Election 2010 - Con/Lib Government

[Will]

I could actually see the lib dems doing very well this time round, there's so much hatred towards the other two they may well pick up a lot of votes. As a long time Conservative voter this could well be the first time I change my vote - currently I'm totally undecided as to who to vote for.

[ipaul]

I dont agree that bankers should get the bonuses for failure. But there are some banks that didnt get any direct aid. So i have no problem with tere bankers gettng any bonuses that can afford to be paid.

But then theres the argument with the govenment owned banks that if you dont pay the bonuses are those staff going to leave that bank, to go and work for one that can pay bonuses. Then banks need these people to make the money, much like the country needs people who have the drive, ambition and ability to create money and jobs. Which is why i dont agree with taxing them to death.

As for footballers if the club can afford to pay 100k a week then why shoudnt the footballer get it? At the end of the day thats what people pay to see. And clearly people are willing to pay the prices for tickets so i dont see an issue with it.

I cant watch the videos as im on a dongle and the signal is crap. A brief idea what there about?

 

Everything that is wrong with the Thatcherite way of thinking, basically.

 

I'm not saying they club should hold that money for themselves, I'm saying it's unfair that such a job should fetch should high pay in our world. Of course it's all in the game of Capitalism. I'm no socialist but I find this rather despicable.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

Dannyboy i dont know how things are in denmark having never been. But in the UK things cant continue as they are its clearly not working. It probably is unrealistic but i think it is a goal that should be worked towards. Someone once said there will be rivers of blood in the streets. (im not saying i wish this to happen) but i fear that one day this could happen. If the country was less divided there would be less chance of this happening. A few years ago now there were a fair few mass riots in the north west of england whites and blacks (strangely) on one side and mostly people from the indian sub continent on the other. Again i repeat i never want this to happen but i think there is a very large chance in years to come this could becombe a common scene. I mean we live in a country where there are still two waring communitys although it is far far better than it once was.

But those problems won't be solved by trying to force a single culture down upon everyone. If anything, I believe it will simply increase cultural tensions. The problem is not different cultures, the problem is people who cannot accept other cultures. The former is a prerequisite of the latter, but the latter is not necessarily an inevitable consequence of the former. The key is trying to achieve understanding and acceptance of other cultures, not eradicating all our points of difference.

[McPhee]

And yet one thing a lot of people seem to skirt over is the issue of non-doms, which is something that'd help. I havn't seen any of the parties address this issue (though to be fair I haven't dug too deep) - can anyone enlighten me as to where the three main parties stand on this?

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/14/liberal-democrats-tax-avoidance-crackdown

 

There's one answer for you

[danny]

So, is anyone aware of the LibDem manifesto at this point? No?

 

Here's the jist of it anyway:

 

 

No like-for-like replacement for Trident

 

I dont know how they can say this. They either want nukes or not.

If not then fair enough thats up to them and they should say so.

If they want nukes then its hard to see what other options we have but to have 4 nuclear submarines to carry the missiles. They were banding around the idea of only having three submarines.

But that idea dosent work every defence review has said 4 is the minimum number of submarines needed.

1 on patrol

1 just back off patrol

1 in refit

1 in maintenance/training.

Without having four there is no way of being sure we have a constant deterant. And without it being costant theres no point in having one at all.

And submarine is the only system that really works for the UK.

We havent got enough space to have a land based deterent. Apparently we would need an area about the size of wales.

Airbourne launched nukes is a thing of the past as its to easy to shoot the planes down.

And shipbourne woudnt be that much cheaper but would make it far easy to destroy than a submarine.

If they dont want nukes just say. Otherwise come out with a decent new idea rather than 'not like for like' when there is not really another option if we are to have them.

[ipaul]

I could actually see the lib dems doing very well this time round' date=' there's so much hatred towards the other two they may well pick up a lot of votes. As a long time Conservative voter this could well be the first time I change my vote - currently I'm totally undecided as to who to vote for.[/quote']

 

I actually think they will lose seats...they may get more votes then last time but I think they will struggle to hold on to the seats they won in 2005. 65 or so seats for the Liberals is a lot after all. Hope I'm wrong though.

 

McPhee, it annoys me as well. There was an article in The Guardian saying lab/lib voters should make a pact, but that's bull if the policies I support about the Lib Dems are completely opposed to Labour's ideas.

