[Archived] Election

[Rover Down Under]

Well feck off back to England then because the Tories are back in power.

Don't need to since people here have wised up to KRudd and the KRuddites who will be sent packing next election as well

[Paul]

Do you not remember when it was decreased to 15% after the bank bailout? I remember the criticism that it was such a small decrease that people didn't even notice it. So I don't see how increasing it by 2.5% will make a massive difference, especially as the increase in the tax threshold will MORE than cover any VAT losses for poor people.

Don't forget it wad Labour that initially removed the 10p tax band, hitting the poorest hardest.

Unbelievable

I supply the retail industry, part of our service is to apply retail prices to our products. When VAT was reduced to 15% not a single customer requested their retail price be altered. Yes the cut was small and people didn't notice it, because the majority of retailers simply pocketed the difference rather than reducing prices. The major multiples, furniture stores etc the reduction appeared to be applied but I'm equally sure as many if not more simply kept the balance as additional margin. Nothing wrong with that but it didn't benefit the public.

If VAT increases to 20%, I don't say when but believe it will, retailers will take one of two courses, apply the increase or look to reduce cost price by pressurising suppliers to reduce wholesale prices. Either action has significant impact.

A VAT increase will take products out of the magical 0.99 and 0.49 price points (i.e. £2.99, £5.49, etc) and retailers will look to suppliers to reduce cost price to allow the retailer to maintain margin. Eroding supplier margins has a direct impact on jobs as the first area producers look to cut is labour cost.

If retailers do not apply pressure to their suppliers and increase retail prices in line with a VAT increase the effect is / will be inflationary. Within retail sectors there exists the concept of "price points." To illustrate this point £2.99 is considered to be a price point, i.e the point at which the consumer perceives value, the same product would not be sold at, for example £3.15 becuase this is "not a price " in retail terms. So any VAT increase would see an item currently retailed at £2.99 move up to £3.49 because this is the next step in the price point chain.

The product I sell mainly retails at £2.99, of which 44.5p is VAT. A 2.5% increase in VAT will take the VAT element to 51p, making the retail price £3.06. Either I will be expected to reduce my price by 5p (which I will refuse to do) to allow retailers to maintain the margin and retail of £2.99 or the retail will go up to £3.49. Meaning a small rise in VAT, which none of us will notice, has the inflationary effect of moving the price up by 50p.

You will be able to find many examples where this would not be true but these will be KVIs, any product which doesn't fit that brcaket will increase in price accordingly.

Now that is unbelievable, but it's what will happen.

[RovertheHill]

Watching Question Time last night it was clear that people in this country (starting with the media) do not understand what electoral reform and proportional representation would mean, and I would question whether they are ready for it. By its very nature it means coalition and cooperation and last night saw multiple attacks on that principle from most quarters. It was hard to judge who the biggest nutter was - the right wing harridan from the Mail or the left wing gobsh*te from the New Statesman. Frankly the country needs this government to work but I fear the worst based on that

[JAL]

Just control the % borrowing on house purchases to say max 70% mortgage instead of the last 10 years of allowing 100, 110 and plus % morgages and also link it to earnings, it used to be X 3

Life seemed a lot simpler and easier 20 or so years ago than today. Think there will have to be several ways of changing the housing market back to what it used to be.

See one of the coalition policies is for capital gains tax to rise - which will hit those with shares, second homes and buy to lets. Dont know anymore details but I just hope the buy to let people and second homes that arent hand me downs do really take a massive hammering financially.

[thenodrog]

I supply the retail industry, part of our service is to apply retail prices to our products. When VAT was reduced to 15% not a single customer requested their retail price be altered. Yes the cut was small and people didn't notice it, because the majority of retailers simply pocketed the difference rather than reducing prices. The major multiples, furniture stores etc the reduction appeared to be applied but I'm equally sure as many if not more simply kept the balance as additional margin. Nothing wrong with that but it didn't benefit the public.

If VAT increases to 20%, I don't say when but believe it will, retailers will take one of two courses, apply the increase or look to reduce cost price by pressurising suppliers to reduce wholesale prices. Either action has significant impact.

