|
Post by Toreador on Mar 6, 2023 13:31:18 GMT
I think the poll tax was a good concept that failed because of its administrative details. Having said that, my idea would have raised less income, thereby defeating the object of replacing government funding with poll tax receipts. This is where I fall out with many conservatives - I think the whole notion is both impractical and unfairLet me give you an example. Imagine a local council is going to perform some work that will make an area better. Imagine we have a landlord in that area with (say) five tenants. The work benefits the landlord commercially - there is upward pressure on his rents and it increases the value of his holdings. The work (in a sense) increases the costs for the tenants. They now experience upward pressure on rents and rising property prices. However, the landlord and tenants all contribute equal amounts to perform the work. In a sense, the tenants are being charged twice - once by the government (to do the work) and again by the landlord in elevated rents (resulting from the work). My view was that the council could charge each adult in a household the same amount for waste disposal, in other words a family with five adults would pay five charges as opposed to two charges for a couple. At a notional charge of £10 per person, one household would pay £50, the other £20 whereas the cost to the council was considerably lower than the difference in that the rubbish quantity would remain the same, the collection team and transport would have remained the same. If they had set a sensible rate for the homeowner with other adults paying a lesser amount then it would have seemed fairer and may have succeeded. Another government money grabbing scheme bit the dust but such schemes will ever arise. My local authority will almost certainly put up rates again, despite investing in commercial properties and telling us how well it's going......until the new property crash that is......Icelandic banks all over again.
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Mar 6, 2023 13:36:14 GMT
This is where I fall out with many conservatives - I think the whole notion is both impractical and unfairLet me give you an example. Imagine a local council is going to perform some work that will make an area better. Imagine we have a landlord in that area with (say) five tenants. The work benefits the landlord commercially - there is upward pressure on his rents and it increases the value of his holdings. The work (in a sense) increases the costs for the tenants. They now experience upward pressure on rents and rising property prices. However, the landlord and tenants all contribute equal amounts to perform the work. In a sense, the tenants are being charged twice - once by the government (to do the work) and again by the landlord in elevated rents (resulting from the work). My view was that the council could charge each adult in a household the same amount for waste disposal, in other words a family with five adults would pay five charges as opposed to two charges for a couple. At a notional charge of £10 per person, one household would pay £50, the other £20 whereas the cost to the council was considerably lower than the difference in that the rubbish quantity would remain the same, the collection team and transport would have remained the same. If they had set a sensible rate for the homeowner with other adults paying a lesser amount then it would have seemed fairer and may have succeeded. Another government money grabbing scheme bit the dust but such schemes will ever arise. My local authority will almost certainly put up rates again, despite investing in commercial properties and telling us how well it's going......until the new property crash that is......Icelandic banks all over again. Of course very many commercial properties owned by the council are rented by businnesses that either go toes up or move to larger properties and then the council are stuck with them and the let them out to charity shops rates free.
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Mar 6, 2023 13:56:57 GMT
My view was that the council could charge each adult in a household the same amount for waste disposal, in other words a family with five adults would pay five charges as opposed to two charges for a couple. At a notional charge of £10 per person, one household would pay £50, the other £20 whereas the cost to the council was considerably lower than the difference in that the rubbish quantity would remain the same, the collection team and transport would have remained the same. If they had set a sensible rate for the homeowner with other adults paying a lesser amount then it would have seemed fairer and may have succeeded. Another government money grabbing scheme bit the dust but such schemes will ever arise. My local authority will almost certainly put up rates again, despite investing in commercial properties and telling us how well it's going......until the new property crash that is......Icelandic banks all over again. Of course very many commercial properties owned by the council are rented by businnesses that either go toes up or move to larger properties and then the council are stuck with them and the let them out to charity shops rates free. My local authority has bought industrial and office properties to let.
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Mar 6, 2023 14:04:16 GMT
Of course very many commercial properties owned by the council are rented by businnesses that either go toes up or move to larger properties and then the council are stuck with them and the let them out to charity shops rates free. My local authority has bought industrial and office properties to let. Yes that is the same as ours. But the council seem to have problems here letting those in the high streets ect. Of course the draconian parking laws and louts who make a living out of issuing parking tickets have an undesired effect.
