General Election 2010

[Park Life 71]

Tbf Labour do need a break.

[Happy Face 29]

I am pretty sure Labour would have preferred to have won the Election, and are of the opinion that their plans would have been better for the country than the libdemcon. Cowardice is a bit of a ridiculous accusation

 

This is the official position from the Lib Dem spokesperson on the Labour-Lib Dem talks, for what it's worth:

 

"Key members of Labour's negotiating team gave every impression of wanting the process to fail and Labour made no attempt at all to agree a common approach with the Liberal Democrats on issues such as fairer schools funding for the most deprived pupils and taking those on low incomes out of tax.

 

It became clear to the Liberal Democrats that certain key Labour cabinet ministers were determined to undermine any agreement by holding out on policy issues and suggesting that Labour would not deliver on proportional representation and might not marshal the votes to secure even the most modest form of electoral reform.

 

It is clear that some people in the Labour Party see opposition as a more attractive alternative to the challenges of creating a progressive, reforming government, not least in the context of a Labour leadership election campaign."

 

I'd imagine that's why Brown stayed in charge as long as he did. Labout could easily have won with someone else at the helm. Opposition will be a pretty sweet ride for a few years.

[maggiespaws 0]

I am pretty sure Labour would have preferred to have won the Election, and are of the opinion that their plans would have been better for the country than the libdemcon. Cowardice is a bit of a ridiculous accusation

 

This is the official position from the Lib Dem spokesperson on the Labour-Lib Dem talks, for what it's worth:

 

"Key members of Labour's negotiating team gave every impression of wanting the process to fail and Labour made no attempt at all to agree a common approach with the Liberal Democrats on issues such as fairer schools funding for the most deprived pupils and taking those on low incomes out of tax.

 

It became clear to the Liberal Democrats that certain key Labour cabinet ministers were determined to undermine any agreement by holding out on policy issues and suggesting that Labour would not deliver on proportional representation and might not marshal the votes to secure even the most modest form of electoral reform.

 

It is clear that some people in the Labour Party see opposition as a more attractive alternative to the challenges of creating a progressive, reforming government, not least in the context of a Labour leadership election campaign."

 

Thanks Meenz, I couldn't remember where I'd read that. Also, it was on the news last night that Labour admitted to not wanting to entertain the coalition - labelling the LibDems as ridiculous or something. I can't for the life of me remember what they were labelled as and I'm sure it came from a female member of the Labour party too. God I'm crap.....

[spongebob toonpants 3956]

If we're looking for a sliver lining, with the best will in the world this won't work. Yes, we'll have a honeymoon period, but after that it'll get niggly and they'll end up fallin out...by which time a lot of Lib Dem voters will have pissed off to vote for Labour. To be honest, I think the Lib Dems were fucked whatever they did. Go with the Tories they're made to look like Camerons bitches and lose a lot votes, don't side with anyone and they're seen as bottlers, go with Labour and nothing can be achieved. Personally, I think the Lib Dem statement that Labour really weren't arsed about a coalition is probably true. I think in the long run this will benefit Labour massively and they know it. Let the Con-Lib Dem coalition implode by itself and pick up the pieces with a new leader.

There, first bit of optimism in days.

 

I've said as much earlier. Particularly the last bit. Thing is though, it hasn't just come from the Lib Dems that Labour weren't arsed. Labour have said they weren't arsed either.

 

It pisses me off a little though it the above is true as it shows cowardice on the part of Labour imo. Let some else make the unpopular decisions so they can score off the resulting unrest. Those decisions need making whomever is in power and in some respects - I think it should have been Labour making those decisions to repair some of the damage they played their part in.

 

I am pretty sure Labour would have preferred to have won the Election, and are of the opinion that their plans would have been better for the country than the libdemcon. Cowardice is a bit of a ridiculous accusation

 

My suggestion of cowardice was aimed at their preference to move into opposition rather than form a coalition and implement their plan. Surely if they believed strongly enough in it, then they would have done whatever it took to action said plan - if it was for the good of the country?