A VAT increase will take products out of the magical 0.99 and 0.49 price points (i.e. £2.99, £5.49, etc) and retailers will look to suppliers to reduce cost price to allow the retailer to maintain margin. Eroding supplier margins has a direct impact on jobs as the first area producers look to cut is labour cost.

If retailers do not apply pressure to their suppliers and increase retail prices in line with a VAT increase the effect is / will be inflationary. Within retail sectors there exists the concept of "price points." To illustrate this point £2.99 is considered to be a price point, i.e the point at which the consumer perceives value, the same product would not be sold at, for example £3.15 becuase this is "not a price " in retail terms. So any VAT increase would see an item currently retailed at £2.99 move up to £3.49 because this is the next step in the price point chain.

The product I sell mainly retails at £2.99, of which 44.5p is VAT. A 2.5% increase in VAT will take the VAT element to 51p, making the retail price £3.06. Either I will be expected to reduce my price by 5p (which I will refuse to do) to allow retailers to maintain the margin and retail of £2.99 or the retail will go up to £3.49. Meaning a small rise in VAT, which none of us will notice, has the inflationary effect of moving the price up by 50p.

You will be able to find many examples where this would not be true but these will be KVIs, any product which doesn't fit that brcaket will increase in price accordingly.

Now that is unbelievable, but it's what will happen.

Or the public pays more attention the what it is buying. After the necessary food I'm sure that bmost money is wastefully spent of chinese trash, fashion phones and designer labels. One or two less container ships from the far east per annum wont hurt will it?

Saying all that you can hardly blame the new government for the mistakes of the old Paul which it sounds to me like yoiu are trying to do. Screw the fabricated 49p/99p, it's just a bloody nonsensical issue that we have been conditioned to accept over many years.

We are in deep doo doo and we have to raise revenue somehow to get us back on an even keel. It'll take bloody decades and likely see you and I off as it is. No one wants to pay the piper but I'd suggest leaning the bias of cuts at the retail sector (and the public sector of course) is more sensible than the front line public services (e.g. NHS), defence and taxing the manufacturing sector to extinction.

I hate debating politics but wanted to vent this for a while, so here goes…

I've been fortunate enough to have missed all but 6 months of Labour having left England shortly before that irksome grinning buffoon and his expensive bull$hit machine came to power. I actually thought they might be alright but soon realised it was a wave of rhetoric and false euphoria created by shortsighted fools with very large chips on their shoulders.

Sadly I now live in a Country that was stupid enough to vote Labour back a few years ago (which everyone is regretting now). I am no die-hard Tory - I vote for whoever has the best chance of keeping the leftist muppets out, which I guess makes me Tory by default. Why do I despise them so? Well:

1. They are a Fascist party. It is ironic how the left always likes to label the right as the Fascists when it is actually THEY who are the Fascists. Labour (here and in the UK) want to tell me how I can and can't live and what I can and can't say. For fear of offence celebrating Xmas is now practically illegal, daily life consists of jumping through hoops to avoid pathetic council fines and I fear the next social-engineering experiment that will be hoisted on society by our Leftie Overlords - case in point Labour want 50% of our ‘yoof’ to go to University - did they ever bother asking anyone? What if 40 of that 50% don't actually want to go and spend 3 years getting into debt for a worthless piece of paper and maybe go and learn a skill and start their life off debt-free? Why is there a skills crisis? Cos of stupid social-engineering policies like this because envious lefties think everyone who is capable of going to Uni is an upper class toff and this MUST be balanced out by sending two E’s and an F at A-Level kids to “University” (ie. former Polytechnic) to get a degree in social theory or surfing. This policy has created nothing but resentment, debt and shattered illusions amongst millions of British youth.

2. They and their supporters are incredibly myopic and riddled with Alzheimers - Jim Mk2...say no more...actually I will. There was a world that existed before 1979 Jim, it wasn't very nice, I was young but I remember the smell. You also like to blame the GFC on the banks, did it not occur to you that the buck stops much further back with just one man? This man being a typical lefty social-engineer, cast from the same mould as Blair. Yes, Mr William Jefferson Clinton, architect of the GFC - the man who FORCED banks to loan money to people who could not afford homes. Just to try and make himself look good (another Blairesque trait) he cost us all, the poor still didn't get their homes, the banks packaged up crap (they were FORCED to) and sold it off pretending it was gold. We all suffered. In fact it was probably the biggest transfer of wealth to the upper classes ever known to man! So much for the left favouring the working class eh Jim?

