[Archived] Election

[berkshireblue]

Paul, do you employ? If you do you're no doubt aware of the 12.8% that you as an employer pays for the privilege of employing someone. Labour are proposing to but this up by a significant amount. This is a cost to the employer not employee. It is a tax on jobs no doubt and as an employer it gives me no incentive to employ, quite the opposite. I've cut numbers, 18 went last year in order to save the business it's not nice at all and any more costs to my business will result in more cuts.

Clegg got his moment, I'm just hoping that it puts some focus on the ridiculous figures in their manifesto. If Cable dreamed those figures pray over and over again that he never gets close to the treasury.

Koi - Totally agree with you

Re Debate

Undoubtedly Clegg won, but he was always going to win the first, because firstly he had absolutely nothing to lose and it showed and secondly, the spin machine behind Brown's tactice was attack cameron attack cameron,and side with Lib Dems on key issues to make cameron look an outcast

Clegg 's worst moment was his fumbling over Trident when challenged by the other 2

I think the next 2 debates will be very different, Clegg will have to substantiate his policies rather than saying these 2 parties are old and we need a change...Brown wont be kissing his ass as much and I think Cameron will relax more, he looked tense...

All interesting stuff but it aint over till the fat lady sings

[Nafe_rovers]

Clegg is a fool, wants to reduce our arms to pay for our forces, that is fantastic upgrade their pay but make them and us unsafe... well done Mr Clegg... typical liberal Democrats the party of false hope!

[thenodrog]

It's a silly pointless exercise brought about by our media driven candy floss world. I'm sick of the sight of the 3 of em and having them all together on the screen all puffed up with self importance is prob why I couldn't be arsed watching.

Did we learn anything other than who wins the latest cheap TV personality contest? Did we hell. All it's about is who comes over best on telly ffs! I'd imagine Winston Churchill would have been slaughtered.

Anyway ever thought how demeaning it is to the other 647 MP's? If this is all important then they don't really count for much so why do we have them?

[Nafe_rovers]

Is that a statement or a question??

Horrendous why?

doubled the national debt! getting further into debt at 20,000 pounds a second.

Taxing people more who earn 20,000 and above... 'taxing aspiration'

The current Prime-minister deliberately underfunded our troops, ruined our economy... he's meant to be the experienced economist.

the introduction of bureaucracy into almost everything.... wasting so much money! Watch the debate, Mr Cameron makes some good points.

[thenodrog]

I forgot about this but did watch for 40 minutes from 9.00 before falling asleep.

I've vote Lib Dem on occassions and if I had to make a judgement based on last night Clegg would get my vote.

But you nodded off Paul ffs!

[Paul]

Paul, do you employ? If you do you're no doubt aware of the 12.8% that you as an employer pays for the privilege of employing someone. Labour are proposing to but this up by a significant amount. This is a cost to the employer not employee. It is a tax on jobs no doubt and as an employer it gives me no incentive to employ, quite the opposite. I've cut numbers, 18 went last year in order to save the business it's not nice at all and any more costs to my business will result in more cuts.

Clegg got his moment, I'm just hoping that it puts some focus on the ridiculous figures in their manifesto. If Cable dreamed those figures pray over and over again that he never gets close to the treasury.

Yes I do and it's called EMPLOYER'S National Insurance Contribution, it is not a "jobs tax." I understand why Cameron dresses it up as such. We don't like paying it, we know it's an extra cost but it is not a jobs tax and I wait with interest how Cameron intends to either raise the taxes he criticises or makes the efficiency savings (in plain English that means job cuts) he speaks off.

I fully understand the problems the additional NIC causes. We are experiencing severe problems through fuel price increases. Last week I told all my customers previously agreed prices were going up by 4%, as I have no choice. It's that or risk making a loss which ultimatley means job losses.

[RibbleValleyRover]

Yes I do and it's called EMPLOYER'S National Insurance Contribution, it is not a "jobs tax." I understand why Cameron dresses it up as such. We don't like paying it, we know it's an extra cost but it is not a jobs tax and I wait with interest how Cameron intends to either raise the taxes he criticises or makes the efficiency savings (in plain English that means job cuts) he speaks off.

I fully understand the problems the additional NIC causes. We are experiencing severe problems through fuel price increases. Last week I told all my customers previously agreed prices were going up by 4%, as I have no choice. It's that or risk making a loss which ultimatley means job losses.

Its a job's tax, if employers have to pay more to employ people they will employ less. It's going to cost large employers like the NHS over £200 million if it comes into force, money thats taken out and won't go back in due to the state our our finances and the need for cuts. The private sector are the ones that are going to have to get this country out of this mess, imposing this extra cost to employment isn't going to help at all.

