Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
Show ALL Forums  > UK forums  >      Home login  
 Jo van
Joined: 5/23/2009
Msg: 52
The Great DebatePage 5 of 8    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8)
Minimum Wage
Yes this was something that this government DID do good on, although it never really effected millions. Well Done Tony Blair on implementing this.

Don't forget that the same Tory supporting Industrialists were warning of the "mass unemployment" that this would cause, -similar to their current warnings about a "jobs tax"? It didn't happen.

Freedom of Information Act. (Which allowed the "Expenses scandal)
Hmmm, this is debatable, the Government does seem to flout this whenever it suits them, for example we will never ever know the truth about Dr Kelly as his Post Mortem was ordered to be destroyed. Other things will never be disclosed too, particularly information about the 2003 Illegal war in Iraq and dodgy dossiers.

There will always be "security stuff" which is exempted, and this may be abused by any government.
We have only recently learned that the "General Belgrano" was outside the 'exclusion zone', and steaming away from it, and British ships, when Maggie ordered it to be attacked. The "30 year Rule"

Abolition of Hereditary Peers.
Whereas that sounds good on paper, all that this Government has done instead has injected their own corrupt and unellected cronies in, instead, for example Lord Mandelson. That man is so corrupt he should be banned from politics. Why Labour have let him back into the fold yet again has to be one of the most biggest signs of hypocrisy I have ever seen. Quite Ironic when Gordon Brown is talking about Honesty and Integrity that Mandelson is sting right next to him

I'm not a "Mandy" fan myself, but he does seem to know what he's doing in the "dirty game of politics", so I can kind of understand why he's there, but I'd prefer he wasn't too.
Lets not forget that the Tories have just hired the "disgraced" Andy Coulson, of "News of the World" phone tapping fame, some say because of his contacts with Rupert Murdoch.
he's hardly "squeaky clean is he..?

Rescued the Banks after they spunked all OUR money on giving loans to bankrupt gypos and trailer trash in America. (Thus preventing a complete collapse)
And the bankers are still lording it up with Billions of pounds of Bonuses, yeah right, they have done nothing here. They let it happen are are STILL letting it happen. I understand what you are saying in perhaps the Bankers abused our Government's trust, however they have done NOTHING substantial to sort this mess out in the long term.

You're right it is still happening and it's a disgrace. Goldman Sachs have announced bonuses YTD of about £400,000 for every one of their employees (5,500 in the 'City')
Brown has said he will try to stop this, but I think he'll be up against it without the cooperation of the US Govt. (which is possible...?)
But this is the 'nub' of my argument, I simply don't trust the tories to attack the Banks or city traders, they are their traditional supporters and donors, they will not "bite the hand that feeds them"
But I think Labour can, and I hope they give it a good old chew!

Massive Improvement on NHS Performance.
Debatable, I have known the opposite to happen and disgraceful treatment of the elderly in hospitals.

There are exceptions, but when they came to power, waiting lists of two years were not unusual for some complaints. Credit where it's due.

Lowest Crime Figures since their peak during the last Tory period.
Incorrect.. In fact crime, particularly violent crime is very high at the moment.

I know that this is the perception, and "fear of crime" is at an all time high, thanks mainly to the media. Nothing sells better than "sensational" stories, but the figures show a continual reduction under Labour.

The dramatic 7% fall in crime last year means that the much-predicted "credit crunch crime wave" has so far failed to materialise. It is remarkable that after 18 months of the longest and deepest recession seen in England and Wales the underlying crime rate has continued to fall. This may be due to a lower than expected rise in unemployment but it also may reflect a longer-term change in the nature of crime itself.

The latest figures confirm that since 1995 – before Tony Blair was elected prime minister – England and Wales have been experiencing the longest sustained fall in crime since the beginning of the 20th century. //New Home Office research published today offered a mundane explanation for why serious "acquisitive crime" – burglaries, car break-ins and robberies – has fallen by half since 1995 .

Or just google crime figures.