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Mar 6, 2023 14:30:12 GMT
Exaggeration is a lie if you know you are exaggerating. If you say you have three apples and you only have two that is a lie. If you say the information is sound when you know it is dodgy that is a lie. If you say there are WMD when you are not sure than that is a lie. When you say the country could be in danger within 45 minutes when you know that is not the case that is a lie. I don't deny that exaggeration took place in AMERICA. The information that Iraq could have WMD ready in 45mns was genuine intelligence information passed on to the New Labour government. it was quite soon revealed that the information was single sourced and could not be used which is why the first dossier was replaced by the so called dodgy dossier. That the information was single sourced and could not be used did not alter the fact that it could be correct. No one knew one way or the other. None of which alters the fact that Iraq was in breach of UN Res 1441 which had given Saddam --- "A FINAL OPPORTUNITY TO COMPLY WITH THE CEASEFIRE AGREEMENT OF 1991--- which made it legal to invade Iraq in 2003. Blair said the intelligence was clear. It was not he even admitted he should have looked at it more closely and with a greater degree of circumspection to the Inquiry. This was at best more exaggeration. He wished to go to war, he needed to take Parliament and the country with him. All were misled. British soldiers were not his personal militia to see to Dictators he did not like.
|
|
|
Post by jeg er on Mar 8, 2023 8:52:24 GMT
Here is a test open to everyone to guage impartiality. Anyone with a reasonable claim to be impartial ought to be able to provide answers. Name three faults or errors or mistakes made by each of the following. Margaret Thatcher. Tony Blair Nick Clegg Nicola Sturgeon Neil Kinnock David Cameron Jeremy Corbyn. I will give my own repsonses in a following post. thartcher: 1, poll tax 2. unemployment. cant think of a third blair: 1. PPI 2. iraq war. cant think of a third nick clegg: 1. backtracking on pledge to not raise tuition fees. 2. backing down too far in the negotiations to join the government 3. bedroom tax neil kinnock: cant think of any nicola sturgeon: 1. the self identification trans law. cant think of 2 and 3 david cameron: 1. austerity. cant think of 2 and 3 jermy corbyn: 1. showing to much bias toward muslims against jews. eg, showing unwillingness to implement the antisemitism code into the labour party but very happy to quickly implement the identically structured islamophobic code into the labour party. 2. too much obsession about over foreign affairs issues 3. cant think of 3 Did I pass the test?
|
|
|
Post by dodgydave on Mar 9, 2023 2:49:07 GMT
Here is a test open to everyone to guage impartiality. Anyone with a reasonable claim to be impartial ought to be able to provide answers. Name three faults or errors or mistakes made by each of the following. Margaret Thatcher. Tony Blair Nick Clegg Nicola Sturgeon Neil Kinnock David Cameron Jeremy Corbyn. I will give my own repsonses in a following post. thartcher: 1, poll tax 2. unemployment. cant think of a third blair: 1. PPI 2. iraq war. cant think of a third nick clegg: 1. backtracking on pledge to not raise tuition fees. 2. backing down too far in the negotiations to join the government 3. bedroom tax neil kinnock: cant think of any nicola sturgeon: 1. the self identification trans law. cant think of 2 and 3 david cameron: 1. austerity. cant think of 2 and 3 jermy corbyn: 1. showing to much bias toward muslims against jews. eg, showing unwillingness to implement the antisemitism code into the labour party but very happy to quickly implement the identically structured islamophobic code into the labour party. 2. too much obsession about over foreign affairs issues 3. cant think of 3 Did I pass the test? No. Your Cameron one is just plain wrong. What else could they do apart from austerity? Austerity wasn't a "Tory policy". EU financial rules forced everybody into Austerity. The only argument you could have is the length of it. Unless you want to provide proof of any country that was affected by the financial crisis that didn't adopt austerity... good luck. Again, it is interesting that you don't think Blair allowing a massive debt bubble was a fault / error. It cost the country £1 trillion and a decade of austerity lol.
|
|
|
Post by jeg er on Mar 9, 2023 10:06:27 GMT
thartcher: 1, poll tax 2. unemployment. cant think of a third blair: 1. PPI 2. iraq war. cant think of a third nick clegg: 1. backtracking on pledge to not raise tuition fees. 2. backing down too far in the negotiations to join the government 3. bedroom tax neil kinnock: cant think of any nicola sturgeon: 1. the self identification trans law. cant think of 2 and 3 david cameron: 1. austerity. cant think of 2 and 3 jermy corbyn: 1. showing to much bias toward muslims against jews. eg, showing unwillingness to implement the antisemitism code into the labour party but very happy to quickly implement the identically structured islamophobic code into the labour party. 2. too much obsession about over foreign affairs issues 3. cant think of 3 Did I pass the test? Again, it is interesting that you don't think Blair allowing a massive debt bubble was a fault / error. It cost the country £1 trillion and a decade of austerity lol. I have skills. Apparently, I think that something which I did not even think of was not a bad thing What would I be like if I actually had an idea about something I did think of
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Mar 9, 2023 11:25:04 GMT
thartcher: 1, poll tax 2. unemployment. cant think of a third blair: 1. PPI 2. iraq war. cant think of a third nick clegg: 1. backtracking on pledge to not raise tuition fees. 2. backing down too far in the negotiations to join the government 3. bedroom tax neil kinnock: cant think of any nicola sturgeon: 1. the self identification trans law. cant think of 2 and 3 david cameron: 1. austerity. cant think of 2 and 3 jermy corbyn: 1. showing to much bias toward muslims against jews. eg, showing unwillingness to implement the antisemitism code into the labour party but very happy to quickly implement the identically structured islamophobic code into the labour party. 2. too much obsession about over foreign affairs issues 3. cant think of 3 Did I pass the test? No. Your Cameron one is just plain wrong. What else could they do apart from austerity? Austerity wasn't a "Tory policy". EU financial rules forced everybody into Austerity. The only argument you could have is the length of it. Unless you want to provide proof of any country that was affected by the financial crisis that didn't adopt austerity... good luck. Again, it is interesting that you don't think Blair allowing a massive debt bubble was a fault / error. It cost the country £1 trillion and a decade of austerity lol. Your posts have gone from sad to completely stupid. The last time this "massive debt bubble" came up around 2017, it was found and published that the debt "bubble" was at around the same level. The reason AIUI was that most of the debt was down to mortgage debt most of which continued to be paid. It did not cost the the country -- "It cost the country £1 trillion and a decade of austerity" -- that claim is ridiculous because both were caused by the INTERNATIONA FINANCIAL MELTDOWN that destroyed the Banks which had to be rescued in order to ensure that a recession didn't become a depression.
