Speedymanic
Banned
so the nhs bill is that little bit closer to passing. sucks for the nhs. really dark days ahead. 
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
UK PoliGAF thread of tell me about the rabbits again, Dave.
- Thread starter Chinner
- Start date
louis89
Member
The country was fine before we introduced EMA and it will be fine without it now. I can't see why there would be any fallout.
He was a pretty shite leader from what I saw of him, can only be a good thing for them.
Still given to people who don't deserve it either.
Cameron in the US makes me cringe:
1. He spoke out for McCain, used the phrase "no time for a novice" or something, which didn't go down well since Obama has more political experience than PR man.
2. The UK media keep crawling around desperate to hear "special relationship" mentioned by the US.
3. Obama is a known Anglophobe, he made numerous gaf's in his trip over here and couldn't give a fuck. Makes some references to British atrocity's in Kenya in his book iirc?
Fact is, the UK is not "special" to the US and nor should we be, this isn't WW2 anymore, but more than that we should be using our reputation and influence to be working closer with China, India and elsewhere, country's we have decent history of working with. The US is in the dying days of being the only country that matters, we should stop being their pathetic stooge and act more like the French in these matters.
Also, Cameron and Obama pretending to get on is just sad to watch, at least Blair and Clinton really did like each other, and he got on with Bush as they shared idealogical views.
1. He spoke out for McCain, used the phrase "no time for a novice" or something, which didn't go down well since Obama has more political experience than PR man.
2. The UK media keep crawling around desperate to hear "special relationship" mentioned by the US.
3. Obama is a known Anglophobe, he made numerous gaf's in his trip over here and couldn't give a fuck. Makes some references to British atrocity's in Kenya in his book iirc?
Fact is, the UK is not "special" to the US and nor should we be, this isn't WW2 anymore, but more than that we should be using our reputation and influence to be working closer with China, India and elsewhere, country's we have decent history of working with. The US is in the dying days of being the only country that matters, we should stop being their pathetic stooge and act more like the French in these matters.
Also, Cameron and Obama pretending to get on is just sad to watch, at least Blair and Clinton really did like each other, and he got on with Bush as they shared idealogical views.
http://www.english.plaidcymru.org/news/2012/03/15/plaid-to-elect-new-leader-today/
Time for Plaid Cymru (one of my two political parties of choice) to elect their new leader today. You probably haven't heard it because it's been kept pretty under wraps, nobody wants to shake the boat up too much.
The candidates seem pretty alright, there's some old white guy (Dafydd Elis-Thomas) who is about as boring as stale bread, a young, go-getting lady (Leanne Woods) who is a republican firebrand and a devout socialist, or the safer choice (Elin Jones) who has a master's degree in rural economics and is the "independence" candidate.
I think as long as one of the two women get it Plaid have a stronger future. Unfortunately they seem OBSESSED with independence in Wales, quite contrary to the feelings of the general public (last I checked support for independence in Wales was around 7%, and even that is in quite specific areas of W/NW Wales mainly).
My money is on Leanne Woods, but I would quite like Elin Jones to win after a solid showing on Question Time a few months ago. Either way it's better than Ieuan Wyn Jones (whos name is awesome - pronounced: yay-en-win-jones)
(L to R: Elin Jones, Dafydd Elis-Thomas, Leanne Wood)
Time for Plaid Cymru (one of my two political parties of choice) to elect their new leader today. You probably haven't heard it because it's been kept pretty under wraps, nobody wants to shake the boat up too much.
The candidates seem pretty alright, there's some old white guy (Dafydd Elis-Thomas) who is about as boring as stale bread, a young, go-getting lady (Leanne Woods) who is a republican firebrand and a devout socialist, or the safer choice (Elin Jones) who has a master's degree in rural economics and is the "independence" candidate.
I think as long as one of the two women get it Plaid have a stronger future. Unfortunately they seem OBSESSED with independence in Wales, quite contrary to the feelings of the general public (last I checked support for independence in Wales was around 7%, and even that is in quite specific areas of W/NW Wales mainly).
My money is on Leanne Woods, but I would quite like Elin Jones to win after a solid showing on Question Time a few months ago. Either way it's better than Ieuan Wyn Jones (whos name is awesome - pronounced: yay-en-win-jones)
(L to R: Elin Jones, Dafydd Elis-Thomas, Leanne Wood)
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Dearie me, he hasn't aged well has he? I met Elis-Thomas at the House of Commons in 1978 at the second reading of the Welsh Bill - at the time he was the youngest MP and a whippy bundle of energy. He has a strong pedigree in y Blaid, but they really should be going with somebody younger or it'll be Gwynfor Evans all over again.