I once again reiterate that no man or woman of sensibility will vote Labour in the upcoming election. Britain is Broken, we need a Leader who will mend Britain for the future and make it Great once again. That will never happen under a Labour Government.

Dave has stopped using the phrase "broken Britain, " as focus groups have revealed it to be unpopular, and viewed as "unpatriotic" and "talks-down" the country,
in other words too negative.
We all only get one vote, so that's your prerogative.
Personally, I think that only Labour can "fix" the scandalous greed which caused the recession, and now they have public backing for taking the banks to task. They should be more radical. Like I said, if we confiscated the bonuses, and assets of the billionaires who caused this, we wouldn't all be in the shit for the next 'n' years trying to pay back the money we had to borrow to keep them afloat.
But my views are unashamedly "Old Labour"
I am soooooo old
Joined: 8/18/2009
Msg: 53
view profile
The Great Debate
Posted: 4/23/2010 3:03:39 PM
I watched the 1st one and I was really surprised, I thought Clegg was a breathe of fresh air, now a week on, he's still better in front of the camera, but I've seen some of the policies and not convinced.

Cameron, not keen on..think it might be because of Blair, but they have better policies

Brown.... I've given up with him and what they are on with

but what are my options... I'll think I'll get ready for another election and run as a independent
 Forrest Grump
Joined: 6/2/2007
Msg: 54
view profile
The Great Debate
Posted: 4/23/2010 3:22:05 PM
Msg 98

<div class="quote">You accept that an agreement has to be reached between the state and the EU before that state can leave,

No I didn’t.

<div class="quote">and you have also stated that the period of two years will be extended until that agreement has been reached.

No I didn’t.

See my comments to Article 50 (3) in Msg 73.

<div class="quote">So why is there a need for an 'agreement'? If you wish to leave an organisation, you just leave!

If I were to walk out on my employers on Monday, I would be in Breach of Contract.
If I handed in the required notice I would be fulfilling my part of my Terms of Contract.

Most ‘organisations’ have certain rules/restrictions. You either live with the consequences or not join the organisation. The EU is no exception to the rule. Its members agree to the rules.

<div class="quote">You appear to have ignored my earlier question - why can't a state leave the EU without that agreement?

It can, but it would seem easier if the state and the EU could reach agreement for the future. Perhaps that is why Article 50 (2) states, “taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union.”

Are you in a position to provide a link, or answer the points raised in Msg 97?
 Jo van
Joined: 5/23/2009
Msg: 55
The Great Debate
Posted: 4/27/2010 3:38:04 AM

He said "we need to get back to where we used to be, where we didn't have immigration questions at public meetings, we weren't asked about it on the street, when you knocked on a door, nobody raised it. Why? Because the British public was happy with the levels of immigration."
When was that then DAVE ....??
Before Enoch Powell?
Before the National Front?
Before the B ritish Nazi Party?

Yes, obviously!

Perhaps you could enlighten us as to how that could be achieved...?
There will always be racists, who object to seeing different shades of skin when they go out.
Those people will always be angry, I think that's their "just desserts", and I hope it gives them ulcers!
We live in a diverse society, there is no way to go back.
Cameron was talking shyte! Those times have never existed! Certainly not in his lifetime!

Minimum Wage: an absolute disaster from the point of view of those at the lower end of the income scale. It means that they have no bargaining power - an employer just sticks to the MW knowing that someone will work for it.

So you're saying that this is a Good thing for employers..?
So why did so many employers oppose it when it came in..?
Why did they warn about "mass unemployment" that this would cause..?
If this works to the advantage of employers, why would the tories, (and you) object to it...?

Freedom of Information Act: a potentially wonderful idea.......

I agree!

Abolition of Hereditary Peers: allowing more Labour cronies in! If this act was so good, why was Brown bleating about reform of the HOL in the Debate?