3. They LIE, LIE, LIE. Just to get into power usually. They spend millions on spin doctors and BS merchants to ensure they stay onside with the people who are either too intellectually inept or too busy to figure things out for themselves and see past the bull. Yes politicians lie, but Labour have made careers out of it.

4. Labour politics is the politics of ENVY. They ENVY the rich. The right does not ENVY the working class, they favour the middle and upper class before the working class. And so they should. I do not hate my boss. He is rich but he also gave me, and many others like me, my job. I aspire to be like him. If someone comes along, takes his money and gives it to some workshy layabout to do nowt he will not be motivated to make money and give more people jobs. He might even take my job away. It makes sense that the middle and upper class should be allowed to thrive because they create the jobs and the wealth, they keep the wheels turning to a far greater degree than the working class do. If we slogged every rich man 100% tax and shared it out do you think we would be any better off? We might get a slightly nicer TV each and wait 5 mins less to see a Doctor but the numbers of rich are so small and their wealth so tiny in comparison to the middle and working class that it would make very little difference if they suddenly handed all their money over, infact it would cause more harm than good (as the earlier posts with the 10 beer drinkers analogy points out.) This is why EVERY Labour Government brings the economy to its knees and leaves a legacy of huge debt (cleared up by the Tories and then they get kicked out and the whole charade begins again!)

5. Through their social engineering they desire everyone to be equal. This ideal of equality for all has translated to "no one can lose", a policy which has decimated our once world-leading education system, produced an entire generation of jumped-up, ungrateful, rude upstarts with a ridiculously high sense of entitlement and promoted a culture of "why bother - the Government will look after me."

The biggest joke is that their “everyone is equal” ideal applies to everyone EXCEPT THEMSELVES!

Oh and Hitler was a social engineer you know…

6. Forcing equality is unnatural - it cannot be done, we are humans, it goes against the laws of nature. Marx failed to see this, thus Communism failed. The system can, however, be monitored so that no one group gains an unassailable advantage over the others - something I believe the Tories are better at doing than Labour, but they don't (and possibly can't) get it exactly right.

7. WASTE! Labour Governments spend billions unnecessarily on futile projects to try and boost their public image. Case in point here in Aus - hundreds of millions have gone to big building companies (again Labour filling the pockets of the rich!) who overcharged for school building programs. $1m for an empty pre-fab library that should have cost a quarter of that - with books. Same again with an idiotic roof insulation scheme dreamt up by the lead singer of Midnight Oil, Peter “How can we sleep while our beds are burning” Garrett, 4 people dead as a result of thousands of house fires the scheme has caused. The Tories say they want to cut spending and Labour try to scare people into thinking they will lose services, cancer drugs etc. Actually under the Tories you would probably get more and better ones since they won't be spending 1 billion to employ 1000 middle managers and management consultants to approve and manage the changing of a lightbulb on the desk of the 1000 people employed to sharpen the pencils for the 10 people employed to approve these drugs.

8. I prefer the colour blue :-)

9. My IQ is more than 80 so I cannot vote Labour. I have coined a saying though based on that “socialist at 20” saying – “Everyone must vote Labour once in their life to realise their mistake.”

10. I would like to come home and be happy to be back rather than wanting to weep with despair at how quickly the country I grew up in has been destroyed (which is what I did last time I was home).

Bottom line is that Labour squeeze the rich to give handouts to the poor, this affects the hard working people in the middle who suffer from lower wages (from bosses who are being squeezed), fewer jobs (again from bosses who are being squeezed) and higher taxes – usually stealth – to fund Labour supporters to sit around doing nowt and talking rubbish. Labour turn the safety net into a fishing net, destroy jobs through their idiotic social engineering policies, drive away talent and import no-hopers, hit the hardest working areas of society and drive debt into stratospheric levels.