[Amo]

Hopefully Nick Clegg's assured performance on the Live Debate will garner a few more seats for the Lib Dems this year. Between the other two, it's simply a case of who is the lesser evil: the unctuous David Cameron (capped immigration...wtf!?) or the self-satisfed Gordon Brown. It was relatively easy for Clegg to take the high ground and excel himself with those two bickering between themselves.

[koi]

I really don't understand where Cleggy gets the Trident figures from. As I understand it, the £25bn quoted by Cleggy last night is the cost to replace Trident in 2024 and that cost includes a 30 yr operation cost. So hold on Cleggy, you claimed last night that cutting Trident NOW would put a significant amount towards the £17 BILLION tax cut your proposing. Sorry, but that doesn't add up, you were quite clearly using the figure of £25bn as an immediate figure.

As for as I'm aware Trident currently costs £30bn over 30 years/£1bn a year. So Cleggy, your're proposing to cut Trident and save £1bn a year, not quite the headline figures banded about last night. Hold on again, in 2009 Cleggy said he would support a more cost effective nuclear deterrent when Trident ends in 2024! That's a serious change of mind there old chap. For what it's worth, £1bn is a hell of a lot of money but I feel a hell of a lot safer with those subs skulking around. Maybe Clegg feels he can 'negotiate' with the likes of Iran and N.Korea.

I think in the next round of questioning Cleggy needs to be pushed much further - no mention of Lib Dems proposed joining of the Euro, their amnesty on illegal immigrants and their laughable £17bn tax cuts.

Lid Dems yet again come up a completely nonsensical manifesto. They change their mind with alarming frequency (witness Cable) and offer no genuine alternative. Study what they have to say.

[jim mk2]

It's the private sector in the form of the unregulated, overblown banking sector that had to be bailed out by public funds supplied by government that caused the current crisis, and it has been the public sector that has funded the recovery through the QE programme. The Tories have latched on to the national insurance increase but sensible people can see through their rhetoric. The pound is well down today on the prospect of a hung parliament after Clegg's performance on TV last night - a warning to those wishing for a good Lib Dems showing in the elction.

[RibbleValleyRover]

I really don't understand where Cleggy gets the Trident figures from. As I understand it, the £25bn quoted by Cleggy last night is the cost to replace Trident in 2024 and that cost includes a 30 yr operation cost. So hold on Cleggy, you claimed last night that cutting Trident NOW would put a significant amount towards the £17 BILLION tax cut your proposing. Sorry, but that doesn't add up, you were quite clearly using the figure of £25bn as an immediate figure.

As for as I'm aware Trident currently costs £30bn over 30 years/£1bn a year. So Cleggy, your're proposing to cut Trident and save £1bn a year, not quite the headline figures banded about last night. Hold on again, in 2009 Cleggy said he would support a more cost effective nuclear deterrent when Trident ends in 2024! That's a serious change of mind there old chap. For what it's worth, £1bn is a hell of a lot of money but I feel a hell of a lot safer with those subs skulking around. Maybe Clegg feels he can 'negotiate' with the likes of Iran and N.Korea.

I think in the next round of questioning Cleggy needs to be pushed much further - no mention of Lib Dems proposed joining of the Euro, their amnesty on illegal immigrants and their laughable £17bn tax cuts.

Lid Dems yet again come up a completely nonsensical manifesto. They change their mind with alarming frequency (witness Cable) and offer no genuine alternative. Study what they have to say.

It will cost a lot of money to terminate the contract early as well. Clegg's performance will put more scrutiny on their manifesto and the figures contained in it.

[koi]

Jim, you say that about the NI debate but how does increasing my contribution as an employer help me as a business? How does increasing the cost to employ a person help the economy?. I'll tell you something Jim, we let 18 go last year thanks the recession, I had no choice. Will I employ another 18 again, no chance. Why? so bloody expensive. In future I will look at every other option before bringing in another employee. But that isn't acceptable to you, you're quite happy for me to pay more for the privilege of employing someone, that's on top of collecting taxes for the government, all the pathetic stealth taxes we get loaded with, rising business rates etc etc etc.

The banks, well I hate them if I'm honest. I've been shafted time and time again and I'm battling with one right now. But do you really think slapping them so hard will work? Don't get me wrong, they need some serious control but do you seriously think they will just stand by and say "yep, you're right we should foot the bill, we'll pay up", like fkuc will they. We have such a big financial sector because it's attractive from a business point of view, change that and watch them go, then what? Who do you hit then?

[den]

Its a job's tax, if employers have to pay more to employ people they will employ less.

There's absolutely no evidence that NI contributions affect the employment figures RVR.

An employer will only employ someone if he needs the person - not because of the NI contribution going up or down a few quid.

[Jonnolad]

Clegg is a fool, wants to reduce our arms to pay for our forces, that is fantastic upgrade their pay but make them and us unsafe...