[danny]

Everything that is wrong with the Thatcherite way of thinking, basically.

 

I'm not saying they club should hold that money for themselves, I'm saying it's unfair that such a job should fetch should high pay in our world. Of course it's all in the game of Capitalism. I'm no socialist but I find this rather despicable.

 

I just dont get that its so communist. The clubs make money people might moan that tickts, shirts, sky tv is to expensive. But they still pay it. There not essential items. There not food or water.

As far as im concerned its a very valid way to make money. If people dont like it dont pay it and the prices will drop when profits start to be hit. Supply and demand and all that.

[ipaul]

I just dont get that its so communist. The clubs make money people might moan that tickts, shirts, sky tv is to expensive. But they still pay it. There not essential items. There not food or water.

As far as im concerned its a very valid way to make money. If people dont like it dont pay it and the prices will drop when profits start to be hit. Supply and demand and all that.

 

You just explained how it works. I know how it works. I dislike the results. I have a moral problem with footballers earning what they do when so much of the world is in utter poverty.

[Will]

On the income thing the fact of the matter is that over a certain amount of money there is absolutely no need for it to be able to cover your basic human needs. I do in general agree with a flat tax rate for all, but the fact of the matter is once you're earning above a certain level there's no arguable reason not to tax it at a higher rate.

[ipaul]

On the income thing the fact of the matter is that over a certain amount of money there is absolutely no need for it to be able to cover your basic human needs. I do in general agree with a flat tax rate for all' date=' but the fact of the matter is once you're earning above a certain level there's no arguable reason not to tax it at a higher rate.[/quote']

 

So you're saying your own position is indefensible?

[danny]

You just explained how it works. I know how it works. I dislike the results. I have a moral problem with footballers earning what they do when so much of the world is in utter poverty.

 

I earn more than i need to survive on, does that mean i shouldnt? I consier i live very comfortably (now hasnt always been this way although i have never been poor) does that mean i shoudnt be able to spend money on trivial things. Wheres the line?

[ipaul]

I earn more than i need to survive on, does that mean i shouldnt? I consier i live very comfortably (now hasnt always been this way although i have never been poor) does that mean i shoudnt be able to spend money on trivial things. Wheres the line?

 

Hard to determine exactly, very true, but I look at many parts of Africa, the slave workers in Dubai and other Asian countries and I can safely claim they fall below it. Far far below it.

[Dyson]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/14/liberal-democrats-tax-avoidance-crackdown

 

There's one answer for you

 

Muchos appreciated. I was going to vote LibDem anyway this election but reading this has cemented my position. Cheers McPhee! : peace:

 

I mean really, does this not piss anyone else off?

 

They claim that a further £750m could be found from stamp duty, the tax on property sales, by stopping a legal dodge permitted for the last decade by the Labour government under which expensive houses are registered offshore by one of the 112,000-plus non-doms who get special tax breaks in the UK.

[Will]

So you're saying your own position is indefensible?

 

Yes, basically.

 

From a personal point of view I would always go with the flat rate of tax. Looking at the bigger picture I just don't see it as a tenable position for anyone. As a voter I'd go for the people who broadly give a large tax free allowance, a wide standard rate of tax and a big tax on very very high earners. As far as I can see that is the fairest way of doing it.

[ipaul]

Yes' date=' basically.

 

From a personal point of view I would always go with the flat rate of tax. Looking at the bigger picture I just don't see it as a tenable position for anyone. As a voter I'd go for the people who broadly give a large tax free allowance, a wide standard rate of tax and a big tax on very very high earners. As far as I can see that is the fairest way of doing it.[/quote']

 

Well...sounds a bit muddled but fair enough. It almost sounds like your admitting your ideal is the bastard's way of doing things =P

 

Pisses me right off, Dyson

[danny]

Hard to determine exactly, very true, but I look at many parts of Africa, the slave workers in Dubai and other Asian countries and I can safely claim they fall below it. Far far below it.

 

Yes but i mean what people in this country is it just footballers? Or many normal people. I bought a t shirt for £45 yesterday, should that be allowed? Should i have money taken off me and set to africa as that is a ridiculas amount to spend on something i could have got far cheaper? People spend money on all sorts of shit they dont need (look in the post your purchases thread) where is the line?

 

And are there actual slaves in the UAE? As i did a quick search and coudnt find anything.