Karl Popper once said that;

“the piecemeal engineer will adopt the method of searching for, and fighting against, the greatest and most urgent evil of society, rather than searching for, and fighting for, its greatest ultimate good”

This is the core difference between the left and right.

I am utterly delighted that Labour are gone and should the next 5 years work well they might be gone for good. Next election - third place for them, if they’re lucky.

Good riddance and good luck to the coalition.

Could this be the best rant ever on here? I bet you feel better for that RDU.

In fact it stands out like a beacon amongst the renting of clothes and ganshing of teeth of the embittered left wing, anti democracy brigade on here! Talk about sour grapes.

It's easy to see how the KGB and Stasi etc developed in countries a little more to the left. Historically intolerance and persecution of the masses is rife on the left of centre.

[Paul]

Saying all that you can hardly blame the new government for the mistakes of the old Paul which it sounds to me like yoiu are trying to do. Screw the fabricated 49p/99p, it's just a bloody nonsensical issue that we have been conditioned to accept over many years.

Which of course is the exact reaction I'd expect from you and your constant failure to read and comprehend anything. Where have I blamed the government new or old? I have simply explained why a VAT increase, and in the case of the previous administration a decrease, does not necessarily work. Is that too difficult for you?

As for the 49/99p thing I agree it appears nonsensical. £2.99 is £3.00 to me, just as £99.99 is £100. However retailers the world over, with a few notable exceptions, continue to use this marketing device so one has to assume it does actually work.

[jim mk2]

Watching Question Time last night it was clear that people in this country (starting with the media) do not understand what electoral reform and proportional representation would mean, and I would question whether they are ready for it. By its very nature it means coalition and cooperation and last night saw multiple attacks on that principle from most quarters. It was hard to judge who the biggest nutter was - the right wing harridan from the Mail or the left wing gobsh*te from the New Statesman. Frankly the country needs this government to work but I fear the worst based on that

The right-wing media is of course apoplectic at the prospect of PR because full PR (not the AV) version would mean the Tories would never again have power. The right-wing media's treatment of Clegg after the TV debates was shameful but that will be nothing compared to the bile and scare stories the likes of the Mail and Telegraph will spew out during the AV referendum campaign. The reactions around Europe to our elections are interesting - almost all are horrified at the adversarial nature of British politics (and legal system) and our lack of willingness to embrace consensus politics.

[BuckyRover]

I agree with your setiment about the coalition den, and I agree that VAT can be seen to affect poor people the most but which tax rises do not. We are in this together, if it was an income tax increase it would only affect those who are working. Why should it only be those that have to see a reduction. The workers are the ones going to lift us out of recession.

It might not be "fair" in a Labour sense, but in reality it is fair. We are in all this together.

Just to remind you jim, the rainbow coalition didn't work. You can go back to being anti Electoral reform, like you were for the last 13 years. (It was in the 1997 manifesto to have a referendum on PR, soon changed their minds when they won 400+ seats)

[jim mk2]

Just to remind you jim, the rainbow coalition didn't work.

The so-called "rainbow" coalition would not have worked because of the arithmatics. Ideologically and spiritually Labour and the Lib Dems are far closer than the Tories - Lib Dems which is why there are so many unhappy grass-roots Lib Dems supporters at present. Clegg's decision to enter into a coalition with the Tories to them is like getting into bed with the devil. The 629th seat is to be contested very soon: it is quite likely that the Lib Dems vote will collapse.

[only2garners]

What's unbelievable is that you are so misinformed that you could write that! (Freely available on the internet FFS!). All day long on radio 4 ( the Home Service) commentators have stated that the vast majority of basic and no higher rate tax payers would benefit. Maybe you should get some therapy on the NHS before the coalition stop it for everyone but ex public school boys.

Perversely both Jim and Wiggy are right on this as I understand it. The increase of personal allowances will cost £17bn and everyone will benefit apart from the very poorest who don't pay tax now. As they will phase this in over a number of years the full cost will not occur straight away. But anyone earning over £34.5K (I think) will be net worse off because of the NI increase. That's because whilst the extra 1% proposed by Labour from next year will be stopped for employers it will not be stopped for employees. Those earning between £10K and £34.5K will have their gain on tax gradually reduced by the increase in NI

[BuckyRover]

Keep saying that and you might start to believe it. Left/right doesn't work anymore. Liberals don't believe in a big, authoritarian state whilst Labour do. This us why they have repealed all the oppressive anti terror legislation (used to throw oaps out of Labour conferences).

