicely. I think upping it straight to 20% would be a mistake.

I also think possibly looking at allowing somewhere like Blackpool to house a mega casino might be another welcomed chunk in further revenue.

By the looks of things Inheritence tax doesn't bring in much at all. It's half the amount the government get in duty in fags so I think upping it won't do much to change things.

Same goes for fuel duty, it only brought in £1.7bn for 2008-09. that seems awfully low for a country where the transport spine of the country is the road.

[Ads]

Assuming for a minute that doesn't happen then Osborne is more credible than Darling imo. Darling's figures are based on economic growth of 3.5% in 2011 which is simply fantasy. The Tories might not turn out to be amazing but Labour have proved themselves to be utterly incompetent and returning a Brown led government would spell disaster for the UK.

Absolutely Awol.

I think that is ultimately, the thought that will go through all but the hardened Labour voters minds when they enter the booth in May, and their answer to it will actually ensure the Conservatives get the 7.5% they need.

[Risso]

Probably belongs on the budget thread, as it was part of the budget - but seeing as alistair didn't actually announce it and instead hid it in all the supporting documentation, let's just treat it as part of policy:

torygraph"]

Budget 2010: HMRC officers to get powers to open people's post without asking permission

Tax inspectors are to get wide-ranging powers to open people’s post without their permission for the first time, it can disclosed.

Officers will be allowed to intercept any suspicious mail anywhere in the country and open it before it is delivered, under plans being drawn up by the Government to amend the Postal Services Act.

The measure is billed as a bid to crack down on tobacco smuggling. However, a HM Revenue and Customs spokesman said the powers could be applied much more widely.

Currently, Royal Mail staff have a legal right to intercept suspicious letters and parcels in mail centres and sorting offices and pass them to HM Revenue and Customs.

Tax inspectors must then notify the addressee and agree a mutually acceptable time to open the letter or parcel, before deciding whether to take any enforcement acdtion.

However the Government is now proposing to remove the legal requirement which will now allow inspectors to open suspicious post without asking permission first.

Treasury documents say: “HMRC will no longer be required to notify the addressee and invite them to attend before such packets can be opened”.

The new measure will be passed into law as part of the Budget over the next few weeks, and amend section 106 of the Postal Services Act 2000.

Under current law, the only other enforcement officers who can open mail are border guards who can open the post without permission at ports and airports.

The change was disclosed in a Treasury document published alongside the Budget headlined “Tackling tobacco smuggling in the post”. However a HM Revenue and Customs spokesman said the powers would be applied much more broadly.

The spokesman said: "The change is mainly directed at helping to combat tobacco smuggling but the powers in s106 apply to any contraband including prohibited or restricted goods.”

She declined to say how many times HM Revenue and Customs had used the existing powers in recent years.

Accountants warned that it was likely tax inspectors would seek to use the powers in other areas once they became law.

Heather Taylor, a senior tax partner at Grant Thornton, said: “This seems like a very small and limited change, but it could be a very big step for increased powers HMRC. Once new powers are in the hands of HMRC they tend to be extended.”

Civil liberties campaigners were appalled about the increased powers. Alex Deane, a spokesman for Big Brother Watch, said: “This is a dreadful development. The post has always been regarded as near-sacrosanct in law.

“The last time our mail was opened by the authorities without notice, our country was fighting a World War. I hardly think that the situation produced by the government’s tobacco tax compares.

“Once the principle of opening our mail has been accepted, what else will the Government use as an excuse to pry into our post?”

HM Revenue and Customs are growing increasingly aggressive in their battle with tax evaders. Earlier this year it announced plans for a crack down on middle class professionals who do not pay their fair share of tax.

A Royal Mail spokesman said: "Royal Mail has no powers to open the mail and in rare cases when an item of mail clearly poses a hazard to other mail and/or the safety of our people - for example, if a noxious chemical was spilling from a package - we would call in HMRC and, usually, the police."

Chip, chip away.

