CyclopsRock
Member
I agree that they're pursuing the wrong strategy, but honestly it seems they're stuck between a rock and a hard place. The next 6 months is gonna be very exciting!
-
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
They're not really making the tough decisions are they? Their big cut essentially just pays for our purely symbolic bombing of ISIS (not that I really disagree with us bombing, it's just our 5 planes aren't particularly useful and the US will do all the heavy lifting, hell even the French are doing more, we're just blowing £3bn we can't afford because we like to pretend we're still a world power).
As usual they attacked the working poor, avoiding the biggest target in the benefits system on a basis of pure electoral math, that's not making a tough decision, it's simply pandering to the base. There's a large proportion of the Tory party which frankly gets off on making the poor suffer.
Not only did the rich manage to get off scott free again (well it is the Tories after all), Toad managed to get them a lovely massive tax cut (which also panders to the pensioner base), that's not a party making tough decisions, it's party handing out sweeties to keep their voters from popping off down the pub with Nigel. And ultimately that's what this election is about, it's about maintaining enough of your 2010 vote in the hope that UKIP snaffles enough of your oppositions vote to hand you the win (or in this case the biggest minority).
As for May's speech, if that's the most impressive speech our political class is capable off then we're fucked. Again, HRC got an unfair kicking, and the two polices actually floated was another go at the snoopers charter and extremist abso's. Nice rhetoric and some impressively smug clapping oneself on the back, but almost completely lacking in you know actual sensible policy. She showed some empathy for black folks wow, I wonder how long it took the programmers to get that subroutine written.
Nicktendo86
Member
I really don't think that's fair. Her speech at the police federation was unreal, never seen a Tory stand up to the police and basically say 'you are a load of currupt arseholes, change now or I will make you'. I see the stop and search today as an extension of that.
Also I know you dissed Grayling's speech but I hope he was serious abut mental health in prisons, we have neglected that issue for far too long in this country
CyclopsRock
Member
So, Piers Morgan has gone to work for the Mail.
Who does that make you hate more? Tough decision, eh?
Who does that make you hate more? Tough decision, eh?
dapperbandit
Banned
I think that's only a question Daily Mail readers can answer.
Everyone else scored 10/10 on the Hate the Mail test before Piers Morgan arrived so I imagine opinions willl remain static.
JonathanEx
Member
It's like one of those old financial adverts with Carol Voderman. We've consolidated all your monthly hate, in to one easy affordable target for vile.
Nicktendo86
Member
Seems like the noose is beginning to tighten around Lutfur Ragman's neck after May namechcked Tower Hamlets today and compared us to Birmingham. Word has it Pickles will be ready to speak to the house next week about PWC's investigation, I for one am ordering my popcorn now. Cannot wait.
anonymous_abc
Member
shockingly it does seem to be a thing...
http://www.theguardian.com/politics...-should-teach-mainly-in-imperial-measurements
doublefacepalm.gif
QuicheFontaine
Member
Hey, my car gets 40 rods to the hogshead and that's the way I likes it! Damn Eurocrats with your "litres" and "kilos"...
dapperbandit
Banned
Damn straight. I weigh stones, I'm feet and inches high and I drink pints because I'm not a communist.
CyclopsRock
Member
Crumbs, that's pretty mad. I'm gonna assume he doesn't really mean it as a policy position, but that's batty if so.
Oh dear...
YouGov Poll out today for general election. Sample size 1715 28th-28th September
UK Voting Intentions
Labour 36%
Conservative 31%
Lib Dem 7%
UKIP 16%
What's really interesting is the Scottish split (although the sample is pretty small)
Scottish Voting Intentions
SNP 43%
Labour 23%
Conservative 17%
Green 5%
UKIP 5%
Lib dem 5%
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/rtysykgb6z/YG-Archive-Pol-Sun-results-290914.pdf
Labour could take a pasting in some of their central belt heartlands, as the SNP did well there in 2010 (of the 3 constituencies in the central region which Labour won, 2 were with majorities of less than 750). Yougov suggest SNP could take up to 26 seats if they maintain this sort of lead. Of course, when the GE campaign gets underway and the SNP are marginalised by the news and the leaders debates (which they'll have to have you'd think none of the main parties are comfortable with their current position) then Labour will make a comeback but it's not out with the realms of possibilities that they lose 10 or so seats in Scotland.
