General Election 2015

[Barrel of Fun]

Globally, the amount of money swishing about could change the lives of many people.

I visited a school for the blind in Malawi and kids were losing their sight through conjunctivitis. The next person to cure cancer might have been stopped in their tracks for something very treatable.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

"Labour pledges huge fines on tax avoiders to raise £7.5bn a year. Labour will declare an immediate, all-out war on tax avoidance and evasion if it wins the 7 May election, pushing emergency laws through parliament designed to raise more than £7.5bn a year.
The plan, involving far higher fines and the closing of loopholes, will form a central part of Labour’s election manifesto, to be unveiled in Manchester tomorrow. "

Meanwhile:

“The Tories have spent the last week explaining why they won’t tackle tax avoidance and defending the non-dom loophole. They just don’t understand that when working people are paying more in tax it’s a scandal that some people can get away with not paying their fair share.”

 

[Chicken Run]

This has cheered me up. Thank you.

Ok a two point lead, how about the latest Guardian poll today showing the two point lead in the other direction?

 

[driller]

This has cheered me up. Thank you.

Sorry to pee on you good mood.

 

[Titanic]

 

[drew]

Andrew Marr Show. Osborne floundering. Well there's a surprise.

 

[BLOCK F]

Andrew Marr Show. Osborne floundering. Well there's a surprise.

Haven't been watching the programme, but it makes a change from Ed Balls bullshitting I suppose!
Anyway, I may lose the will to live between now and May 7th.
Fed up with hearing all the promises already.

 

[beorhthelm]

"Labour pledges huge fines on tax avoiders to raise £7.5bn a year.

so what you're saying is, you're quite happy to listen to politicans lie to you saying they will do something which they know they cant. fines for avoidance? not a crime, so are we going to have summary fines for other non-crimes now? legislation to close loopholes? great idea, adding hundreds of pages of regulations to be picked through and new loopholes found. if Labour said they were going to overhaul and simplfy the tax system, strip allowances, reliefs and rebates, then i might take their word for it. but since they like to create more and more state influence on our lives, that would go against their ethos.

 

[alfredmizen]

Andrew Marr Show. Osborne floundering. Well there's a surprise.

Except he wasn't

 

[driller]

Andrew Marr Show. Osborne floundering. Well there's a surprise.

No he did not.
Thought spoke well

 

[seagull_in_malaysia]

Putting political allegiances aside, it does seem incredibly unfair how seats are awarded given % of votes won. This surely can't be real democracy.

 

[beorhthelm]

Putting political allegiances aside, it does seem incredibly unfair how seats are awarded given % of votes won. This surely can't be real democracy.

this is because of the way we represent the numbers in polling is different to how we vote. we dont vote for a party or a leader, we vote for a local candidate in each constituency. the polling represents national/regional patterns, so distorts the outcome. its a lack of education and information about our system that so many of us dont understand this difference.

 

[drew]

Except he wasn't

You're right, apart of course that he couldn't answer any question. Even when challenged about the back stabbing jibe he couldn't really answer. To suggest that standing against your sibling in a democratic election is back stabbing is laughable.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

"Labour pledges huge fines on tax avoiders to raise £7.5bn a year. Labour will declare an immediate, all-out war on tax avoidance and evasion if it wins the 7 May election, pushing emergency laws through parliament designed to raise more than £7.5bn a year.
The plan, involving far higher fines and the closing of loopholes, will form a central part of Labour’s election manifesto, to be unveiled in Manchester tomorrow. "

Meanwhile:

“The Tories have spent the last week explaining why they won’t tackle tax avoidance and defending the non-dom loophole. They just don’t understand that when working people are paying more in tax it’s a scandal that some people can get away with not paying their fair share.”

The quotes are rather meaningless without the sources.

Regardless, this new Labour idea that they can raise £7.5bn from tax avoiders is utterly mad. Firstly they have to close all the loopholes ( no government of any colour will do that ), then they have to actually catch the avoiders and even then it is likely to be a one off fine so it's not repeat income. I guess it does allow Labour to pay for something elsewhere on their balance sheet but there is no way they will raise £7.5bn. Also, who the hell is going to believe they will do this ? Let's rewind a little to 2000 and a certain sweetheart deal between Vodafone and HMRC ...... remind me who was in power then ?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

so what you're saying is, you're quite happy to listen to politicans lie to you saying they will do something which they know they cant. fines for avoidance? not a crime, so are we going to have summary fines for other non-crimes now? legislation to close loopholes? great idea, adding hundreds of pages of regulations to be picked through and new loopholes found. if Labour said they were going to overhaul and simplfy the tax system, strip allowances, reliefs and rebates, then i might take their word for it. but since they like to create more and more state influence on our lives, that would go against their ethos.

Funny. I utterly predicted this response from you. And I cannot be bothered with a proper response as you know jack-shit about tax. You proved this in a discussion about artificial tax schemes some time ago.

 

[drew]

this is because of the way we represent the numbers in polling is different to how we vote. we dont vote for a party or a leader, we vote for a local candidate in each constituency. the polling represents national/regional patterns, so distorts the outcome. its a lack of education and information about our system that so many of us dont understand this difference.

I'm not sure I agree that people vote for the candidate rather than the party. I appreciate that on the ballot paper it is a named person you are voting for but in the minds of most voters they are voting for the party they want to run the country. There will of course be cases where a conservative voter has been helped in a personal issue by their constituency labour member for parliament but will that change how they vote at the next election. Some will and some won't but I think the amount affected is probably insignificant when it comes to affecting the outcome of the election.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Given the magic number both parties need to get to is 326 seats I can only predict a minority government being formed. Even if Labour, the SNP and the Lib Dems get together they would only need 5 of their MPs to vote against them and they would lose a motion. Herr's prediction is looking rather shaky as convention says the current party in power gets to have a go at forming a government first in the event of a hung parliament, and even if we use Kingmaker Clegg's policy of the party with the greatest number of seats getting a go first, it's looking like goodbye Ed.

 

[Napper]

Osbourne let himself and party down on the marr show . Avoiding questions and again trying to discredit labour . What a sham he is . Doubt makes much difference as opinions formed and can't imagine many floating voters are up watching it anyway , didn't do osbourne many favours Harman played a straight bat and talked very well .

 

[nicko31]

Best outcome for me is another Con / Lib coalition

Worst possible scenerio Lab / SNP coalition, followed a Lab outright, that said wouldn't fancy a Con / UKIP coalition either (that would be like Australia with shite weather)

 

[alfredmizen]

Funny. I utterly predicted this response from you. And I cannot be bothered with a proper response as you know jack-shit about tax. You proved this in a discussion about artificial tax schemes some time ago.

So basically he's right and you're invoking the old 'I can't be bothered to respond ' clause.