Make us unsafe how? By not having our own nuclear deterent? Who are we detering exactly? Iran / Korea / who? Do you honest think we are at risk of nuclear attack by Iran for instance if we get rid of Trident?

Quite aside from the fact that they don't have missles to reach anywhere near us, don't you think the first country they might attack would be Israel perchance? Plus would a deterent actually make a difference with the loons in charge of Iran anyway?

Are the Germans or the Italians or the Spanish or the Canadians currently quaking in their boots because they don't have an independent deterent do you think? Or do you think they're chuffed they don't have to waste billions and billions on something which is absolutely no use to countries such as us?

Or would you rather see billions and billions spent on Trident whilst our underpaid soldiers are currently dying in droves because they are under funded and under equiped?

I think you need to get a serious check on reality there fella.

[Jonnolad]

The banks, well I hate them if I'm honest. I've been shafted time and time again and I'm battling with one right now. But do you really think slapping them so hard will work? Don't get me wrong, they need some serious control but do you seriously think they will just stand by and say "yep, you're right we should foot the bill, we'll pay up", like fkuc will they. We have such a big financial sector because it's attractive from a business point of view, change that and watch them go, then what? Who do you hit then?

Go where? Don't tell me you believe that "we'll go elsewhere" crap. They said they'd do that if the government put a levy on bonuses. Well the government put a levy on and guess what - the bankers went nowhere, not a single one. It's the only thing the greedy bankers can say to try and stop it, but that doesn't make it true - they are going to say anything they can to stay on that amazing lottery win style gravy train

The banking system is still rotten and it needs taxing heavily, and I'll bet my house that the banks wouldn't go elsewhere if it happened either.

Jim, you say that about the NI debate but how does increasing my contribution as an employer help me as a business? How does increasing the cost to employ a person help the economy?. I'll tell you something Jim, we let 18 go last year thanks the recession, I had no choice. Will I employ another 18 again, no chance. Why? so bloody expensive. In future I will look at every other option before bringing in another employee. But that isn't acceptable to you, you're quite happy for me to pay more for the privilege of employing someone, that's on top of collecting taxes for the government, all the pathetic stealth taxes we get loaded with, rising business rates etc etc etc.

I agree with you on this though incidentally. An NI increase will decrease employers taking on new staff (and will probably have an effect on retaining existing staff) - it's not rocket science that one.

[koi]

Push 'em too far and they will go, it's economics. Why do we not have a manufacturing industry? Coz it's cheaper elsewhere.

Italy and Germany share weapons with the US and both have nuclear weapons stored and ready to deploy. Germany have openly admitted they can produce their own weapons in a short time if needed. I think Canada is sitting pretty where it is. The risk to the British Isles is remote but we have interests much further afield. You mention Israel, do you seriously think an attack against Israel (quite likely I fear) wouldn't result in a retaliation from the UK and America? Do you think an attack on India from Pakistan would just pass the UK by? What about our commitment to Nato, we are only one of three armed members of Nato.

[only2garners]

The pound is well down today on the prospect of a hung parliament after Clegg's performance on TV last night - a warning to those wishing for a good Lib Dems showing in the elction.

The pound is currently down 0.1% against the euro - not what I would describe as "well down". In fact no different to normal daily movements. Yesterday the pound rose around 0.8% - surely if Clegg's performance was a big factor it would have at least fallen by the same amount today.

The markets will react if there is uncertainty in the election result, so there may well be a dip if there is a hung parliament until people get used to the concept that the world won't fall in if people have to talk to each other to get things done. it will soon recover. Anyway, isn't a weak pound good for our manufacturing industry?

[koi]

Well yes, a weak pound is good if you're exporting as it makes the product cheaper to buy (obviously). The problem is input prices continue to rise (and would rise further with an increase in NIC) which offsets those gains. Of course, if you import goods (and I do) it's not such a good thing particularly when raw material costs are rising so much.

[berkshireblue]

It's the private sector in the form of the unregulated, overblown banking sector that had to be bailed out by public funds supplied by government that caused the current crisis, and it has been the public sector that has funded the recovery through the QE programme. The Tories have latched on to the national insurance increase but sensible people can see through their rhetoric. The pound is well down today on the prospect of a hung parliament after Clegg's performance on TV last night - a warning to those wishing for a good Lib Dems showing in the elction.

Jim - Who unregulated the banks? - answer your mate Gordon

The Public Sector is fatter than fat, without hitting front line services me and you could find £6billion over a pint

One boring case study; Take a bog standard town like Luton, you have South Beds DC , North Beds DC, Luton DC, Beds CC etc etc...