Because he wants to go further, and make it an elected chamber. This was just a first step, and in the right direction. The HOL., is an anachronism, a relic of our feudal system. There are also Tory "cronies" there, like Lord Ashdcroft, who accepted his peerage with the commitment that he would become a UK resident, some 10 years later, he's still not! Labour is finally dismantling this old system, it takes time, (apparently) I would like to see more radical progress on this. It just seems like an extra, unnecessary layer of beaurocracy to me, which slows down legislation, and adds massively to the costs and time involved. Dump it IMO

Rescued the Banks after they spunked all OUR money .....: no, it was THEIR money at the time.

No it was the savings of the people who banked with them, not "Their money", Maggie's deregulation allowed the banks to enter the money markets, and to gamble with deposits. They took those deposits, and bought CDO's and CDS's from companies like Lehman, and GS. - Seemed like a good idea at the time, with a 13% yield, what could possibly go wrong...?

Massive Improvement on NHS Performance: not across the board.

So that's a begrudging "Yes" then!

Lowest Crime Figures since their peak during the last Tory period: only if you either believe the absolute tosh contained in the BCS

No, the UK Statistics Authority, who have written to Chris Grayling asking him to withdraw "misleading" information that the Tories are circulating:

The Conservatives are embroiled in a political row after the UK's head of statistics accused the party of misleading the public over violent crime.

The row began when Tories sent out leaflets in constituencies giving what police called an "extremely misleading" impression. The leaflet produced by the office of Mark Lancaster, MP for Milton Keynes North East, claimed that violent attacks had increased in the constituency by 236%, from 1,790 to 6,015 a year, since 1999.

Nikki Ross, the local police commander, told the Milton Keynes Citizen that the claim was "extremely misleading" because ­"everything from public order offences to harassment to allowing a dog to be out of control in a public place" was classed as violent crime. "The actual number of people who were victims of serious violence was 81," Ross said.
It seems that nothing's beneath them in their attempts to get elected!
 Jo van
Joined: 5/23/2009
Msg: 56
The Great Debate
Posted: 4/28/2010 2:39:24 AM
Who mentioned ‘race’?
Not ONE of the leaders made any racist comments, nor did they raise the issue of ‘race’ with regard to immigration.
Mentioning ‘race’ with regard to immigration is used by some to stifle the debate.

I mentioned them, because Cameron had claimed:

"we need to get back to where we used to be, where we didn't have immigration questions at public meetings, we weren't asked about it on the street, when you knocked on a door, nobody raised it. Why? Because the British public was happy with the levels of immigration."

There has never been a time when "nobody raised it."
Look up the word "Nobody". Certainly not in the last 60 years. There have been many organisation, since the Brown Shirts, which base their policy on Race, like the NF/BNP, So Cameron was talking shyte.
There will always be dimwits and racists, who look at a person, and decide "they don't belong here". And there probably always will be such 'unfortunates'..

“Minimum Wage: an absolute disaster from the point of view of those at the lower end of the income scale. It means that they have no bargaining power - an employer just sticks to the MW knowing that someone will work for it.”

And before the NMW , employers were able to offer much less , "knowing that someone will work for it.”
How has the NMW reduced the employees "bargaining power"?
And why would the Tories object to that?
If it works to the employers advantage, isn't that what they want?
The argument seems idiotic, have you any supporting evidence?

Labour has been in power for 13 years…….wasn’t that long enough for them to have done that?

The way our Parliament is set up, that would require the Lords voting for their own abolition. I can't see that happening!

They have made a start, and got rid of the hereditary scroungers, who were paid, but seldom attended. I would like to see it done more quickly, apparently, it's not that easy...

Banks use those funds to invest elsewhere, and pay interest in return.

If the banks had been allowed to fail, all savers would have lost their money. The banks used to make their money from the difference between the lending rate and savings rate.
They were allowed to gamble the deposits. That needs changing back.

Do NOT misrepresent me!!

At no point have I stated that there has been a massive improvement on NHS performance since Labour came to power.

I said there had been massive improvements (A fact!) you said "not across the board"
Therefore you agree, but with 'qualifications/exceptions'.

