[Archived] The General Election 2015

[Paul]

So you would reign in your spending or find ways to earn more so you could pay the debt down

I would certainly expect to find some savings and look at increasing my income. In the area we are discussing I'd have to ask the question am I charging sufficient for the services I supply. In this case the answer is clearly no so the solution is simple:

After making any reasonable savings which do not impact the frontline services taxation has to be increased to a level whereby everyone is paying a fair share of the costs.

Secondly I'd look at the £34 billion, latest estimate I can quickly find, tax gap - I.e. The 6.8% of due tax which goes unpaid each year. This would either pay of the national debt or reduce the level of cuts. At the same time it would ensure those who fail to pay their taxes did so.

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

Either the government generates more money (by sorting out tax avoidance/evasion), saves money by reducing spending mainly on the big 4 costs (pensions, health care, welfare and education) or ignores the debt.

In an ideal world I think everyone would prefer to see the first option. I suppose the main argument against this approach is whether it will decrease the government's income in the long term by pushing the big companies abroad. Don't know enough about it personally to comment one way or the other but what I do know is no government has ever properly tackled the issue, Labour didn't get any further with it than the Tories. So despite being the most preferred option, is it actually doable?

Second option is the path the current government has gone down. And personally I did think some of it needed sorting out, the massively costly final salary pensions and extremely high absence rate that used to be prevalent in most of the public sector for example. But of course this approach negatively affects so many people that its always gonna be very unpopular among a big proportion of the population. The government has so far got by on the fact that an even bigger proportion support the cuts (the very silent majority in this case).

Ignoring the debt is extremely dangerous in my opinion and you can guarantee it will lead us down the road of Greece eventually. The interest on the debt already consumes 6% of public spending, £46 billion per year. Just imagine what that could be spent on instead.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

I don't believe a word Osbourne says. If he told me today was Thursday I'd have to go and look at a calendar. How many budgets have we had this year ? It's all smoke and mirrors with the view to reducing the state to US levels. Labour need to get their act together and expose him for what he is - a con man.

[Rover-the-Top]

I see the chancellor has had two more embarrassing climbdowns over his policies today.

More money found down the back of the sofa when it's really needed, except this time its based on a higher than expected forecast by the 'independent' OBR. God knows what our national debt will be when this guy finally leaves.

So would you rather he'd have pressed on with the tax credit cuts even though he now says there's no need to from a budgeting point of view?

[yoda]

I would certainly expect to find some savings and look at increasing my income. In the area we are discussing I'd have to ask the question am I charging sufficient for the services I supply. In this case the answer is clearly no so the solution is simple:

After making any reasonable savings which do not impact the frontline services taxation has to be increased to a level whereby everyone is paying a fair share of the costs.

Secondly I'd look at the £34 billion, latest estimate I can quickly find, tax gap - I.e. The 6.8% of due tax which goes unpaid each year. This would either pay of the national debt or reduce the level of cuts. At the same time it would ensure those who fail to pay their taxes did so.

How would that work ?

[joey_big_nose]

I'm solid centre left, but have to say Osbourne has played a blinder on this one. Totally wrong footed everyone. Cut a hugely unpopular policy, and pulled out some pretty big taxes most Blarist Labour governments would balk at - extra 3% stamp duty on second homes, the apprentice levy. Interesting.

He's taking the Conservatives right into the middle ground like Blair did. Worrying for Labour.

Edit - I have to say that I have not really reviewed the numbers properly and only read the headlines. So maybe it's all balls under the surface. But it looks good on the surface.

[Baz]

So would you rather he'd have pressed on with the tax credit cuts even though he now says there's no need to from a budgeting point of view?

No, Id expect him to be out of a job having failed miserably for nearly 6 years now, instead of using the media to constantly spin that we are doing ever so well, when he's nowhere near his own debt reduction, deficit reduction or growth targets.

[Paul]

Secondly I'd look at the £34 billion, latest estimate I can quickly find, tax gap - I.e. The 6.8% of due tax which goes unpaid each year. This would either pay of the national debt or reduce the level of cuts. At the same time it would ensure those who fail to pay their taxes did so.

How would that work ?

Do I really have to explain this? HMRC should collect the £34 billion of unpaid tax annually owed by individuals and business and by doing so ensure those who fail to pay their taxes do so.

In other words enforce the law against the people who avoid paying their taxes and throw every penalty available at them.

[yoda]

Do I really have to explain this? HMRC should collect the £34 billion of unpaid tax annually owed by individuals and business and by doing so ensure those who fail to pay their taxes do so.

In other words enforce the law against the people who avoid paying their taxes and throw every penalty available at them.