Who are you backing psi?
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Of the three I think I would go for Elin Jones. Leanne Wood is a bit too much of a firebrand and tends to let her own personal feelings take priority over good politicking, too divisive. Jones appears to me more controlled, more able to do deals, more likely to get common ground for the party.
Yeah you're probably right.
On Plaid generally I think they're a very misled party. They want independence, which I suppose is fair enough to an extent, but they don't really see the long term picture.
The only way that Wales will ever be a viable independent nation is if they diversify the economy (or in some areas create an economy, (I'm looking at you Merthyr Tydfil)) and link the North and South.
As we have discussed before, the North is too reliant on the A55 and the South is too reliant on the M4, and while that might not really be a problem, as long as it's the case, and as long as Wales doesn't have enough international appeal, it won't be independent within at least 50 years.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
I had this very conversation with Dafydd Elis Thomas and Dafydd Wigley in the '70s. Trouble is the call for independence is a useful rallying point, a sort of political banner to march behind, but they had no clear idea as to what it would involve economically, politically or legally - and they've no better idea now either.
Or maybe something like EU funding, beneficial taxation, depopulating the southern valleys and building lots of golf courses on them, nah - you're right, it's not going to happen. Probably not ever. Too much rain for one thing.
They need to hire some political experts or a thinktank or something. It doesn't take long to do the maths that they got around 20% of the Welsh Assembly vote, but only 7% support Welsh independence.
Around 60% of their voters, by some crude mathmatics, either don't support, or don't care about Welsh independence.
There's a real hunger for an alternative to Labour in Wales IMO, they've managed it badly and education/healthcare is suffering. Plaid could be that alternative, but they'll never win seats in urban North/South Wales as long as they rally over independence.
Ah well, I can always vote Liberal Democrat! What a fine party they're becoming! Less naive, more experienced and wiser. Watch them steal votes off moderate conservatives come 2015 (my parents, for example, are socially moderate/liberal but fiscally conservative, they love the Lib Dems at the moment, particularly the 10k tax threshold)
Around 60% of their voters, by some crude mathmatics, either don't support, or don't care about Welsh independence.
There's a real hunger for an alternative to Labour in Wales IMO, they've managed it badly and education/healthcare is suffering. Plaid could be that alternative, but they'll never win seats in urban North/South Wales as long as they rally over independence.
Ah well, I can always vote Liberal Democrat! What a fine party they're becoming! Less naive, more experienced and wiser. Watch them steal votes off moderate conservatives come 2015 (my parents, for example, are socially moderate/liberal but fiscally conservative, they love the Lib Dems at the moment, particularly the 10k tax threshold)
Watching yesterday's PMQs and Clegg was in for Cameron:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01dlgm7/Prime_Ministers_Questions_14_03_2012/
God Clegg was fucking good. Bossed it. Absolutely bossed it, especially on the NHS.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01dlgm7/Prime_Ministers_Questions_14_03_2012/
God Clegg was fucking good. Bossed it. Absolutely bossed it, especially on the NHS.
I think so, didn't notice any difference
Nice tie though
There's a real bromance going on between Andrew Mitchell (Development Sec) and Clegg (see: 18m24s)
killer_clank
Member
They can always brand themselves as a more devolution, gradualist party and eventually get close to independence by stealth. Seems like their new leader is quite the firebrand though, I know little of her but I can't see her succeeding at all until she moderated her views, a la Salmond.
Anyone read this: George Osborne poised to slash top tax rate from 50p to 40p?
Seems like a stupid move to me, not only for his image but for the budget too.
Seems like a stupid move to me, not only for his image but for the budget too.
If it is indeed true that the 50p rate has actually reduced revenues then I think the rate should be lowered. All focus should be on maximizing revenues from those on higher tax rates. Politically I think it would be very difficult to get away with it without reducing the rate for lower income.
It would be bad for his image but good for the budget. I dont think Osbourne gives a shit about his image.
Personally Im hoping to see policy take the direction outlined by Cable in the "leaked" memo a couple of weeks ago.
Wazzim said:
It would be bad for his image but good for the budget. I dont think Osbourne gives a shit about his image.
Personally Im hoping to see policy take the direction outlined by Cable in the "leaked" memo a couple of weeks ago.