Actually, it’s the UK Statistics Authority that is doing the misleading:

Only if you can't read!
The piece you quote is a blog, simply the ill informed opinion of someone who hasn't looked into this at all! written by someone who goes on to say:

UPDATE: A number of commenters point out that the recording procedures applied only to the police statistics, which I was not aware of so thank you.

Prior to 2002, violent crimes were reported only if the police decided that they were violent. Presumably there were complaints that cases weren't being treated seriously, SO, after 2002, any crime which the public reported as "violent" is now statistically recorded as "violent crime", this can include being pushed, threatened, or dangerous dogs, in fact anything the complainant views as violence or threat of violence.

The Conservatives are embroiled in a political row after the UK's head of statistics accused the party of misleading the public over violent crime.

The row began when Tories sent out leaflets in constituencies giving what police called an "extremely misleading" impression. The leaflet produced by the office of Mark Lancaster, MP for Milton Keynes North East, claimed that violent attacks had increased in the constituency by 236%, from 1,790 to 6,015 a year, since 1999.

Nikki Ross, the local police commander, told the Milton Keynes Citizen that the claim was "extremely misleading" because ­"everything from public order offences to harassment to allowing a dog to be out of control in a public place" was classed as violent crime. "The actual number of people who were victims of serious violence was 81," Ross said.

This was in a national newspaper, subject to the libel laws of publishing, not some on-line blogger. Please try to only quote credible sources, otherwise your "facts" become pure "fiction"
Joined: 1/17/2009
Msg: 57
view profile
The Great Debate
Posted: 4/28/2010 10:25:23 AM
well that it, gordon the clowns ruined labours chances all on his own

if it wasnt bad enough the way he spoke about his aide sue, then dare say about a member of the public and call them a bigot because he was not expecting nor indeed answer her question. ive watched the radio 2 clip where he has his head in his hands and he just knew he might as well ring the removal company ready for next week

i felt sorry for gilian duffy, one for being called a bigot then having a knock at the door and seeing that idiot wanting a cuppa and chat, do so wished she got the bass broom out nora batty style and told him to pee off

i bet clegg and cameron cannot wait for tomorrow night and sure it will be brought up after this.

edit, watch all the clips lightstar and wonder how the bloke should be anywhere near no10
 Forrest Grump
Joined: 6/2/2007
Msg: 59
view profile
The Great Debate
Posted: 4/28/2010 2:55:32 PM
Zeegary Msg 113

It's quite hard to debate any topic when the person you are debating with either cannot read what has been written or chooses to ignore it and comment on what they think or hope you might have said.

I do so agree.

Are you referring to your inaccurate statements in Msg 98?
Joined: 1/17/2009
Msg: 61
view profile
The Great Debate
Posted: 4/28/2010 3:00:37 PM
She asked a question about how he was going to get us out of debt and then interrupted him before she heard any answer.

like the politicians never do that annie dont forget she was picked out by the local labour party aide to meet him. i would laugh again but do find it disgusting watching it on tv on how he the leader of the country just wanted to get out of spending any time with his lifelong supporter [she said herself, she voted labour all her life and so did her dad].

but the main question should be, if brown had not been recorded calling her a bigot would he of said ..... i will give her a ring and pop round to explain myself a bit better? think you and i and most of the country know he would not off.

i myself was a labour voter back in 97 now seeing how they have just shat on their supporters from a great height, and still remember the lies of the original manifesto and the wars will never vote for them again. the only reason why they might sneak back in is because of the system and the amount of people who think my family have always voted labour brigade.

it will not be only clegg and cameron laughing as for those in the left wing of politics, the unions do not like brown and want him removed also.
 Forrest Grump
Joined: 6/2/2007
Msg: 62
view profile
The Great Debate
Posted: 4/28/2010 4:36:33 PM
My Msg 78

To my mind this means either the member state agrees to the withdrawal agreement, or, after 2 years the member state can ‘opt out’ if they so wish by not agreeing to extend this period.