OK, now I understand where you are coming from, how many governments have tried to do just that ?

[Rover-the-Top]

No, Id expect him to be out of a job having failed miserably for nearly 6 years now, instead of using the media to constantly spin that we are doing ever so well, when he's nowhere near his own debt reduction, deficit reduction or growth targets.

I see. So in answer to my question, yes you would like him to have made the tax credit cuts, and gone even further to make sure he met his targets? Getting the deficit down would be easy if no one put obstacles in the way.

[Gav]

I don't believe a word Osbourne says. If he told me today was Thursday I'd have to go and look at a calendar. How many budgets have we had this year ? It's all smoke and mirrors with the view to reducing the state to US levels. Labour need to get their act together and expose him for what he is - a con man.

As Joey mentions above he's claiming that middle ground that Corbyn has vacated with the Labour Party.

What was MacDonald doing with his Mao book at the dispatch box? It was like an 80's lefty bad joke that nobody got, took all the emphasis away from the budget and Labours victory claim over working tax credits, amateurish.

I'm all for Corbyn and his new style of politics, if nothing else it's generated interest in the Labour Party once again but they need to polish up their act whilst sticking to their principles, no more Mao books at the dispatch box please.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

As Joey mentions above he's claiming that middle ground that Corbyn has vacated with the Labour Party.

What was MacDonald doing with his Mao book at the dispatch box? It was like an 80's lefty bad joke that nobody got, took all the emphasis away from the budget and Labours victory claim over working tax credits, amateurish.

I'm all for Corbyn and his new style of politics, if nothing else it's generated interest in the Labour Party once again but they need to polish up their act whilst sticking to their principles, no more Mao books at the dispatch box please.

Yeah, I agree, not even a funny joke. I like MacDonald but that wasn't a smart move. He just gave the Tories a stick to beat him with.

[den]

Corbyns position on defence is just utterly wrong. He hasn't backed military intervention ever, anywhere. His problem is that the electorate believes that he would never raise a finger to any enemy of this country. The Labour Party needs to stand firm and take him on. If they can't ever come to agreement about defence, they'll never govern again.

[K-Hod]

Labour need a mutiny to get rid imo, in an ideal world yes, we wouldn't need military action, but it's a necessary evil in this day and age, certainly in dealing with IS.

[adopted scouser]

Watching Corbyn's 'leadership' implode is comical.

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

To be honest I think he's a good bloke and actually feel sorry for him, although that's probably only because he's losing. If he was winning I'd be quite alarmed by him. And I can certainly see why the hard left in the Labour party love him. Somebody who has clearly defined principles and resolutely sticks to them is always going to provoke those types of emotions.

Corbyn's problem is that he's just too far away from the centre ground. The centre ground is the best available compromise of the British public's views at a certain time, it can certainly shift over time and has certainly done that towards the left compared to say the common view in 1915. But its only gonna shift slowly and a bit at a time, to chime with Corbyn's principles it would have shift quite a lot quite quickly.

But in my opinion none of that is Corbyn's fault and he's not doing anything wrong, he's being true to what he is. The issue lies with why the Labour membership saw fit to elect him. Some no doubt agree with him on things which is fine. But most I suspect did it for unsound reasons such as a reactionary protest vote to the general election result, or because they liked him as a person, or because it was a fashionable fun bandwagon to jump on.

Either people didn't research what they were actually getting or they expected Corbyn to behave himself once they'd put him in. Bit like egging on your mate to lamp some bloke in the pub you don't like, and then saying "jesus, didn't expect you to actually do it". People who voted for Corbyn have made Labour's bed for the next few years and to be honest its their own fault they now have to lie in it.

[K-Hod]

Pretty much sums it up for me that SKH. He seems completely unwilling to compromise, which isn't good. The amount of Labour MPs that didn't want him in the first place and have since resigned is telling.

He's too left-wing for this day and age and seems to be stuck in a time warp.

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

He's too left-wing for this day and age and seems to be stuck in a time warp.

Interesting you say that. I tend to see Corbyn has being too far ahead of his time. Just in the sense that I feel western values are slowly moving to the left. In terms of racial and sexual tolerance, gender equality, softening of foreign policy, the rise of free health care, free education, the welfare state etc. These I'd imagine are all pillars of Corbyn's general political principles. But there are some areas that he's just too far ahead on in my opinion.