While the polling will close out a bit, there's deep seated anger here (I live in a constituency with one of the biggest Labour majorities in the country) not really at Labour campaigning for No or even them standing with the Tories but in the way they campaigned. The Labour machine in this part of the world is pretty ferocious, and for all the talk of intimidation from Yes campaigner, the Labour led No campaign didn't exactly pull any punches on the ground. It's opened a fair few eyes.
In terms of Westminster, if both Conservatives and Labour are close to each other and the Lib Dems implode (meaning that the other parties: The bigots from NI, PD from Wales, Greens, SNP and UKIP have around the same total number of MP's as the Lib Dems), then forming a government becomes nightmarish. The only saving grace of FTFP is that it's meant to avoid this, there's little argument for FTFP if it cannot secure viable majorities, the unfairness to parties with decent but non-geographically concentrated support is too great.
YouGov Poll out today for general election. Sample size 1715 28th-28th September
UK Voting Intentions
Labour 36%
Conservative 31%
Lib Dem 7%
UKIP 16%
What's really interesting is the Scottish split (although the sample is pretty small)
Scottish Voting Intentions
SNP 43%
Labour 23%
Conservative 17%
Green 5%
UKIP 5%
Lib dem 5%
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/rtysykgb6z/YG-Archive-Pol-Sun-results-290914.pdf
Labour could take a pasting in some of their central belt heartlands, as the SNP did well there in 2010 (of the 3 constituencies in the central region which Labour won, 2 were with majorities of less than 750). Yougov suggest SNP could take up to 26 seats if they maintain this sort of lead. Of course, when the GE campaign gets underway and the SNP are marginalised by the news and the leaders debates (which they'll have to have you'd think none of the main parties are comfortable with their current position) then Labour will make a comeback but it's not out with the realms of possibilities that they lose 10 or so seats in Scotland.
While the polling will close out a bit, there's deep seated anger here (I live in a constituency with one of the biggest Labour majorities in the country) not really at Labour campaigning for No or even them standing with the Tories but in the way they campaigned. The Labour machine in this part of the world is pretty ferocious, and for all the talk of intimidation from Yes campaigner, the Labour led No campaign didn't exactly pull any punches on the ground. It's opened a fair few eyes.
In terms of Westminster, if both Conservatives and Labour are close to each other and the Lib Dems implode (meaning that the other parties: The bigots from NI, PD from Wales, Greens, SNP and UKIP have around the same total number of MP's as the Lib Dems), then forming a government becomes nightmarish. The only saving grace of FTFP is that it's meant to avoid this, there's little argument for FTFP if it cannot secure viable majorities, the unfairness to parties with decent but non-geographically concentrated support is too great.
Tough Decisions? Have another whopping great tax cut. Oh, that not enough for you, here's another.
It's austerity for the poor, have at it for everyone else. The Tories are no more attempting to deal with the deficit than Labour are, they're just using it as cover for their ideological purpose.
Before anyone goes on about the increase in personal allowance helping the poor, an increase in the NI allowance would be far more progressive, and cheaper. Given that the £500 pounds increase in Personal tax allowance is to cost £2bn a year, lord knows what a £2000 increase will cost, and that's before the increase in allowance to £50,000 for the top rate of income tax.
There's a lot of costly give-aways for a party that's meant to be on top of the deficit.
It's austerity for the poor, have at it for everyone else. The Tories are no more attempting to deal with the deficit than Labour are, they're just using it as cover for their ideological purpose.
Before anyone goes on about the increase in personal allowance helping the poor, an increase in the NI allowance would be far more progressive, and cheaper. Given that the £500 pounds increase in Personal tax allowance is to cost £2bn a year, lord knows what a £2000 increase will cost, and that's before the increase in allowance to £50,000 for the top rate of income tax.