Your Msg 98

You accept that an agreement has to be reached between the state and the EU before that state can leave,

No I didn't. See above.

Your Msg 98

and you have also stated that the period of two years will be extended until that agreement has been reached

No I didn't. I pointed out that Article 50 (3) states

The period can be extended " with the agreement of the Member State concerned" .

Again see my comments in Msg 78.

I would point out that there is no mention in Section (3) of "until an agreement can be reached".
 Jo van
Joined: 5/23/2009
Msg: 63
The Great Debate
Posted: 4/29/2010 4:06:47 PM
Cameron simply refused to talk about his tax breaks for the very wealthy with his inheritance tax giveaway!
I wonder why he doesn't want to talk about it, and I haven't heard anyone here trying to defend it either!
He was pressed on his proposed 3% Corporation Tax reduction, and he said, "we feel it's important that companies keep more of their profits to re-invest"
But that's bollux!
If they "invested" ALL their profits, they would pay no Corporation Tax!
As anyone who's run a company knows, any re-investment, whether it's capital investment, or R+D, is tax deductable! Corporation Tax is only paid on profits after all other costs and investments have been taken out
i don't think Dave really understands.

Nice to hear them all talking about separating "retail Banks" from investment banks though, including Cameron! So much for "less regulation" eh?
Cameron also said he'd do something about their "excessive pay"!
I don't think he's thought that through,
that'll hit the tory party's funding!

I thought Gordon was much better today, he seemed quite Prime-Ministerial

 Jo van
Joined: 5/23/2009
Msg: 68
The Great Debate
Posted: 4/30/2010 1:53:27 AM

I'll do more than defend it; 'inheritance tax' (death duties) should be abolished completely! Why, when someone dies, should part of their assets be given to the state???? Grave robbing? What possible moral justification is there for it?


There is "No" moral justification for it ..

It is a tax on assets that have already had tax paid on them at source,

He found that just 189,000 families own two-thirds of the UK’s 60 million acres, of which nearly three-quarters is owned by the top 40,000. The biggest individual landowner turned out to be the Duke of Buccleuch with 277,000 acres, and the wealthiest was the Duke of Westminster with 140,000 acres, including 100 acres in London’s Mayfair – which alone, in 2001, was valued at £3.35 billion – as well as 200 acres in Belgravia, its even more expensive neighbour. Land owned and controlled by Britain’s Royal Family, comprising the Crown Estates, the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster, and private land, amounted to some 677,000 acres. Meanwhile, Britain’s 16.8 million homeowners accounted for barely 4 per cent of the land
70% of the land in this country is owned by 1% of the population.
50% of the land has been in the same families for up to 1000 years.
We still live in a largely feudal society, tory supporters talk about hard work and merit, that's just a nonsense. None of this land is owned on merit or hard work... just inheritance.
And most of it was given by various monarchs, for various 'services', some good, some not so good!
IMO there needs to be some big changes in the distribution of wealth, or we will never achieve anything like a peaceful, meritocratic society.
People are not stupid, this information is out there, and they will figure it out for themselves. Land in this country has had an artificially high value, because of the above.
We only 'occupy' 7% of the land. There is plenty of room.
What are the chances of young people getting on the 'housing ladder' today..?
The end result is younger people feel demoralised and uninspired, they feel "what's the point"..? They feel the system is weighted against them. I agree. People will only work hard if there is something to work for.
Tinkering around the edges isn't going to change anything, there needs to be a logical reassessment of our 'old' values and customs. I think things need to change.
Conservatives want to"conserve" our old ways and customs, for no other reason than that's how they've always been. Others (as above) agree, they think we "owe" it to our ancestors to perpetuate those systems they "fought for", I think this is a deluded ideology, I think we "owe" it to the living, to give them the best chance, and the fairest society. The notion that all wealth is "hard earned" is a myth.
Like many other myths, you can believe it if you like.
I don't.
Joined: 1/17/2009
Msg: 71
view profile
The Great Debate
Posted: 4/30/2010 11:03:22 AM
its nice to know the postal vote system is working ..... not!

quite surprised the media have not picked up this a bit more.
 Jo van
Joined: 5/23/2009
Msg: 72
The Great Debate
Posted: 4/30/2010 12:21:47 PM

You have not provided a justification, you have provided an explaination. You are unable or unwilling to provide a moral justification.