[ipaul]

Yes but i mean what people in this country is it just footballers? Or many normal people. I bought a t shirt for £45 yesterday, should that be allowed? Should i have money taken off me and set to africa as that is a ridiculas amount to spend on something i could have got far cheaper? People spend money on all sorts of shit they dont need (look in the post your purchases thread) where is the line?

 

And are there actual slaves in the UAE? As i did a quick search and coudnt find anything.

 

Unofficially there certainly are.

 

Look I don't have a problem with people having more money than they need. I think it's idiotic spending £45 on a t shirt but I would never forbid it. I simply have a problem with people doing so little, yet getting so much. Rather like you do, because I mean according to you, people on benefits get so much and do so little right?

 

The mass imbalance of wealth is a global problem and I think it would be in all our interests if we were more economically even. Most of the wealth in the west has originated from exploiting the people and the resources from places like Africa. I'm not a communist, however it's completely reasonable to say that, when swathes of the world population are underfed and in real poverty, then the rich should help out a little.

Edited April 14, 2010 by ipaul

[McPhee]

You just explained how it works. I know how it works. I dislike the results. I have a moral problem with footballers earning what they do when so much of the world is in utter poverty.

 

Footballers earn a shit wage. It's the very few at the top of the game that earn £100,000+ per week and even that is low compared to high fliers in other industries.

 

I mean really, does this not piss anyone else off?

 

That's the sort of thing that happens when your government is born of a political party that has had a lot of investment from very rich people. They have to keep them happy.

 

It's one of the many reasons why we need just one term of somebody other than the Conservatives or Labour. We need someone who is able to remove some of the shackles from our political system and allow it to be more open (along with getting rid of this crappy "first past the post" system which has kept us in this endless swing).

[gaggle64]

I like pretty much all of those policies. The thing that concerns me most in this election really is civil liberties and I think the Liberals came out pretty strongly for them. I really despise the I.D card scheme.

 

I agree. I also like their attitude to Trident - I'd rather we had a smaller nuclear deterrent that we can actually afford and completely control, rather then all these oversized American ballistics we can't even run ourselves.

 

Generally though I hope in a hung Parliament the LibDems can become the catalyst for genuine and long overdue electoral reform. That's still my number one concern for this election.

[ipaul]

Footballers earn a shit wage. It's the very few at the top of the game that earn £100,000+ per week and even that is low compared to high fliers in other industries.

 

 

 

That's the sort of thing that happens when your government is born of a political party that has had a lot of investment from very rich people. They have to keep them happy.

 

It's one of the many reasons why we need just one term of somebody other than the Conservatives or Labour. We need someone who is able to remove some of the shackles from our political system and allow it to be more open (along with getting rid of this crappy "first past the post" system which has kept us in this endless swing).

 

The average wage is £24k per year. £40k puts you in the top 10% of earners. Perspective here.

 

I don't care how much people earn in other industries, calling £100k per week a low wage in any context is ridiculous. Even if other people earn 30x that, it is still a very high wage. Obviously all I meant was the people in the premiership.

[danny]

Unofficially there certainly are.

 

Look I don't have a problem with people having more money than they need. I think it's idiotic spending £45 on a t shirt but I would never forbid it. I simply have a problem with people doing so little, yet getting so much. Rather like you do, because I mean according to you, people on benefits get so much and do so little right?

 

The mass imbalance of wealth is a global problem and I think it would be in all our interests if we were more economically even. Most of the wealth in the west has originated from exploiting the people and the resources from places like Africa. I'm not a communist, however it's completely reasonable to say that, when swathes of the world population are underfed and in real poverty, then the rich should help out a little.

 

People on benefits do nothing an do get plenty. (and i dont mean people who hae genuine reasons to be on them).

Footballers how ever by playing football which may not seem like a lot support an entire industry how many peope do you think man utd employ or are employed as a result of man utd. A squad of arround say 20 players create so much wealth and give so employment to so many people. So i dont see a link between footballers and people who make a career of claiming benefits.

 

Ok and have you got any links to support this? Im not doubting you just puerly intrested thats all.

[ipaul]

People on benefits do nothing an do get plenty. (and i dont mean people who hae genuine reasons to be on them).