There's a lot of costly give-aways for a party that's meant to be on top of the deficit.
anonymous_abc
Member
The LibDems greatest failure in government was to not get rid of FPTP and replace it by PR. They failed all smaller parties including themselves miserably.
Nicktendo86
Member
Completely ignoring the part about cracking down on tax avoidance? I know you can say believe it when we see it, but as a package makes perfect sense.
That was a barnstormer of a speech compared to Miliband's last week, like night and day. The big on the NHS got me though, and he is right. Labour's record on it is nothing to be proud of.
I still don't think this will be anywhere near enough and we will end up with Miliband as PM though.
That was a barnstormer of a speech compared to Miliband's last week, like night and day. The big on the NHS got me though, and he is right. Labour's record on it is nothing to be proud of.
I still don't think this will be anywhere near enough and we will end up with Miliband as PM though.
Yeah using his dead son was really nice...What a lying turd of a man.
Every single political party talks about crackdowns on tax avoidance. If they've got the master plan for it, why haven't they enacted it in the 5 years they've been in office? It's bullshit, it's always bullshit. It's always overoptimistic nonsense to allow them to say their plans are costed.
They've just unleashed a bunch of non-progressive tax cuts all of which will benefit the rich more than the poorest in society. It's classic Tory, but it's impossible to reconcile the cuts with a party who actually gives a toss about the deficit like they claim (again 5 years in and they've barely dented the rate which it grows)
I agree that in terms of a speech, it blows Ed Miliband out of the water. But in terms of substance it is *absolutely* a typical Tory pre-election speech, and it is hammering the poor to provide more tax cuts. Tax avoidance is like the old 'save money by cutting red tape' - there is absolutely no way it will deliver the savings necessary to pay for these tax cuts. That small segment of the welfare budget which goes to job seekers allowance and housing benefit is going to get squeezed and squeezed whilst the greatest part of our welfare bill gets bigger because Cameron won't touch pensioners.
In addition, I *absolutely* dosage with Cameron on the NHS. I say this as someone whose family works in it, whose two sisters would both be dead without it, and who loves it. It needs cutting, and it needs substantial reform. Protecting its funding is the worse thing to do, and again just shows this isn't, and never has, been about reducing the deficit - it's about getting power and providing tax cuts. If the Tories were serious about this they would be advocating a plan around the NHS for proper reform and savings. That would make me believe they were serious about the deficit, rather than just serious about staying in power.
CyclopsRock
Member
I'll benefit! WOO!
Heh, me too. Don't agree with it though!
In terms of electability, I still think we are way too far out to be making broad views. The polls will absolutely narrow, and if you look at the parties right now you would never think that labour were a party on the verge of power and the conservatives defeated. Indeed, despite the multiple defections and ambushes by Farage Cameron has absolutely come out of this conference stronger. In addition, the conservatives 'leaders in waiting' look a hell of a lot more formidable than labours. I'm seriously considering putting money on Theresa May being the next leader after him - her police federation speech and this one were impressive acts no matter your political views.
(Seriously, standing up at the Tory conference and lecturing them about stop and search? I might completely disagree with her on civil liberties, but that takes guts and is something you can't help but admire).
More and more I'm swinging from a labour / lib coalition government to a conservative minority government. Labour will lose too many seats in Scotland to make up for the gains elsewhere, and whilst the majority of conservative ground troops prefer a coalition to a minority government I think the liberals won't be able to do that again.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
£12.5k tax free allowance? In what way do the working poor not benefit?
4 years in the deficit has fallen from £160bn to £100bn. I wouldn't characterise that as "hardly a dent".
The rise in the 40% threshold is welcome news for families up and down the country. Police, teachers, nurses and other people we would hardly classify as rich are being dragged into the 40% rate as wages rise (and they are rising) and thresholds don't. There are 6m people who pay the 40% rate in the country out of 31m people in work, that is set to rise to 10m by the end of 2020 at the current threshold. This is not a tax that is paid exclusively by the rich, it is paid by normal people who are in need of some relief.