If there is a moral justification then surely there should be no limit at which inheritance tax kicks in.

I'm assuming you meant me...?
It's really more a question of logic, IMO, and it's illogical that 1% should own 70% of the land.
Is merit a form of morality?
Many of those estates were "won" centuries ago by what we would consider (by today's standards) very immoral acts. Surely 'meritocracy' is more preferable to 'aristocracy'?
Otherwise we always stay the same.
You may be right about all inheritance, but I think the current figures are fine, don't forget they can be doubled by couples, so Cameron's proposals are really £2Million, Vs. the current £650,000.

You should profit from the labours of your parents if they want you to. How many parents leave their children out of their wills and leave their estate to the state. Not very many, because it is an unnatural thing to do.

We all "profit" from the "labours of our parents", IF they improved things generally.
My generation "profited" massively from the benefits of the NHS and the welfare state, the raising of the school age, the improvements in education, infrastructure, social housing, roads, communications, scientific advances. We all profit from the efforts of the previous generation.
My generation "profited" from the improvements in working conditions that the trade unions achieved.
I think we were all very fortunate to live in this half of the world, where we don't die from dirty water, or starve through food shortages. To listen to some people moaning about how bad it is here, just makes me wonder how they'd cope if things were rally bad.

" it is an unnatural thing to do." You need to define "natural". Isn't it more "natural" for the strongest to just take the property, and kill the owners? That's how many got it
Do we live a "natural" existence?
Is medicine "natural"
Are our society's structures and institutions "natural"
Is monogamy "natural"

It's the usual politics of envy coming from the left.

It's the "politics of logic and merit", actually, I'm very happy being myself, and don't envy anyone else. I've been very lucky.
I simply happen to believe that personal wealth will be useless, if the whole environment becomes "dangerous". I don't think individuals can "insulate" themselves with money, from a world that degenerates around them. I think eventually people will realise that.
It's just my view, I don't claim to be right.

' Chuck another Titian into the furnace, we've got to heat this multi-cultural drop in centre'

Wouldn't an English artist like Turner, or Constable, be more appropriate....?
 Jo van
Joined: 5/23/2009
Msg: 74
The Great Debate
Posted: 5/1/2010 2:48:06 AM

IHT has NOTHING to do with ownership of the land.

And ownership of the land has nothing to do with merit or hard work!

The other poster was right - none of those who advocate IHT have been able to justify it.

And none of those who oppose it, have been able to justify 70% of the land being owned by 1% of the population, and that same 1% having owned it for centuries.
Nor have you attempted to... funny that.

Another poster mentioned the 'politics of envy' with regard to your posts, and he has a point.

"Envy" is a feeling, an 'emotion' if you like,
it is impossible for you, or he, to know what I am feeling,
it also strays dangerously close to 'addressing the poster, not the post'...
But FYI: I am not envious of the short-assed, big nosed, balding interbred, who is heir to the throne, who, despite having the best educations lavished on him, was barely able to get 'O' levels. Everything I have is through my own hard work and efforts, I am happy to compete, I am confident in my own ability.
& I am not envious of his sons, my sons know who their Father is.
And my Sons know that their Mother wasn't a slag,
who slept with half the England rugby team.
I think that that sort of inherited wealth is counter-productive; those that have it no longer contribute, or face the challenges of life, or have the satisfaction of success on merit. Those who don't have it, as I said earlier, may feel that there is little point in trying hard, because the 'odds' are stacked against them.
And as I said, this country has the highest land prices in the world because very little of the land is actually available.