Footballers how ever by playing football which may not seem like a lot support an entire industry how many peope do you think man utd employ or are employed as a result of man utd. A squad of arround say 20 players create so much wealth and give so employment to so many people. So i dont see a link between footballers and people who make a career of claiming benefits.

 

Ok and have you got any links to support this? Im not doubting you just puerly intrested thats all.

 

You want me to link you and prove that poor people exist in Africa? I think I might give that one a miss.

 

The players could still do that if they weren't paid as much. People watch football because they're good and the game is brilliant, not because the people who pay are paid a lot. They create wealth for themselves in the main.

[McPhee]

I dont know how they can say this. They either want nukes or not.

If not then fair enough thats up to them and they should say so.

If they want nukes then its hard to see what other options we have but to have 4 nuclear submarines to carry the missiles. They were banding around the idea of only having three submarines.

But that idea dosent work every defence review has said 4 is the minimum number of submarines needed.

1 on patrol

1 just back off patrol

1 in refit

1 in maintenance/training.

Without having four there is no way of being sure we have a constant deterant. And without it being costant theres no point in having one at all.

And submarine is the only system that really works for the UK.

We havent got enough space to have a land based deterent. Apparently we would need an area about the size of wales.

Airbourne launched nukes is a thing of the past as its to easy to shoot the planes down.

And shipbourne woudnt be that much cheaper but would make it far easy to destroy than a submarine.

If they dont want nukes just say. Otherwise come out with a decent new idea rather than 'not like for like' when there is not really another option if we are to have them.

 

They don't think we need a constant nuclear deterrent. They'd replace Trident with at most two nuclear-armed submarines. They would also modify some Astute class submarines to carry (when necessary) nuclear warheads on Tomahawk missles and keep a stock-pile of weapons-grade fissile material. Japan uses a similar system already.

[danny]

You want me to link you and prove that poor people exist in Africa? I think I might give that one a miss.

 

The players could still do that if they weren't paid as much. People watch football because they're good and the game is brilliant, not because the people who pay are paid a lot. They create wealth for themselves in the main.

 

No unofficial slaves in dubai.

 

Yes but the clubs make what they can, fans pay the money. So why shoudnt the players get there share? Bollocks that they make money for themselves in the main. Everyone from alex ferguson to the guy who picks up the litter after the game is employed because of those 20 or so players.

If the clubs are making the money what do you want them to do with the money? Give it to africa? Why not apply this to every buisness in the country.

Is the fact that most footballers pay 50% tax and support all the services that were mentioned earlier not enough?

 

They don't think we need a constant nuclear deterrent. They'd replace Trident with at most two nuclear-armed submarines. They would also modify some Astute class submarines to carry (when necessary) nuclear warheads on Tomahawk missles and keep a stock-pile of weapons-grade fissile material. Japan uses a similar system already.

 

I think that idea is flawed. Im not certain we need nukes. In my eyes they are something i want us to keep. But if the money isnt there the money isnt there. I think having a part time nuclear deterant is a flawed idea, if we are going to have nuke whats the point in having them if we cant realitate at a moments notice hence the deterant.

And this sort of wishy washy idea just enforces why i would rather vote labour than lib dems there ideas always seem half baked.

Also where did you get tha info about japan? Im pritty sure (and wiki is) that japan dosent have nuclear weapons. Japan still has very close ties to the USA with regards to defence. And thus dosent need them.

Edited April 14, 2010 by danny
Automerged Doublepost

[ipaul]

No unofficial slaves in dubai.

 

Yes but the clubs make what they can, fans pay the money. So why shoudnt the players get there share? Bollocks that they make money for themselves in the main. Everyone from alex ferguson to the guy who picks up the litter after the game is employed because of those 20 or so players.

If the clubs are making the money what do you want them to do with the money? Give it to africa? Why not apply this to every buisness in the country.

Is the fact that most footballers pay 50% tax and support all the services that were mentioned earlier not enough?

 

What's wrong with Dubai

 

No, but those litter pickers could still be employed if the footballers made £100k a year. Litter will never pick itself up, nor will a team ever manage itself, even if they are on lower pay.

 

Obviously footballers pay their tax (hopefully) and that is enough at 50%, I just think it's sad that we as a society have decided that kicking pigskin in a particular fashion is worth £150k per week.

 

Actually we haven't. The marketplace has. We, as consumers, have obliged reluctantly.

Edited April 14, 2010 by ipaul