Isn't it better to let people keep more of their own money rather than take it off them and then give it back through a very, very expensive and bureaucratic means test? Why should people on the minimum wage pay income tax and then get a similar top up via the working tax credit to what they were taxed in the first place? It makes absolutely no sense. The next step would be to limit child tax credits to three children, more than that is a lifestyle choice and severely reduce housing benefit payments to people earning £20k+. Taxing the working poor and then giving it back to them makes no sense at all, it just supports a massive bureaucracy at HMRC and opens up the system to benefit fraud and abuse. Better to get companies to pay people more and have the government tax people less. Working tax credits are just another form of corporate subsidy so companies can get away with paying people less money than they can live on, I don't see why any leftist would support them and campaign against their abolishment.
4 years in the deficit has fallen from £160bn to £100bn. I wouldn't characterise that as "hardly a dent".
The rise in the 40% threshold is welcome news for families up and down the country. Police, teachers, nurses and other people we would hardly classify as rich are being dragged into the 40% rate as wages rise (and they are rising) and thresholds don't. There are 6m people who pay the 40% rate in the country out of 31m people in work, that is set to rise to 10m by the end of 2020 at the current threshold. This is not a tax that is paid exclusively by the rich, it is paid by normal people who are in need of some relief.
Isn't it better to let people keep more of their own money rather than take it off them and then give it back through a very, very expensive and bureaucratic means test? Why should people on the minimum wage pay income tax and then get a similar top up via the working tax credit to what they were taxed in the first place? It makes absolutely no sense. The next step would be to limit child tax credits to three children, more than that is a lifestyle choice and severely reduce housing benefit payments to people earning £20k+. Taxing the working poor and then giving it back to them makes no sense at all, it just supports a massive bureaucracy at HMRC and opens up the system to benefit fraud and abuse. Better to get companies to pay people more and have the government tax people less. Working tax credits are just another form of corporate subsidy so companies can get away with paying people less money than they can live on, I don't see why any leftist would support them and campaign against their abolishment.
The poorest would benefit more from a increase in NI allowance.
QuicheFontaine
Member
I just heard on Radio 4 that anyone earning between £10k-£100k per year will benefit. That's a pretty wide net imo.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
Agreed. However, the public perception is that NI pays for the NHS so any reduction in it would mean a cut to the NHS. It would be politically insane to cut NI or raise the NI threshold this close to an election. They could have done it a few years back and educated people that NI is just a tax like any other, but it is too late now. A threshold rise for income tax is the most politically effective way to ensure people keep more of their own money.
Circa 28m people out of 31m in work.
Also, no pledge to maintain the pensioner bungs either - winter fuel allowance, free TV licences and free bus passes are probably all going to be gone after 2015 under Tory or Labour. That's a £3bn saving.
My estimate of the tax cut costs is around £9bn, but it will be offset by rises in indirect taxation like VAT and reductions in working tax credits as people's net incomes rise. Overall cost ~£6.5bn per year. A big sum of money so it will be interesting to see where the Tories find the money. AIUI £25bn worth of cuts have to be found in 2015/16 and 16/17, split £10bn and £15bn, tax yield rises will bring in £14bn per year extra if the economy is still growing so by 16/17 the deficit should be down to about £40bn, add in the 2017/18 yield rise and a tapered introduction from then I would say a £12bn tax yield rise for 17/18, a £11bn rise for 18/19 and a £10bn rise for 19/20. That leaves a £7bn gap, extra cuts will need to be made to balance the budget.
It's about priorities. The Tory priority seems to be tax cuts to help the richest 50% more
as per the IFS: 69% (£8.4 billion) of the £12.2 billion per year giveaway would go to working families in the top half of the income distribution...Just 15% (£1.9 billion) would go to working families in the lowest-income half of the population."
and for a party who've spent decades whittering on about other parties unfunded tax cuts, Gove emming and awwing when asked where the money for Dave's bonanza giveaway was coming from, was pretty weak. Maybe the funding will be found when they borrow Labours magic money tree, although to be fair since Dave was vague as vague can be about when he'll actually implement the cut inflation might handle most of it.