Reducing the tax rate for lower incomes would be much better for the economy because they actually spent all their money. People of the highest income bracket not only save up a bigger percentage of their cash but are quicker to spent it in foreign countries too.
The 50p rate is nothing special in Europe and the argument for lowering it has always been used by the rich while it's actually against logic:
-The economy is driven by demand (Who would invest in an economy without demand just because of the low tax rates?)
-Demand is created by the lower income classes and supplied by those with the capital to produce
-People are greedy (or supposed to be in the capitalist system) and want to earn more cash no matter what, a 50p or 60p (like in the old days) will not change that (I'd like to earn €100k a year even though it means paying a 52% tax rate)
The 50p rate is nothing special in Europe and the argument for lowering it has always been used by the rich while it's actually against logic:
-The economy is driven by demand (Who would invest in an economy without demand just because of the low tax rates?)
-Demand is created by the lower income classes and supplied by those with the capital to produce
-People are greedy (or supposed to be in the capitalist system) and want to earn more cash no matter what, a 50p or 60p (like in the old days) will not change that (I'd like to earn €100k a year even though it means paying a 52% tax rate)
Rich people have accountants who help them avoid the 50% tax rate. One way is to make yourself a corporation, employ two people (normally relatives) and contract yourself out to companies as a product. This means you pay the reduced 20% tax rate and basically ensures that anybody that wants to avoid tax, can.
They're looking at better measures to get tax, such as a mansion tax, which would tax homes worth over a certain amount, which is a good idea and will make up as much money as is "lost" through bringing the threshold down to 40%.
In this budget the point at which you will start paying tax will go up from £7500 to £10,000 which will save low income families a few hundred pounds.
It's actually a good budget from what we know, and it's grounded in a reluctant reality. A 50% tax rate is, in principle, a great idea, but in reality it, weirdly, costs the UK public money, as people are more likely to go through the trouble of avoiding a 50% tax than a 40% tax.
They're looking at better measures to get tax, such as a mansion tax, which would tax homes worth over a certain amount, which is a good idea and will make up as much money as is "lost" through bringing the threshold down to 40%.
In this budget the point at which you will start paying tax will go up from £7500 to £10,000 which will save low income families a few hundred pounds.
It's actually a good budget from what we know, and it's grounded in a reluctant reality. A 50% tax rate is, in principle, a great idea, but in reality it, weirdly, costs the UK public money, as people are more likely to go through the trouble of avoiding a 50% tax than a 40% tax.
telegraph.co.uk usually comments every PMQs. At least two bloggers write about how Cameron did not lose the PMQ battle. Yesterday there was no Cameron and no blog entries about the PMQs. Telegraph = Torygraph confirmed?
killer_clank
Member
The principle of the thing is TOTALLY FUCKED though, I'm sorry. It's totally and utterly wrong at a time like this. They should be closing down the loopholes for those fuckers rather than just lowering their tax.
J Tourettes
Banned
No shit, Sherlock.
I agree with the fact that they should be closing loopholes but it's never going to happen. If the cut to 40% is combined with an increase in capital gains, £10k tax allowance and maybe this mansion tax I'd have no objections.
If the 50% rate hasn't increased revenue by billions (only a couple of hundred million if the rumours are to be believed) then they should look at other ways of increasing the revenue from higher earners. Will reducing it to 40% really encourage people to go back to paying tax though? I can't see it myself. If higher earners have put tax avoidance schemes into place, why would they undo that now that the rate is cut to 40%? Is it a lesser effective rate despite the avoidance?
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
I agree on the principle of it. However if (and I don't know) there are better ways of extracting the deserved taxes from the wealthier members of society, then I am all for it.
However, I do like the tax breaks being suggested for predominantly British TV drama. Seems like a reasonable way to enhance the industry.
Plaid will never get anywhere unless they drop the independence line. The vast majority of the population lives in south east Wales. Cardiff/Vale/Newport/Rhondda and are NEVER going to vote for independence. I realise that these area aren't Plaid heartlands and by banging on about it it helps them secure their votes elsewhere but they need to look at the big picture.
The missus's family are all mining stock from Ystrad. Plaid are the most socialist leaning party by a long way. Ideologically her family are closest to Plaid but not one of them will vote for them because they see them as a nationalist party first and everything else second.
Unlike Scotland where i believe there is a debate to be had. IMO Wales in its current state would sink without a trace without the union. (Whoever mentioned Merthyr made me lol but was right)
One would hope the new leadership realise this as it would be good to have another party capable of challenging Labour.