The only lib dems who are up in arms are either those that don't understand PR or who only voted Lib to keep the Tories out. You reap what you sow.

[LeChuck]

Bottom line is that Labour squeeze the rich

Oh my heart bleeds.

[BuckyRover]

Squeeze the rich and destroy the ambition of the poor. At the bottom people are better off not working, absolutely crazy, if that doesn't destroy hope and ambition then what does?

They also employ the politics of hate and envy. There was a Labour guy on newsnight criticising Lib/Con or having too many Oxbridge graduates.

I went to university myself and have nothing but respect for those that made it to Oxbridge, they always had the drive and determination, even at a young age. Yet Labour thinks having these people in power is somehow detrimental to the UK. The bizarre notion that people who worked their backsides off during their education don't deserve to be in positions of power.

Incredibly irrational.

[LeChuck]

Squeeze the rich and destroy the ambition of the poor. At the bottom people are better off not working, absolutely crazy, if that doesn't destroy hope and ambition then what does?

They also employ the politics of hate and envy. There was a Labour guy on newsnight criticising Lib/Con or having too many Oxbridge graduates.

I went to university myself and have nothing but respect for those that made it to Oxbridge, they always had the drive and determination, even at a young age. Yet Labour thinks having these people in power is somehow detrimental to the UK. The bizarre notion that people who worked their backsides off during their education don't deserve to be in positions of power.

Incredibly irrational.

I agree with your first paragraph - Labour have made it far too easy for people not to work. Labour should have been for the working man, not the non-working.

I don't agree with the rest at all though. Is it a coincidence that the vast majority of Oxbridge students attended expensive public schools? Is it hell. I have huge respect for those who attended Oxbridge that weren't born into privilege though.

You seem to imply that those who made it to Oxbridge worked harder than those that didn't, that's absolute horse ######. There is nothing irrational about complaining about the number of Oxbridge graduates in parties. Fill the government with people born with a silver spoon and guess which section of society they'll look after? A government needs balance to fully represent all areas of society.

One of the positives of the Lib Dems being in the coalition government is that they're preventing some of the Tory policies designed to preserve the upper classes - namely removing inheritance tax. All they want to do with that is make sure money stays within the upper circles.

[BuckyRover]

So those with the best credentials should be excluded based on their background. If you became rich would you choose not to send your children to private school for fear of damaging them?

This is the envy that I'm talking about, you assume that people from one background are incapable of understanding another. By your reckoning the Labour ministers who didn't have a rich background wouldn't understand rich people and would actively discriminate against them.

17% of the Labour cabinet went to Oxbridge (Blair was privately educated).

Healthcare and Education is better if you pay for. I aspire to be able to afford it, not call for it to be abolished in the name of fairness.

[LeChuck]

Edit; somehow posted twice!

[LeChuck]

So those with the best credentials should be excluded based on their background. If you became rich would you choose not to send your children to private school for fear of damaging them?

This is the envy that I'm talking about, you assume that people from one background are incapable of understanding another. By your reckoning the Labour ministers who didn't have a rich background wouldn't understand rich people and would actively discriminate against them.

17% of the Labour cabinet went to Oxbridge (Blair was privately educated).

Healthcare and Education is better if you pay for. I aspire to be able to afford it, not call for it to be abolished in the name of fairness.

Hang on, hang on...you've put a lot of words in my mouth there! Plus it's going in a direction I didn't want.

I didn't call for anything to be abolished. I never mentioned what I would or wouldn't do either.

I said a party should be balanced. That obviously means Oxbridge people included. I do not agree with your idea that Oxbridge educated = 'best credentials' by default though. There is far more to a make up of a person than just their education.

I just despise the class system. You seem to happy with the cycle of rich parent pays for education, child goes to Oxbridge, then goes on to high paid job, then does the same for their child. It's wrong, and the Tory inheritance tax policy was a further move to preserve that kind of thing in our country.