|
|
|
Post by jeg er on Mar 9, 2023 11:56:53 GMT
No. Your Cameron one is just plain wrong. What else could they do apart from austerity? Austerity wasn't a "Tory policy". EU financial rules forced everybody into Austerity. The only argument you could have is the length of it. Unless you want to provide proof of any country that was affected by the financial crisis that didn't adopt austerity... good luck. Again, it is interesting that you don't think Blair allowing a massive debt bubble was a fault / error. It cost the country £1 trillion and a decade of austerity lol. Your posts have gone from sad to completely stupid. The last time this "massive debt bubble" came up around 2017, it was found and published that the debt "bubble" was at around the same level. The reason AIUI was that most of the debt was down to mortgage debt most of which continued to be paid. It did not cost the the country -- "It cost the country £1 trillion and a decade of austerity" -- that claim is ridiculous because both were caused by the INTERNATIONA FINANCIAL MELTDOWN that destroyed the Banks which had to be rescued in order to ensure that a recession didn't become a depression. He did make me laugh for chiding me for something I did not it did say. Only a politico would do something like that However, re the rest of his post, it did cross my mind that austerity was a result of the international financial crisis, not UK domestic borrowing. if you think about it, governments for years have borrowed large, labour and tory. i mean, the tory governments of May and even more so Johnson went on a huge borrow and spend splurge not really much different to Blair. And that women who was PM for a month was going to do the same to fund tax cuts. So yeh, it was defo 'Cameron Tory austerity', for that was not the only option on the table, that was the one he deliberately choose. Others talked about Keynesianism to create economic growth. So I think it is important when making an argument to stick to some accuracy and look at things objectively, not just from one's own biased memory.
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Mar 9, 2023 12:36:19 GMT
Your posts have gone from sad to completely stupid. The last time this "massive debt bubble" came up around 2017, it was found and published that the debt "bubble" was at around the same level. The reason AIUI was that most of the debt was down to mortgage debt most of which continued to be paid. It did not cost the the country -- "It cost the country £1 trillion and a decade of austerity" -- that claim is ridiculous because both were caused by the INTERNATIONA FINANCIAL MELTDOWN that destroyed the Banks which had to be rescued in order to ensure that a recession didn't become a depression. He did make me laugh for chiding me for something I did not it did say. Only a politico would do something like that However, re the rest of his post, it did cross my mind that austerity was a result of the international financial crisis, not UK domestic borrowing. if you think about it, governments for years have borrowed large, labour and tory. i mean, the tory governments of May and even more so Johnson went on a huge borrow and spend splurge not really much different to Blair. And that women who was PM for a month was going to do the same to fund tax cuts. So yeh, it was defo 'Cameron Tory austerity', for that was not the only option on the table, that was the one he deliberately choose. Others talked about Keynesianism to create economic growth.So I think it is important when making an argument to stick to some accuracy and look at things objectively, not just from one's own biased memory. I agree accuracy is needed - so you will be aware that it was the EU that mandated 'austerity' and a massive Keynesian splurge was off the table as it would have failed to comply with EU rules.