 

I think it was realism rather than cowardice. It would have been stupidity not bravery to go for a plan that waoud have pretty much garuenteed electoral wipeout when the alliance imploded. There werent the numbers to make it stick

[spongebob toonpants 3956]

I am pretty sure Labour would have preferred to have won the Election, and are of the opinion that their plans would have been better for the country than the libdemcon. Cowardice is a bit of a ridiculous accusation

 

This is the official position from the Lib Dem spokesperson on the Labour-Lib Dem talks, for what it's worth:

 

"Key members of Labour's negotiating team gave every impression of wanting the process to fail and Labour made no attempt at all to agree a common approach with the Liberal Democrats on issues such as fairer schools funding for the most deprived pupils and taking those on low incomes out of tax.

 

It became clear to the Liberal Democrats that certain key Labour cabinet ministers were determined to undermine any agreement by holding out on policy issues and suggesting that Labour would not deliver on proportional representation and might not marshal the votes to secure even the most modest form of electoral reform.

 

It is clear that some people in the Labour Party see opposition as a more attractive alternative to the challenges of creating a progressive, reforming government, not least in the context of a Labour leadership election campaign."

 

I do think the Mandy/Campbell were pulling the strings more with the next election in mind rather than failing to acheive a liblab coalition.

Worth it to see the Tories shit themselves at the prospect

[Happy Face 29]

What's the threshold at the moment?

 

£6k or summat?

 

£6479.

 

Therefore overnight when they bring this in, everyone who is on the standard code (and earns £10k or more) will suddenly get an additional £3521 before ttheyre taxed or rather, will be better off by £704.20 per year.

 

Thats a serious amount of money to suddenly lose from about £20m people. Unless my maths is out thats £14,000,000,000 per year. On top of that, werent the tories also going to reverse the decision to up NI by 1%? if thats the case then thats another £45 per person on that first £10k that wont be coming in (admittedly it isnt now but it was planned to be) so take another £900m just the coffers just for that £10k never mind all the earnings on top of that.

 

I wonder where thats going to come from then? and thats before we even start to reduce the deficit.

 

 

 

I looked into it this morning. The Lib Dems planned to pay for it as follows....

 

Closing tax loopholes and cutting reliefs that benefit the wealthiest

 

Restriction of tax relief on pension contributions to the basic rate

Those on high incomes benefit disproportionately from pensions tax relief because they pay a higher marginal tax rate than people on lower incomes. For example in 2008-09 1.5% of people saving for a pension earned over £150,000, yet they received a quarter of all pensions tax relief on their contributions. We propose to restrict the income tax relief on contributions made by all individuals to the basic rate of 20%.

 

Capital gains tax - alignment of rates to income tax rates

CGT rates are significantly lower than income tax rates which gives people particularly the wealthiest an incentive to present their income as capital so that they can pay a lower rate of taxation. We propose to tax capital as income in order to remove this nomaly. This is a return to CGT system created by Nigel Lawson during the Thatcher Government.

 

Capital gains tax - reduction of annual exemption to £2,000

Under current rules, the first £10,100 of capital gains made by an individual are exempt from CGT. The purpose of this exemption was to prevent small capital gains falling into the tax system. However as the exemption is so large it has become a significant part of tax planning. We propose to keep a small annual exemption of £2,000 that will prevent the smallest transactions from being liable

for CGT, but which will catch many more transaction made by wealthy individuals that would otherwise not be caught. It is important to remember that under Liberal Democrat plans those on very low incomes who make capital gains will still not have to pay tax due to our proposed £10,000 personal allowance.

 

A 1% tax for properties over £2m to tackle council tax anomaly

Our progressive property levy would only affect properties worth more than £2m. Current council tax bands mean a property worth £750k is taxed the same as one worth £10m. We propose to tackle this distortion. The levy would be taxed at a rate of 1% on the value of a property over £2m. This means a home worth home worth £2.1m would pay 1% x (£2.1m-£2m) = £1000 per annum. A home worth £5m would pay 1% x (£5m – £2m) = £30,000 per annum. Based on land registry data this levy would affect between 70,000 and 80,000 (around 1 in 400 properties) of the most valuable residential properties in the UK and raise around £1.7bn.

 

Green taxation

Replacing Air Passenger Duty with a per plane tax

Air Passenger Duty (APD) is charged on passengers flying from a United Kingdom airport. By replacing the APD with an ‘Aviation Duty’ which would be levied on planes as opposed to passengers we would provide an incentive for airlines to fill seats and to discourage them from running empty flights as well as ensuring that cargo flights are brought within the scope of the duty since they currently are not covered by the existing regulations.