On foreign policy for example I feel as though Corbyn is hundreds of years (or maybe permanently) ahead of his time. He appears to be a total pacifist which in principle is a wonderful position to take. Pacifists are good drivers of moral progress, but to let a pacifist decide foreign policy with no adverse repercussions, moral progress in humanity would have to over-ride resource competition. And it just doesn't. One day if humanity's resources to far outstrip its requirements (if mass produced nuclear fusion is achieved for example), a Corbyn approach to foreign policy could work and would probably be the best approach. But as it is I think the guy is dangerously idealistic on that subject.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

The problem is the Labour Party elite that have had it all their own way for years. They only pretend to listen to the local party members when it's election time and they're needed to get out the vote. They didn't want Corbyn or anybody with real principles and they're throwing their toys out of the pram now. They think they can just ignore the grass roots members of the party that elected him by a massive majority. Well they better wise up and wise up quickly because ordinary members of the party won't look kindly on their childishness.

They'll do anything to sabotage his leadership as we can see by their behaviour at the moment. Even vote with the Tories !

Corbyn is dead right on the Syria issue. Just bombing without a realistic follow up plan will just make us more and more enemies in the region. I read today that the US has been bombing for over a year. In that time they've killed 20,000 people apparently. How many of them were fighters I wonder ? In the light of that statistic do you - 1) think the situation had got better as a result of this ? 2) think the situation has got massively worse ?

Without troops to occupy the ground that the bombing drives ISIS from the bombing is pointless. It will kill more civilians than it will kill fighters. Where are these troops going to come from ? Not from the rag tag and bobtail splinter groups that are already fighting there. As soon as they've achieved their localised objectives they'll give up fighting, go back to their villages and put their feet up. They only want their little bit of normality back.

Will we, or the French, or Russians or the Yanks ever put in ground troops ? Well it doesn't look like it at the moment does it ?

[den]

As for Syria I don't think Cameron has made a good case for bombing at all. It's accepted that we can't beat ISIL without ground troops, so what's the point in bombing?

Labours problem is that while there's a big majority of support within the party for Corbyn, there isnt amongst the electorate. If you're prepared to say you would never push the nuclear button and you would never attack your enemies, then you shouldn't be prime minister.

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

As for Syria I don't think Cameron has made a good case for bombing at all. It's accepted that we can't beat ISIL without ground troops, so what's the point in bombing?

Containment? IS are a hyper-aggressive enemy. As soon as we stop attacking them, they'll over-run the Kurds and whoever else is fighting them on the ground. And they'll probably be able to hit more European cities as well.

Believe me if it was up to me it'd be boots on the ground tomorrow and massacre the whole evil lot of them within weeks. And to be honest I don't want to get wound up by starting to speculate about the sinister forces/motives at work in western civilisation as to why we didn't do that a year ago. All I can say is those opposing boots on the ground against IS have it on their conscience every time someone is burnt alive, tortured, raped, mutilated or murdered by them.

But in the absence of boots on the ground, this is the next best thing IMO.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

Containment? IS are a hyper-aggressive enemy. As soon as we stop attacking them, they'll over-run the Kurds and whoever else is fighting them on the ground. And they'll probably be able to hit more European cities as well.

Believe me if it was up to me it'd be boots on the ground tomorrow and massacre the whole evil lot of them within weeks. And to be honest I don't want to get wound up by starting to speculate about the sinister forces/motives at work in western civilisation as to why we didn't do that a year ago. All I can say is those opposing boots on the ground against IS have it on their conscience every time someone is burnt alive, tortured, raped, mutilated or murdered by them.

But in the absence of boots on the ground, this is the next best thing IMO.

I know a guy who's high up in what used to be the TA. I'll put your name forward if you like. You sound like a guy who be an asset in a fire fight.

[Baz]

Ive still heard no mention of what happens after the bombing stops / after the ground troops leave.

That's the key for me, no plans for what happens afterwards, and it's pointless whatever we do.

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

I know a guy who's high up in what used to be the TA. I'll put your name forward if you like. You sound like a guy who be an asset in a fire fight.

Odd response. Is there a hidden argument in there? Taking it literally I'm well into my 30s, have zero training and considered but didn't choose the army for a career. I'd be happy to sign up if democracy in the UK was ever thteatened though, which sounds far fetched but is guaranteed to happen eventually if our policy is always don't fight IS.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

Odd response. Is there a hidden argument in there? Taking it literally I'm well into my 30s, have zero training and considered but didn't choose the army for a career. I'd be happy to sign up if democracy in the UK was ever thteatened though, which sounds far fetched but is guaranteed to happen eventually if our policy is always don't fight IS.

I always think if you are asking people to risk their lives on your behalf you should be prepared to risk yours also. How many of these MP's voting for bombing have kids in the RAF or even the armed forces.

I agree that Western values are worth fighting for and if it came to it I'd fight. I'm not a pacifist by any means. I just don't think bombing on it's own is the way go about defending our values.