Have you been following the Huitson v HMRC case Gringo? Basically, Huitson was using a loophole in the Double Taxation Treaty between the UK and the IOM to pay less tax. HMRC changed the law, but then retrospectively changed the law to try and claw back 8 years worth of tax. Retrospectively applying changes to laws......

[leviramsey]

Seems competence and intelligence are not essential to get into positions of extreme governmental power.

Jeremy Grantham is probably one of the dozen or so sharpest money managers in the world (he pretty much just manages money for large institutional players), with a particular expertise in spotting bubbles before they get close to bursting. He predicted in 2006 that "in five years, at least one major bank (broadly defined) will have failed and that up to half the hedge funds and a substantial percentage of the private equity firms in existence today will have simply ceased to exist," due to excessively high valuations in debt and equity markets.

In his Autumn 2008 letter to his investors, Grantham wrote:

I ask myself, ‘Why is it that several dozen people saw this crisis coming for years?’ I described it as being like watching a train wreck in very slow motion. It seemed so inevitable and so merciless, and yet the bosses of Merrill Lynch and Citi and even [u.S. Treasury Secretary] Hank Paulson and [Fed Chairman Ben] Bernanke — none of them seemed to see it coming.

I have a theory that people who find themselves running major-league companies are real organization-management types who focus on what they are doing this quarter or this annual budget. They are somewhat impatient, and focused on the present. Seeing these things requires more people with a historical perspective who are more thoughtful and more right-brained — but we end up with an army of left-brained immediate doers.

So it’s more or less guaranteed that every time we get an outlying, obscure event that has never happened before in history, they are always going to miss it. And the three or four-dozen-odd characters screaming about it are always going to be ignored. . . .

So we kept putting organization people — people who can influence and persuade and cajole — into top jobs that once-in-a-blue-moon take great creativity and historical insight. But they don’t have those skills.

I think that observation holds very well in politics and in any organisation.

[peterms]

Seems competence and intelligence are not essential to get into positions of extreme governmental power.

Jeremy Grantham is probably one of the dozen or so sharpest money managers in the world (he pretty much just manages money for large institutional players), with a particular expertise in spotting bubbles before they get close to bursting. He predicted in 2006 that "in five years, at least one major bank (broadly defined) will have failed and that up to half the hedge funds and a substantial percentage of the private equity firms in existence today will have simply ceased to exist," due to excessively high valuations in debt and equity markets.

In his Autumn 2008 letter to his investors, Grantham wrote:

I ask myself, ‘Why is it that several dozen people saw this crisis coming for years?’ I described it as being like watching a train wreck in very slow motion. It seemed so inevitable and so merciless, and yet the bosses of Merrill Lynch and Citi and even [u.S. Treasury Secretary] Hank Paulson and [Fed Chairman Ben] Bernanke — none of them seemed to see it coming.

I have a theory that people who find themselves running major-league companies are real organization-management types who focus on what they are doing this quarter or this annual budget. They are somewhat impatient, and focused on the present. Seeing these things requires more people with a historical perspective who are more thoughtful and more right-brained — but we end up with an army of left-brained immediate doers.

So it’s more or less guaranteed that every time we get an outlying, obscure event that has never happened before in history, they are always going to miss it. And the three or four-dozen-odd characters screaming about it are always going to be ignored. . . .

So we kept putting organization people — people who can influence and persuade and cajole — into top jobs that once-in-a-blue-moon take great creativity and historical insight. But they don’t have those skills.

I think that observation holds very well in politics and in any organisation.

It probably does.

But what can you do about it? Which organisations, outside government or well-funded think thanks, can employ people to think long-term? Well, apart from German industries. And probably lots of other examples as well.

[leviramsey]

But what can you do about it? Which organisations, outside government or well-funded think thanks, can employ people to think long-term? Well, apart from German industries. And probably lots of other examples as well.

Create an environment where there are no large organisations and those who take the long view and can see the cliff coming can make a killing (e.g. hedge fund manager John Paulson who saw the financial crisis coming and made $4bn for himself and $16bn for his investors).