Can you please explain how a tax which is only to be paid by the very wealthy can be described as a 'tax giveaway'?

 Jo van
Joined: 5/23/2009
Msg: 77
The Great Debate
Posted: 5/1/2010 5:32:03 AM


I did! and you said:

That is a disgusting and highly offensive comment..

Make up your mind....

in order to maintain the wealth, work is required..

Yes, lots of work, and they get other people to do it!

Nonsense, some of us have worked very hard for our ownership, fast forward to the 21st century one now has to pay for land..

We all live on just 7% of the land.
70% never becomes available, which artificially inflates the price in favour of landlords.
It also means that younger people have been 'priced out of the market'.
So yes, "some of us do work hard", but far too many don't have to, and we effectively 'carry' them. But not in some modest manner, in ridiculous, excessive opulence.
Like I said, I think there should be some fundamental changes, but people are frightened of change.
IMO that's because they lack confidence in their own abilities, they doubt that they could compete on a 'level playing field', and left to their own abilities, they would fail.
If you look at things objectively, if it weren't for historical traditions being perpetuated, we certainly wouldn't choose to have the country divided in such an unequal way.
It just makes no sense.
The current IHT threshold is a joint amount of £650,000.
The tories plan to raise this to £2 million.

The politics of inheritance tax were always a bit odd. This tax bites on only about 6% of estates and wealthy people with cunning accountants often find ways of avoiding it anyway. It became an issue because the long boom in house prices dragged more people into the net and because of a clamour in elements of the press which aped the "death to the death tax" campaigns in the US. When the deficit is so huge and the recession has been so deep, there is little to be said now for a generous tax cut for the tiny minority who are lucky enough to inherit considerable wealth.

For a family expecting to be bequeathed more than £2m, this Tory tax cut will be worth an extra £520,000. For the vast majority of families, it will be worth the sum total of zilch, nada and nothing at all.

The Conservatives try not to talk about it much these days. It is Gordon Brown who draws repeated attention to their promise.

The issue provided him with an excellent couple of paragraphs in the opening debate on the Queen's Speech. The prime minister looked across at the Tory leader and noted: "The typical constituency will have only five people who will benefit. The biggest group of beneficiaries will be in one area of the country – Kensington and Chelsea, which, of course, includes Notting Hill."

Then he delivered his punchline: "That must be the only tax change in history where the people proposing it – the leader of the opposition and the shadow chancellor – will know by name almost all of the potential beneficiaries."

Gordon made a joke!
 Jo van
Joined: 5/23/2009
Msg: 79
The Great Debate
Posted: 5/1/2010 6:42:14 AM

It is illogical because wealth creating assets might have to be sold pay for to the tax and could pass into less capable hands.

And it's "logical" that the offspring will be "capable"
Are you familiar with Jamie Blandford?

Charles James Spencer-Churchill, Marquess of Blandford
Lord Blandford spent a month in prison in 1995 for forging prescriptions.[2] In September 2007 he was jailed for six months for two counts of dangerous driving and one charge of criminal damage following a 'road rage' attack on another motorist's car.[3] At the same time he also received a three-and-a-half year driving ban.

Capable? Of what...?
Couldn't "Survival of the fittest" be described as "more natural" than our current system?
As I said in an earlier post, I think the system we've evolved/inherited is fatally flawed. The ultimate goal being to do as little as possible, for as much as possible. The current view of success, is those who do nothing, but are massively wealthy. That is the "aspiration" of our society, and that aspiration "trickles down", (IMO) and is why we have an "entitlement" culture at the bottom. It's 'subliminal'.

You're quite right. I should have chosen one of the many BRITISH artists that was able to produce great works due to the patronage of the wealthy.

But patronage is not necessary, neither is it the inspiration for, great art, many great artist died impoverished. Money is not the only driving mechanism, people strive to excel even when completely isolated. For many, the only competition, or critic is themselves. For many, their only reward is a 'personal best'. Some people like the challenge. I think we need more of that 'work ethic', and less 'patronage'.
 Jo van
Joined: 5/23/2009
Msg: 81
The Great Debate
Posted: 5/1/2010 8:46:41 AM

I couldn't disagree with you more! It's one hell of a get out to claim it's subliminal! I don't believe this attitude exists at any level of consciousness.