WayneMorse
Banned
Scrapping the Human Rights Act? I assume Cameron will start throwing bones to the social conservatives now, perhaps reintroduction of the firing squad and restrictions on abortion?
Got linked this at work today, thought it was hilarious:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YBumQHPAeU&feature=youtu.be
But yeah, piss poor speech full of give-aways to Toffs and Tycoons once again from Cameron. Not that anyone truly expected anything more from him.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YBumQHPAeU&feature=youtu.be
But yeah, piss poor speech full of give-aways to Toffs and Tycoons once again from Cameron. Not that anyone truly expected anything more from him.
Came in to see if this had been linked. Refreshingly honest performance from Cameron there.
CyclopsRock
Member
I absolutely love Cassetteboy.
The amusing difference between the two speeches, though, is that whilst the ardent supporters of each will always like it, it does seem that this speech scratched a big itch for the Tories in a way that Ed's speech didn't for Labour.
Also, they aren't scrapping the Human Rights Act, they're replacing it. Whether they bring back firing squads remains to be seen, I suppose.
CharmingCharlie
Member
Today I learnt the way to deal with the budget deficit is to take 3 billion from the poorest in society. The ones that have to make a choice between "eating or heating". The ones that had absolutely nothing to do with the financial melt down because they were like 12 years of age when it happened.
Then you give the well off in society a 9 billion tax cut, the ones that have to choose between optional extras on a brand new Lexus the ones that caused the financial meltdown and continue to not feel a single effect of what they did.
That is how you get the budget deficit down it seems. Now I generally agree with tax cuts. I agree with the principle that people should keep more of their money rather than give it to the government. But when we are apparently facing such a dire budget deficit that we have to slash the welfare budget to where it becomes nothing more than a token gesture (and it pretty much is already) then you have no moral justification for talking about tax cuts.
Still as they say "Tories gonna Tory" and that Cassetteboy video was bang on the money.
Then you give the well off in society a 9 billion tax cut, the ones that have to choose between optional extras on a brand new Lexus the ones that caused the financial meltdown and continue to not feel a single effect of what they did.
That is how you get the budget deficit down it seems. Now I generally agree with tax cuts. I agree with the principle that people should keep more of their money rather than give it to the government. But when we are apparently facing such a dire budget deficit that we have to slash the welfare budget to where it becomes nothing more than a token gesture (and it pretty much is already) then you have no moral justification for talking about tax cuts.
Still as they say "Tories gonna Tory" and that Cassetteboy video was bang on the money.
Miles Quaritch
Member
This, along with the new powers they are seeking with regards to extremism orders should send a chill down everyone's spines.
Time to boot these cunts to the curb.
CyclopsRock
Member
Welfare is overwhelmingly the largest expenditure by the government.
And you can't ignore the impact that tax cuts have on other aspects of society - in the same way that people argue a higher minimum wage will increase consumption and thus prove a boon for business, so too do tax cuts for exactly the same reason; they leave people with more money in their pockets. The idea that tax cuts are just a nice treat that should be at the bottom of a pile of priorities ignores their wider effects, imo.
Jezbollah
Member
So. Where are Labour's plans to address the same problem?
Or does the subject of the opposition's strategy for countries finances mysteriously disappear from this thread when it suits the majority of posters here?
Come on lefties, show me substance.
Miles Quaritch
Member
Fixed that for you.
We should try to be honest about what the largest part of welfare expenditure is.
CharmingCharlie
Member
Yes and there is a reason why it is the largest expenditure by the government. It doesn't have anything to do with the unemployed or the disabled or the single mother. The reason why welfare is so large is down to pensions. But outside of pensions the Welfare state is a fucking joke these days. If you are a single unemployed person you are expected to exist on less than £4000 a year (not including HB) even less if you happen to live in a house with two bedrooms because the council has no 1 bedroom flats but that is like totally YOUR fault.