|
|
|
Post by jeg er on Mar 9, 2023 12:43:01 GMT
He did make me laugh for chiding me for something I did not it did say. Only a politico would do something like that However, re the rest of his post, it did cross my mind that austerity was a result of the international financial crisis, not UK domestic borrowing. if you think about it, governments for years have borrowed large, labour and tory. i mean, the tory governments of May and even more so Johnson went on a huge borrow and spend splurge not really much different to Blair. And that women who was PM for a month was going to do the same to fund tax cuts. So yeh, it was defo 'Cameron Tory austerity', for that was not the only option on the table, that was the one he deliberately choose. Others talked about Keynesianism to create economic growth.So I think it is important when making an argument to stick to some accuracy and look at things objectively, not just from one's own biased memory. I agree accuracy is needed - so you will be aware that it was the EU that mandated 'austerity' and a massive Keynesian splurge was off the table as it would have failed to comply with EU rules. yes, to places like greece. i am not aware if was mandated to the UK, though. i recall it was all cameron's (tories) own idea, i remember listening to an interview about before he won his first GE as tory leader, and explained all his economic thinking about it, and he did not bring the EU into it
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Mar 9, 2023 13:09:16 GMT
I agree accuracy is needed - so you will be aware that it was the EU that mandated 'austerity' and a massive Keynesian splurge was off the table as it would have failed to comply with EU rules. yes, to places like greece. i am not aware if was mandated to the UK, though. i recall it was all cameron's (tories) own idea, i remember listening to an interview about before he won his first GE as tory leader, and explained all his economic thinking about it, and he did not bring the EU into it The EU started Excessive Deficit legal procedure against the UK in 2008 - it only ended in 2017. It required the UK to get our deficit below the EU target of 3%. So the only way you would have got your Keynesian splurge would have been to fail to follow EU rules and all that that entails. Restrictions on the amount of Public Spending was one of the reasons that Left-wing Brexit supporters wanted to exit - the EU prevents many left-wing policies.
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Mar 9, 2023 13:14:31 GMT
I know this is a view that will be not be shared by many Conservatives, but I think the poll tax / Council Tax is probably one of the biggest mistakes the conservatives have made. I understand the thinking - ie to increase accountability for voting - but it hasn't worked out like that and i think it was predictable it wouldn't The Poll Tax achieved Margaret Thatchers dream of an end to universal use of CASH. Until that vile day dawned, banks were a luxury used by businesses and the wealthy, huge swathes of society had a savings account somewhere but a current account with its fees to put money in, take money out and have money in it was seen for what it was, a parasitic drain on the pittance held by the many after their bills were paid The Poll Tax meant you had to have a current account to pay the poll tax direct debit. And unlike the rates where maybe one person in a household might have a bank account now everyone had to have one The council demanded i ‘link’ my wife’s poll tax demand to mine on our joint account. I refused. They refused to be paid other than by DD, i saw no reason to reduce the size of their bill I soon found the scum had done it anyway and were now taking double amounts out of the bank account every month for both my dd and my wife’s. I complained and they said they would fix it, they did not and three months later they still had not. After four months with them in possession of eight months money i terminated the DD. I received a letter from my bank telling me that i could not cancel a DD (yes, really) and so i closed the account A month later i had a final demand for uncollected poll tax and a fortnight later i was summonsed to court. I had a fucking field day. I turned up and showed the magistrate my poll tax demand, the various letters and my bank account. He was incandescent but mainly because his time was being wasted. I would have liked to see the council twat arrested for theft but sadly all that happened is he took early retirement when faced with allegations of incompetence in public office. It turned out about 25,000 of the homes in the borough had been similarly overcharged.
|
|
|
Post by dodgydave on Mar 9, 2023 14:12:43 GMT
No. Your Cameron one is just plain wrong. What else could they do apart from austerity? Austerity wasn't a "Tory policy". EU financial rules forced everybody into Austerity. The only argument you could have is the length of it. Unless you want to provide proof of any country that was affected by the financial crisis that didn't adopt austerity... good luck. Again, it is interesting that you don't think Blair allowing a massive debt bubble was a fault / error. It cost the country £1 trillion and a decade of austerity lol. Your posts have gone from sad to completely stupid. The last time this "massive debt bubble" came up around 2017, it was found and published that the debt "bubble" was at around the same level. The reason AIUI was that most of the debt was down to mortgage debt most of which continued to be paid. It did not cost the the country -- "It cost the country £1 trillion and a decade of austerity" -- that claim is ridiculous because both were caused by the INTERNATIONA FINANCIAL MELTDOWN that destroyed the Banks which had to be rescued in order to ensure that a recession didn't become a depression. Explain this graph then you biased fool hahahaha. You bias really knows no bounds. You lack any ability to get answers from independent sources, and seem to live in an echo chamber where you get all your information from one side. There was massive financial de-regulation in the years leading up the financial crisis, which caused a massive debt bubble in the UK, and led to soaring house prices because mortgages where handed out like sweets. You are talking utter shite to say it had nothing to do with Labour. Yes we all know it started in the US, but THE FACT is countries that had tighter control on personal debt where less affected by the financial crisis. How old are you, like 12? Anybody that claims they didn't notice how stupidly easy it was to get credit and mortgages pre-financial crisis is just a liar.
|
|