Won't happen tho.
The missus's family are all mining stock from Ystrad. Plaid are the most socialist leaning party by a long way. Ideologically her family are closest to Plaid but not one of them will vote for them because they see them as a nationalist party first and everything else second.
Unlike Scotland where i believe there is a debate to be had. IMO Wales in its current state would sink without a trace without the union. (Whoever mentioned Merthyr made me lol but was right)
One would hope the new leadership realise this as it would be good to have another party capable of challenging Labour.
Won't happen tho.
what i don't understand is he said there wasn't enough money to give anyone tax breaks and yet hes about to cut the top rate of tax.
Politicians lying? Never.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Hmmm. I don't think Osborne is that stupid. If he does it, chances are he will do it in some more politically-acceptable way, like by closing off some channels of tax avoidance.
I know it doesn't play well in the media, but marginal tax rates of 50%-plus really don't help the economy, and the law of unintended consequences comes into play. Back in the '70s when there was a marginal tax rate of 83-98% put in by a Labour government to squeeze the rich, what actually happened was that companies had to pay massively more for top people, who then became hugely rich when the tax rates came down to more sensible levels. Result - enormous economic imbalances arising from a supposedly egalitarian government. Load of bollocks. If it had not been for that, then we would probably not have anywhere near the obscene salaries we now see being waved around.
I suppose it's vaguely possible that I'll be proven wrong next week.
This is the first time I've ever come across this explanation for the skyrocketing salaries of executives, and I'm inclined to call bullshit considering wealth creation was enormous post-war and marginal rates on high earners were very large.
[edit]There's an overwhelming amount of evidence that lower marginal rates on high incomes does nothing to stimulate the economy, leads to increasing inequality and reduces our ability to pay down the deficit. Supply-side economics is a dead theory. It failed miserably. The only people who believe that it does or has ever worked are ideologically motivated.
I'd love to hear the regulars in this thread try to defend this.
Union fury over public sector pay plans
Osbourne is spinning it with some bullshit theory that private sector companies find it difficult to compete with public sector wages, so "evening the playing field" will magically lead to more private sector jobs being created. Y'know, rather than employers just using it as an excuse to cut their workers' wages by the same amount, just like many did their workers' pensions.
Oh, but Osbourne won't care, because he just got the public sector wage bill way down, and that's all that matters! Hooray for a balanced budget, eh guys?
Union fury over public sector pay plans
Osbourne is spinning it with some bullshit theory that private sector companies find it difficult to compete with public sector wages, so "evening the playing field" will magically lead to more private sector jobs being created. Y'know, rather than employers just using it as an excuse to cut their workers' wages by the same amount, just like many did their workers' pensions.
Oh, but Osbourne won't care, because he just got the public sector wage bill way down, and that's all that matters! Hooray for a balanced budget, eh guys?
Even as a northerner and someone who believes that the SE should pay more/get less, I do believe that this makes sense.
Someone doing the exact same job in, for example, North Wales shouldn't get the same pay as someone in central London, one is paying £400 in rent and the other is paying £1000 a month. It doesn't seem fair and, in my opinion, public sector wages are already relatively high, especially with the benefits, lack of pressure and job security.
Someone doing the exact same job in, for example, North Wales shouldn't get the same pay as someone in central London, one is paying £400 in rent and the other is paying £1000 a month. It doesn't seem fair and, in my opinion, public sector wages are already relatively high, especially with the benefits, lack of pressure and job security.
I think it's very disingenuous to be trumpeting 'job security' for public sector workers when we've just learned that over a quarter of a million public sector jobs were cut last year.
All this will do is lead to greater disparity in living quality from region to region.
All this will do is lead to greater disparity in living quality from region to region.
so this explains where hes got the money from to cut the top rate of tax. i'm genuinely disgusted by his actions, i wont be voting either con or lib dem for the foreseeable future. i can't bring myself to vote labor, so my vote will be going to the greens.
PJV3
Member
At least he's trying to make life equally shit for everyone, except the rich of course.
They don't, at least not in Hospital where public workers get from £1000-6000 extra depending on where in London they live.
As far as I'm aware it's just comparisons between areas such as the south east/central and up north etc, excluding London.
Not every public sector job is high compared to the private sector though, although a good amount of occupations seem to be standardized at a level the private sector does not want to pay.
A pharmacist working in a hospital starts at £25,000, if they went and worked in private sector community they start at £35,000.