Labour are just as scummy as the Tories. If the truth be told NEITHER parties are that bothered about cutting the deficit. They just use the deficit as a tool to push their particular agenda. How the hell people can claim the Tories are seriously trying to tackle the deficit when they want to do 9 billion worth of tax cuts is beyond me but hey I am a "lefty" it seems.
CyclopsRock
Member
Sure - but it what way is a pension paid by the state not welfare? It accounts for a lot, but less than half of all spending on welfare. In fact, it's sufficient that pensions actually aren't the largest government expenditure at all.
Miles Quaritch
Member
That's what I was going off with regards to welfare expenditure. If we're arguing overall government spending then of course pensions or welfare in general won't be the largest part of spending.
Jezbollah
Member
7bn of tax cuts. And I see no substance from Labour.
I just saw a nice graph on Sky News about how in fact the coalition policies is hitting the highest earners harder than anyone. But I wouldn't expect a lot here to believe that
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
As everyone has already pointed out, pensions are the largest expenditure within welfare; the remaining fraction that goes towards the Jobseeker's Allowance or Child Benefits is a rather small item on the budget and even quite severe cuts to (for example) the Jobseeker's Allowance would have no real effect on balancing the budget.
As to your second point, though, tax cuts are for the most part a much less effective form of fiscal stimuli than government spending. People don't always spend the same proportion of their income regardless of what their income actually is - if I get £20,000 a year and spend £18,000 of it in that same year, that doesn't mean when I get to £100,000 I will now be spending £90,000 of it. The marginal propensity to consume goes down as people get wealthier - rich people spend less per amount they earn. Cutting taxes on poor people is, obviously, quite difficult because frankly they're not actually taxed that much as they don't have anything to tax, and it's difficult to make big cuts to what small taxes do exist. That means big budget taxation cuts usually occur to the wealthy, and that means they're a much less effective form of stimuli than a spending increase of the same amount as the tax cut. Why? Because more of that money ends up being stored away in banks accounts than being spent.
This is particularly true of Osborne's plans with regards to cutting back taxes on pensions, which are by definition savings that won't be spent for a long time down the road and are not at all relevant to the current economic situation, and cutting benefits for those in work, as it's very difficult to still keep substantial benefits in such a situation (as the Conservatives have pointed out with IDS' constant banging on about the welfare trap) and so if you get them, you probably are using them to meet your needs now.
Basically, this is just the Conservatives going fuck the poor, here's more money for our rich pals. It has fuck all to do with the deficit or financial credibility. If you'd still consider voting them at this point, I'd question both your economic sensibilities and moral compass.
Jezbollah
Member
So who would you consider voting for otherwise? Labour?
How's their economic sensibilities? Or their moral compass? Let's not forget who was in government between 1997 and 2010, who sent this country to an illegitimate war and was governing financial policy that has resulted in the cuts everyone is facing today.
Outstanding level of hypocrisy there. Congrats.
Nicktendo86
Member
Seeing how Labour oversaw Mid Staffs, Rotherham, buying votes by trapping people in welfare, two wars, having no answer for the economy etc etc I would argue anyone thinking about voting Labour needs their moral compass and mental health checked, crab.
CyclopsRock
Member
"Fraction" is a little bit ungenerous. According to the Guardian diagram above, pensions are just over (not under as I preciously said) half. So yeah, I suppose the rest of it is a fraction, in the same way everything is technically a fraction.
As for the tax, you're right that people don't spend the same proportion but I think you're being a bit unreasonable by saying "their rich pals" as if they're selling the crown jewels to their neighbours; Who are you referring to when you say that? Because as has been stated in this thread, everyone between £10k and £100k a year will benefit. £10k certainly isn't rich, and whilst £100k is certainly well off it isn't Tory-donor-waiting-for-the-house-of-Lords style money, especially as an income (as opposed to, say, someone earning that much through capital gains, which suggests enormous assets). Maybe my perception is just skewed by being from/living in London, where the idea of someone on £35k simply squireling away money because they've run out of things to spend it on a bit ludicrous.