 

Introduction of a levy on domestic flights

This levy is aimed to discourage travellers from choosing air travel over land travel for routes in which the latter is readily available. In order to ensure that travel from the extremes of the country are not unfairly penalised by geographical distance the domestic duty would only apply to flights to and from destinations for which rail travel could not be provided in less than 6 hours.

 

Anti avoidance measures

Avoidance measures - Income tax, CGT, NICs

We will combat NIC leakage by changing the taxation of benefits in kind. Currently the amount of NICs payable on benefits in kind such as private health insurance is lower than if a person was paid the same amount in cash. Removing this anomaly will lead to a fairer basis of pay as well as preventing tax leakage. In addition to this we will also focus greater levels of HRMC staff time to cracking down on income tax evasion. This additional staff time will come from the lower number of people being administered in the income tax system under Lib Dem proposals.

 

Avoidance measures - Corporation tax

We will introduce a new general anti-avoidance provision for corporation tax. The purpose of this provision will be to stop companies structuring their business in a particular way when their main objective is to reduce their corporation tax bill. A common argument against such a proposal is that the cost for HMRC to administer such a provision would be extremely high and that HMRC are inadequately resourced for the service. In order to address this, we propose that companies requiring clearance and certainty over the tax treatment of a transaction will pay for the services of a specialist HMRC team at commercial rates (similar to professional services e.g. lawyers and accountants); this will be a revolutionary change to the HMRC services, drawing it closer to commercial practices.

 

Avoidance measures - Stamp duty

Stamp Duty Land Tax (SDLT) can currently be avoided, if a company or an individual sets up an offshore business structure so that the property does not appear to be sold by a UK taxable person. In addition Stamp Duty can be reduced from the standard rate to just 0.5% if the property is held by a UK company and the company is sold. To stop this we would bring forward legislation which looks through any structured transaction so that where there is any beneficial UK ownership, the property would fall liable to SDLT and the duty cannot be avoided.

 

http://www.libdems.org.uk/siteFiles/resour...%20Document.pdf

 

They saw the cost of the £10k threshold as 16.5Bn and the income from the above measures as 17.7Bn with 1.2Bn contingency.

Edited May 12, 2010 by Happy Face

[spongebob toonpants 3956]

Christ I reply far too slowly. Thats what having to work in the private sector does for you - not enought time to reply prompltly

[NJS 4375]

Based on land registry data this levy would affect between 70,000 and 80,000

 

Properties worth more than £2m - fucking hell.

[Happy Face 29]

What's the threshold at the moment?

 

£6k or summat?

 

£6479.

 

Therefore overnight when they bring this in, everyone who is on the standard code (and earns £10k or more) will suddenly get an additional £3521 before ttheyre taxed or rather, will be better off by £704.20 per year.

 

So I'm £58.68 a month better off straight away.

 

People have told me VAT will go up to 20% to cover that, but I still think I'm better off.

 

Say I spend £500 a month on products. I make that £425.53 on the goods and £425.53 on the VAT at 17.5%.

 

20% VAT on £425.53 means my spending is increased to £510.63 so I'm still better off.

 

For my VAT spending to increase by £58.63 a month, I'd currently need to be spending over £2750 a month.

 

Or is my working wrong.

Edited May 12, 2010 by Happy Face

[Craig 6682]

What's the threshold at the moment?

 

£6k or summat?

 

£6479.

 

Therefore overnight when they bring this in, everyone who is on the standard code (and earns £10k or more) will suddenly get an additional £3521 before ttheyre taxed or rather, will be better off by £704.20 per year.

 

Thats a serious amount of money to suddenly lose from about £20m people. Unless my maths is out thats £14,000,000,000 per year. On top of that, werent the tories also going to reverse the decision to up NI by 1%? if thats the case then thats another £45 per person on that first £10k that wont be coming in (admittedly it isnt now but it was planned to be) so take another £900m just the coffers just for that £10k never mind all the earnings on top of that.

 

I wonder where thats going to come from then? and thats before we even start to reduce the deficit.

 

 

The increase of the threashold is supposedly progressive rather than instantaneous I believe...

[Park Life 71]

The parties agree to implement a full programme of measures to reverse the substantial erosion of civil liberties under the Labour Government and roll back state intrusion.