Each has CEO, Director of this, Director of that etc etc etc which in itself is massive over resourcing, private companies cut that sort of fat years ago

In a previous life I ran a private sector contract on behalf of a council, they lost £2million a year running it themselves, they paid us £1million to run it which in a normal world would mean a £1million saving

But not in the public sector they then employed 15 people to monitor how we ran the contract, even though service, efficiencies and complaints lowered. I could go on..my point is that this a drop in the ocean in a very insignificant service sector..All this scare mongering about cuts meaning worse front line services is rubbish, its about cutting the fat, and there is a lot of fat there especially in all these quangos and job s worth pensions for starters

[jim mk2]

Jim - Who unregulated the banks? - answer your mate Gordon

Wrong (again). Gordon Brown has admitted with hindsight there should should have much tougher regulation of the banks but the deregulation (unregulation ???) of the banks took place in the 1980s under the Tories who, the PM revealed recently, were pushing for even further deregulation of the banks before the economic crisis struck. You need to read this, written nearly three years ago but still an insightful and relevant critique of the origins of the current financial mayhem. http://www.independe...-on-760508.html

[Nafe_rovers]

Make us unsafe how? By not having our own nuclear deterent? Who are we detering exactly? Iran / Korea / who? Do you honest think we are at risk of nuclear attack by Iran for instance if we get rid of Trident?

Quite aside from the fact that they don't have missles to reach anywhere near us, don't you think the first country they might attack would be Israel perchance? Plus would a deterent actually make a difference with the loons in charge of Iran anyway?

Are the Germans or the Italians or the Spanish or the Canadians currently quaking in their boots because they don't have an independent deterent do you think? Or do you think they're chuffed they don't have to waste billions and billions on something which is absolutely no use to countries such as us?

Or would you rather see billions and billions spent on Trident whilst our underpaid soldiers are currently dying in droves because they are under funded and under equiped?

I think you need to get a serious check on reality there fella.

under equipped, under paid by this Labour government. I'm very sorry but 280 soldiers dying is horrific and I think we have One of the best TA's in the world however 280 is not a significant amount in the whole scale of things? compared to the 2 million Kurds slaughtered by Saddam etc. Or how many would be dead if we had not intervened etc, but the point is we would not have intervened if we did not have that defence. There is only one way to attack Britain realistically and that is by Air strikes or maybe by sea (however this would not happen due to our naval capacity)

I think investing is such equipment is fundamental for one significant reason and that is world safety- If Iran or North Korea get nuclear weapons they are going to attack the Kurds in Northern Iraq, Or they are going to attack a western democratic state. I think you are clearly mistaken, does 7/7 9/11 ring any bells? if they were able to do carry out such abhorrent actions then why would they not again and with the possibility of detrimental consequences. Is that a risk worth taking? If you we do not invest in this and we get bombed or go to war then I guarantee you would be the first to moan (If you survived), And under NATO we have to protect, defend and come to the aid of any other nation signed to this. so we would then get involved in a war and this would prove significant

The Germans and Italians are not aloud such capabilities under NATO law. You are a perfect example of a a Headline reader... I would suggest reading the whole article or watching a few news reports before making your judgement. (P.S don't try and be clever by writing fella and pretending like you are some untouched pretentious old man who has experienced the world and by doing so you insult you own intelligence)

[jim mk2]

The SEC have today charged Goldman Sachs with fraud over subprime mortgages sold in the US. One by one, the whole rotten deregulated banking edifice of the Reagan - Thatcher era is crashing to the ground.

[koi]

Jim, Labour have had 13 years to put it right, have they done? no. Have they made it worse? yes. You can keep harping back to Thatcher (and I really think you've got a thing going on there, you like domination eh, you kinky boy) but we're talking 20 years a go, before I and many on here could vote. Shall we keep going back? Shall we mention the previous government to Thatcher and what an absolute mess they left? It's 2010 my friend, the government should stand or fall on it's own record, stand up and put forward the argument why Labour deserve another term after 13 years.

[Nafe_rovers]

Jim, Labour have had 13 years to put it right, have they done? no. Have they made it worse? yes. You can keep harping back to Thatcher (and I really think you've got a thing going on there, you like domination eh, you kinky boy) but we're talking 20 years a go, before I and many on here could vote. Shall we keep going back? Shall we mention the previous government to Thatcher and what an absolute mess they left? It's 2010 my friend, the government should stand or fall on it's own record, stand up and put forward the argument why Labour deserve another term after 13 years.

thank you!!! Someone who has sense!

[koi]

The Germans and Italians are not aloud such capabilities under NATO law. You are a perfect example of a a Headline reader

Both the Germans & Italians have nuclear capabilities under the NATO nuclear weapons sharing agreement, the difference is they use US weapons with their own carriers (plane, boat etc). Belgium, Netherlands & Turkey also store US nuclear weapons for their own use. Turkey in particular has (this from memory) 48 active nuclear warheads and look who they have boarders with.....