And it's a bit odd you mention "moral compass" amidst all the macroeconomic theory as if that's the main measure of compassion - you talk about pensions purely in terms of their impact on consumption now, whilst ignoring the benefits to the recipients of said pension tax breaks when they come to get their pension as if it doesn't matter. Likewise with the increase in the tax free allowance, which will help improve the lives of people who, sure, might not be living on the poverty line, but surely it's impossible to argue that unless you're on the poverty line then quality of life increases don't matter? It just seems a bit weird that you align your moral compass with tax policy.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Yup.
Comparatively, better than the Conservatives'.
See above.
1997-2010 was, for the most part, a period of time which the United Kingdom was much better run than before or after. I didn't support the Iraq war, but the Conservatives are still worse on that front - at least a quarter of Labour MPs did the right thing and voted no, the Conservatives all voted aye with the exception of 2 MPs - and those aye voters include such notable figures as the Member for Whitney, David Cameron; the Member for Tatton, George Osborne; and the Member for Maidenhead, Theresa May - so comparatively, Labour is still doing better. Labour's financial policy was better than the Conservatives', once again. At the very least, Labour ran a net percentage surplus in 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001 - the Conservatives haven't even done it once since they came into office. Besides, after 2007 I wouldn't even have wanted them to run a surplus - a massive fiscal stimulus was exactly what needed doing. Oh, but just for a moment, let's suppose you were right and their policies were awful. Even then, the Conservatives are still at least as bad because they promised to commit to the same policies!
Nope. I'm not claiming Labour are anything great or my ideal picture of what a party should be, but they are definitely better than the Conservatives.
WayneMorse
Banned
What?
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Sorry, that sentence was not clear. I meant 'the fraction that goes towards the JSA or the fraction that goes towards child benefits', not 'the fraction that goes towards all of them put together' - you're right, that would be ungenerous. Regardless, it makes absolutely no impact to my point: it's not benefits that need cutting.
Sure, it does help people in those categories too. But let's not pretend that is in any way the main aim or goal of this move. As kmag has already pointed out, while some people in lower deciles do benefit, they do so to a far lesser extent than those in wealthier deciles do. If the aim of this bill was genuinely to help everyone, then for exactly the same cost, it would be possible to help people in lower deciles proportionately more - which, you know, is precisely what should be done because they need it. I mean, it's like saying "how about we give absolutely everyone in the country an extra £3 for every £10 a day they already earn? See, I'm nice and moral!" No, fuck you, you are not in the slightest, because if you only earn £10 a day you get £13 whereas if you earn £1000 a day you get £1300. It's a blatant excuse to give wealthy people money. If you actually, genuinely wanted to help poorer people, this is not the way to do it. You're a bright guy, though, and I suspect you already know exactly what I've just said already, so I'm bit puzzled as to why you're skipping around the point.
My moral compass obviously isn't aligned with tax policy, but aligned with the consequences of tax policy? Yes, completely. Obviously, I'd prefer it if everyone was better off, but scarce resources/competitive economy yadda yadda that's not possible, and at the end of the day if you have £100 to give someone, you can make the world a much better place if you give it to the guy who has nothing than Rupert Murdoch. Obviously, that's an exaggeration of the situation, but the point still holds: I'd like to be able to make both wealthy pensioners and poorer people better off, but given I can't really do both at the same time, I'm 100% okay with favouring the poor.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
So drek you don't actually have a response, in fact.
Miles Quaritch
Member
Isn't it generally agreed upon that Thatcher did more to put people onto a dependency of claiming benefits than anyone else?
Jezbollah
Member
I'm still waiting for you to reply to Nick's reply. But I suppose you'll forget it happened, just like the failure of your party's ability to keep public finances in check.
I'm remain floored that you actually question people's moral judgement when your last elected PM remains a popular candidate to face war crimes.