[jim mk2]

I went to university myself and have nothing but respect for those that made it to Oxbridge, they always had the drive and determination, even at a young age. Yet Labour thinks having these people in power is somehow detrimental to the UK. The bizarre notion that people who worked their backsides off during their education don't deserve to be in positions of power.

Incredibly irrational.

Incredibly naive.

Those that "make it to Oxbridge" are granted places there because they for the most part have had privileged upbringings, attended public schools and have family connections going back generations with the colleges they attend. They have no more drive or determination or have worked no harder than the young people who attend other Russell Group universities. Attending Oxbridge increases the sense of entitlement and "born-to-rule" attitude of these people of whom Cameron and Clegg are prime examples. The ruling classes are back where the feel they belong. And everyone was very pleased.

[BuckyRover]

You are entitled to your opinion, but your opinion will never change. I have voted for all 3 political parties for the betterment of the country. You support the reds, that is your perogative.

If I end up being wealthy enough to pay to educate my kids I will do, and I will tell them to ignore those who look to judge them because of their background.

[LeChuck]

If I end up being wealthy enough to pay to educate my kids I will do, and I will tell them to ignore those who look to judge them because of their background.

As would I...probably.

That has nothing to do with what we've been talking about though.

[BuckyRover]

For the record I went to a Russell group university and didn't have a wealthy upbringing.

I have already said the Oxbridge students worked harder than the rest, a lot harder than me. (Like Hague, state school and Oxbridge education)

My grammar school 6th form was a much better learning environment than my comprehensive school, I might be naive but I assume Eton/Westminster are even better learning environments (I was reading that they try and encourage individuality and free thinking; think like that in a state school and you will get detention!) than my 6th, whereas you seem to think they are taught to be cretins and destroy the peasants.

Like I said, you discourage excellence. (Im loving the pupil premium idea, intelligent kids from poor backgrounds getting the opportunity to be educated privately).

[BuckyRover]

It's not easy typing on an iPhone. It sometimes makes me appear barely literate.

[Bazzanotsogreat]

Incredibly naive.

Those that "make it to Oxbridge" are granted places there because they for the most part have had privileged upbringings, attended public schools and have family connections going back generations with the colleges they attend. They have no more drive or determination or have worked no harder than the young people who attend other Russell Group universities. Attending Oxbridge increases the sense of entitlement and "born-to-rule" attitude of these people of whom Cameron and Clegg are prime examples. The ruling classes are back where the feel they belong. And everyone was very pleased.

It’s amazing that none of this mattered when Tony Blair, David Miliband, Ed Miliband, Jacqui Smith, Ed Balls, Michael Meacher, Charles Clarke, John Hutton held government offices! ( the list goes on and on) all of which attended Oxbridge.

Jim I honestly don’t believe that this is your personal opinion, just another attempt bait.

It really doesn’t matter to me where any of our politicians were educated, as long as they do the job. Nick griffin attended Oxbridge for Christ’s sake.

[LeChuck]

Like I said, you discourage excellence.

Sorry, but that's a very unfair thing to say.

A child's potential to achieve excellence shouldn't be influenced by the wealth of their parents, as happens currently.

That's what I discourage. The Tories, unfortunately, do not. The 'pupil premium' is a great idea, unsurprisingly it comes from the Lib Dems.

[jim mk2]

I have already said the Oxbridge students worked harder than the rest

And I have already said this is patently not true. See my post above.

think like that in a state school and you will get detention!)

Nonsensical.

Moving on, 3 days into the new government and already the coalition is coming under strain with Cameron facing a growing backlash from Tory MPs over his plans to make it more difficult for the opposition to force a general election if the new coalition is defeated on a vote of confidence.

Senior Tory backbenchers have joined with Labour MPs in branding the measure - designed to seal the coalition pact with the Lib Dems - as "constitutionally incoherent'' and a "recipe for anarchy''.

Cameron also found himself under fire from his Lib Dem allies, with newly appointed Equalities Minister Lynne Featherstone criticising the lack of women in the Government.