forum voting intentions

[Bob Singleton]

Sam Slater wrote:

> The Lib Dems seem to have their head screwed on when it comes
> to climate and science funding. The only thing I disagree with
> them is the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, but we're out of
> the former now.
>
> Yep, Lib Dem for me.
>


Having lost so many lives there already, one justification for staying in Afghanistan is "let them not have been in vain". None of the three major parties will pull out for that reason.

[one eyed jack]

BNP.....Black Nazi Party !happy!

[David Johnson]

Labour, rather reluctantly.

[David Johnson]

Hi Bob,

"Labour's increase in National Insurance is indeed a tax on jobs. ...Surely it would be better to tax income generated by way of an increase in the higher levels of income and corporation tax? "

I suppose the vast majority of taxes are directly or indirectly a "tax on Jobs" whatever that means. You could argue that higher levels of income tax or corporation tax might result in businesses relocating abroad or holding back on investment in new jobs/equipment etc.

The term "tax on jobs" was brought out by Cameron and he has been hammering it for quite a few days now as he trumpets about all the business leaders that support his view. Cameron's view strikes me as nonsensical. He implies that it will result in loss of jobs. How much will a 1p rise in National Insurance cost?. My guess is that it is unlikely to be much more than ?15 a month. And I can't believe that this is a key decision-making factor in whether you hire or fire people. As for the business leaders who support him, these are the same tossers who along with Cameron, spoke against the Labour introduction of the minimum wage, pay themselves hugely compared to their workforce and relocate to Eastern Europe or elsewhere on a regular basis. As if they give a toss about their workforce and job security.

I guess the reason that they go for National Insurance is that it produces a very large tax take which increases in corporation tax in a recession are less likely to do.

"And what about the ?40bn or so HMR&C recon is being lost each year through tax avoidance schemes? At least the Lib Dems look as if they want to do something about it! Getting some of that money back would go a long way to plugging the whole in the economy."

The Customs and Revenue have been hammering this in the press over the past few months, stating that this is the last few weeks of the opportunity to come clean about payments going offshore. Tax avoidance is just fiddling the tax via a loophole before that loophole is closed aind it becomes tax evasion i.e. illegal. The large multinationals employ the likes of Barclays to have a range of tax avoidance measures up their sleeves so that however quickly the government closes down one loophole there is always a Plan B lined up.

In short, going after tax avoiders always results in substantially less tax collection than is expected.

"They are quite right in wanting to break banks up, so that they are either high street institutions catering for individuals and businesses on a day-to-day basis OR they can be giant gambling houses but not both!"

I agree with this. However, it is difficult to see how this would work in a global environment if other major countries do not buy into it. Labour have given their support to a global bank levy. Again how this would work without support from the key players is difficult to see given the interconnected nature of the business.

"If only Labour were so radical, but under Blair and Brown they've become Tory Lite"

I guess it is relatively easy to be a radical if you have 0% chance of being the first or second in the poll. THe best the Liberals can hope for is that in the scenario of a hung parliament they have some members of the Cabinet and/or some policies taken up in return for their support.

The Labour party realised rightly in 1997 that pursuing a radical policy would not get them elected. The reason for this is quite simple. It is commonly thought that the government of the day runs the country. Personally, I don't think that is the case. Basically they have limited room for manouevre in a world of global multinationals and a global economy that can shift its assets, headquarters etc. with relative impunity. In addition, as we know, about 90% of the media in this country is ferociously Conservative.

Cheers

D

[planeterotica]

Its the Raving Loonies for me !banana!

[SpannerProductions]

Actually some of thier 'manifesto' makes sense.......

[Sam Slater]

....then the Pirate Party UK >

Little plug for a mate. !happy!

[Sam Slater]

I think you're right.

[Sarah Kelly]

Theres absolutely no way i can vote labour again....I have a long list of gripes with thembut what really did it for me was That Liar telling the Chilcott enquiry that under his purvey all military requests re finance had been met,when in real terms there were FOUR years they were not-any Decent Chancellor,up on his brief,would know that-and im sure he did........Then, when it
was pointed out to him there were 4 years that wasnt the case, he squirmed and said "there may have been ONE OR TWO years where that is true".... NO... I just feel so sad for the families of the guys and girls out there,having to listen to these blatant lies.....one year is considerably less than 4 years,but he couldnt just say" Allowing for inflation,In real terms there were 4 years when unding fell short of what was requested".......... Lied to over the lisbon treaty is one thing..Lied to when peoples lives are at stake - it makes me sick.....

[David Johnson]

I think its perhaps worth pointing out that they were very, very small deficits

"A research note prepared by the House of Commons Library in October last year showed defence expenditure had fallen in real terms in four financial years since Labour came to power in 1997: 1997-98 (-2.2 per cent); 1999-2000 (-0.4 per cent); 2004-05 (-0.7 per cent); and 2006-07 (-0.1 per cent). The average annual increase between 1997 and 2009 was 2.7 per cent