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
Is this actually true though?
As a Southerner I think that wherever in the country, if you are doing the same job you should receive the same rate of pay. This should be set at a reasonable level so that everyone can get by. A nice simple way to redistribute wealth to poorer regions.
louis89
Member
The only criticism of this plan I'd tend to agree with is that it discourages people from taking up jobs outside of London and the south and could slightly intensify the north/south divide. I have no problem with it in principle.
That's not how the world works though. That's not how the private sector works.
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
Yeah I know, and I wouldn't expect it to reasonably happen. In a way I can understand the move, though I do dislike it. I think that part of the reason it seems so bad is because the Tories are presenting it. Had it been Labour it would be more palatable (rightly or wrongly).
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
I think the difficulty with this approach is that the amount "so that everybody can reasonably get by" varies around the country. It's a lot cheaper to live in Bridgwater than in Bristol, or in Luton rather than London - though in both cases the costs increase rather a lot if you have to commute from one to the other (both in direct costs of travel and the indirect costs of the extra hour or two on trains and having someone look after the children and so on).
Besides, I'm not entirely sure that it really counts as "redistributing wealth to poorer regions" if what you are doing is paying government employees in those regions more than they would otherwise be paid. Giving more money to people already in jobs doesn't do much to boost the local economy.
That said, I haven't seen anything yet that says - if rates are not going to be determined nationally - how the hell they are going to be determined. Regionally? Not a good idea - like I said there's a big difference between Bridgwater and Bristol. Besides, there have probably been all sorts of deals made for senior people relocating to 'out-of-the-way' places like Newport or Merthyr Tydfil or Truro or Llantrisant ('the hole with the Mint'). In practice I can't see this becoming a free-for-all at local level, the unions would probably walk it all over localised management. So I'm not really sure how it would work out.
I have a horrible feeling that it would just turn into London versus not-London, which would just (a) make everyone else hate London even more and (b) encourage everyone even more to move there for the bigger pay - which is kind of the opposite to the desired effect.
Now, that's just strange. It isn't made any more (or less) right or wrong or good or bad depending who proposes it (and besides, whoever it is is is the same bunch of Civil Servants - in London - who do the detail). Unless you think the Tories just kind of naturally put the evil eye on everything they do?
killer_clank
Member
Every public sector worker should be payed a living wage in my opinion. I see little downside to it, people earn more, have more comfortable living standards, pay more tax, stimulate the economy by buying more stuff.
That's the sort of policy we should be doing, not this guff Osbourne's proposing.
That's the sort of policy we should be doing, not this guff Osbourne's proposing.
Good idea in theory, but it doesn't really work in the real world because so many goods that people buy are imported so the money will leave the economy pretty quickly and won't produce too much of a benefit.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Um, why do you single out public sector workers? That is, people who's entire gross salary (taxes and NI and all) is paid for by the taxes raised from the private sector. The downside to it is that people see those in the public sector as having "more comfortable living standards, get to buy more stuff" and so on, at the expense, generally, of people who are paid less.
Doesn't work for me. That's why I like the LibDems approach on taxes.
killer_clank
Member
Well I meant it in terms of what central government can impose on their staff instead of private companies deciding for themselves. In an ideal world, they'd be paying their employees living wages too, and public sector employees being payed living wages might promote private sector companies to follow suit.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
No. Where do you think the public sector gets paid from, eh? The entire wealth of the government comes from taxation on the private sector. That's what pays for the wages, the NI, the tax on government employees. Everything else is just funny money.
Heh, no...
Money is created by the centra bank, but "output" is generated by both public and private sectors. There is no theoretical functional difference between the utility generated by nurse paid from private or public sector funds.
I mean think about it for more than a second, why don't you? You have x output generated by the people of the country. They are taxed at the rate y, of which 100% is spent on public sector wages.
Tax: xy
Public Sector Wages: xy
Private expenditure: x(1-y)
Private Sector Wages: x(1-y)
Output: x
If y is 0 then output is still x. If y is 1 then output is still x.
All tax is is forced consumption of public utility goods. There is no functional difference between wages paid by Public or Private sectors.
JonathanEx
Member
Uhm.
Cameron has now decided to sell off the roads.
Source: every front page tomorrow - http://tomorrowspaperstoday.co.uk - there was supposed to be a midnight umbongo.
Cameron has now decided to sell off the roads.
Source: every front page tomorrow - http://tomorrowspaperstoday.co.uk - there was supposed to be a midnight umbongo.