 

This will include:

A Freedom or Great Repeal Bill.

 

The scrapping of ID card scheme, the National Identity register, the next generation of biometric passports and the Contact Point Database.

 

Outlawing the finger-printing of children at school without parental permission.

 

The extension of the scope of the Freedom of Information Act to provide greater transparency.

 

Adopting the protections of the Scottish model for the DNA database.

 

The protection of historic freedoms through the defence of trial by jury.

 

The restoration of rights to non-violent protest.

 

The review of libel laws to protect freedom of speech.

 

Safeguards against the misuse of anti-terrorism legislation.

 

Further regulation of CCTV.

 

Ending of storage of internet and email records without good reason.

 

A new mechanism to prevent the proliferation of unnecessary new criminal offences.

Edited May 12, 2010 by Park Life

[Happy Face 29]

The review of libel laws to protect freedom of speech.

 

 

Interesting to see how this gets implemented.

[Craig 6682]

David Miliband announced he's standing for the Labour leadership.

[Park Life 71]

David Miliband announced he's standing for the Labour leadership.

 

Blairite iirc. His younger brother is more of a lefty.

[Renton 21392]

David Miliband announced he's standing for the Labour leadership.

 

Blairite iirc. His younger brother is more of a lefty.

 

Ed's older.

[Craig 6682]

David Miliband announced he's standing for the Labour leadership.

 

Blairite iirc. His younger brother is more of a lefty.

 

Ed's older.

 

 

David Wright Miliband (born 15 July 1965)

 

Edward "Ed" Samuel Miliband (born 24 December 1969)

[Meenzer 15429]

David Miliband announced he's standing for the Labour leadership.

 

Blairite iirc. His younger brother is more of a lefty.

 

Ed's older.

 

I was about to say "by -4 years", but I should have known Craig would get there first. There's pedantry, there's Rob W's half-arsed equivalent, and then there's Internerd.

[Park Life 71]

David Miliband announced he's standing for the Labour leadership.

 

Blairite iirc. His younger brother is more of a lefty.

 

Ed's older.

 

YOu got that wrong fuckhead.

[Park Life 71]

The one with the silly ears ftw!!

[Craig 6682]

David Miliband announced he's standing for the Labour leadership.

 

Blairite iirc. His younger brother is more of a lefty.

 

Ed's older.

 

I was about to say "by -4 years", but I should have known Craig would get there first. There's pedantry, there's Rob W's half-arsed equivalent, and then there's Internerd.

 

Bastard!

[manc-mag 1]

David Miliband announced he's standing for the Labour leadership.

 

Blairite iirc. His younger brother is more of a lefty.

 

Ed's older.

 

YOu got that wrong fuckhead.

 

 

Older in real terms he meant. duh.

[Renton 21392]

David Miliband announced he's standing for the Labour leadership.

 

Blairite iirc. His younger brother is more of a lefty.

 

Ed's older.

 

YOu got that wrong fuckhead.

Was at a meeting once where Ed talked and thought he referred to David as younger and brighter. Obviously heard that wrong then.

 

Mind, I'd say David looked younger as well which doesn't help.

[Toonpack 9294]

They want to be cancelling Corporation Tax and Business Tax with businesses with a turnover of less than half a mill. If they are really serious about growing the core economy.

 

 

Yes please

 

Agreed, and to make up for it they should impose a levy on companies that fuck jobs off abroad and employ Indians called David and Brian (Aye right, course you are) to ring you up all the fucking time.

[Gemmill 44491]

David Miliband announced he's standing for the Labour leadership.

 

Blairite iirc. His younger brother is more of a lefty.

 

Ed's older.

 

YOu got that wrong fuckhead.

Was at a meeting once where Ed talked and thought he referred to David as younger and brighter. Obviously heard that wrong then.

 

Mind, I'd say David looked younger as well which doesn't help.

 

Ed looks like Millhouse.

[Billy Castell 0]

So David Miliband is standing for leadership. I hope his parents have a note excusing him from any upcoming exams and time off from school.

 

This coalition may just work. The Lib Dems could act as a brake on the Tories' desires to shit on the poor and get bummed by the rich. Nick Clegg is also dealing with constitutional reforms, so we may get some action in that area too (though that is probably used by Cameron as a distraction so Nick doesn't pose a challenge).