And you're perfectly entitled to disagree, I made it clear that this was JMO.
But I still maintain that if people see others existing on entitlement (Quite literally in their case!) they may well think; "sod this, I'm not working either" And you can't prove me wrong!

If so, then why didn't the entitlement culture be at it's peak when the 1% owned much more than 70% of the land?

Well obviously we have only had a welfare state for about half a century, and before that the Lord of the manor would exact all manner of violent retribution on those of his unfortunate subjects who he felt weren't working as hard as they could.
We still live with the relics of that feudal system in place.
The Duke of Westminster is still the richest native of this country, how much hard work did he do for his 300 acres of central London.. valued at what...£3.5 Billion in 2003?
How much rent do the people who live/trade in those locations pay him? And if we buy anything from those people, or stay in those hotels, we are paying him too, those rental charges are in the price of everything. Tenant farmers pay rent too, and that's in the price of our food. We all work for them...
Where I live it's the Duke of Marlborough, he owns most of the farmland in between Woodstock and Witney. My son lives in a village just to the north of Oxford, and presumably he once owned much of that land too, because they still have to get his approval for any alterations, because it's in the deeds!
50% of all the land in this country is "unregistered" at the Land Registry, because it's never changed hands in 1000 years!
And that's certainly not because they're "more capable"!
You seldom hear about the 'achievements' of the Aristocracy in the media....
Because there are none!
I can't see any logic in this system.

 Jo van
Joined: 5/23/2009
Msg: 83
The Great Debate
Posted: 5/1/2010 10:53:22 AM

In my opinion this view of British history owes more to the fantasies of Sir Walter Scott than fact. My mother was alive before the introduction of the welfare state. She has yet to tell me of being harrassed at the hands of beastly Barons and evil Earls.

Well what about the Scottish and Irish Land clearances?
(- a bit before your Mum I hope! )
That resulted in the Crofters Act of 1886.
That's not all that long ago.

I don't believe that achievement necessarily has to be in immediate quantifiable material terms.

Agreed, the point I was making was in response to your bit about "Less capable hands", and the point I was trying to make was that there's really no "meritocracy" in the "aristocracy". And there's a very strong possibility that the "wealth creating assets" you spoke of, would fall into the hands of the "more capable"
There may have been once, but I've seen no evidence that they are either "natural leaders" or "high achievers", and that's despite having had the benefits of the best health and education that money can buy. (As in Jamie Blandford's case, and I'm not sure his dad can 'disinherit him' without an Act of Parliament...?)
I'll concede that they often excel in fields, which by their nature are the province of the wealthy (mainly) like polo, yachting, motor racing, showjumping, exploring etc., but I still feel that despite all their advantages, their actual achievements are scarce. And their participation is facilitated by their lack of any obligation towards constructive, necessary work, in other words, because they're bored...
 Jo van
Joined: 5/23/2009
Msg: 85
The Great Debate
Posted: 5/1/2010 12:12:19 PM

One group of people in a country believe that another group of people in that country have obtained their wealth unfairly and through little actual work. Furthermore they believe that these people are too insular with their wealth; keeping it amongst themselves. They decide to forcibly take that wealth and give it to the state.

Socialism...........or National Socialism?

Don't knock it 'til you've tried it...!

Where did I say "forcibly take it"...?
We're only talking about leaving the inheritance tax where it is now!
Not 'revolution' FFS!

 Jo van
Joined: 5/23/2009
Msg: 87
The Great Debate
Posted: 5/2/2010 8:14:34 AM
The failure for some to see that many have worked and not inherited wealth, although their wealth will be inherited, shows the ignorance that class hatred brings with it and the bigoted views of those who have nothing, and do not wish to see others with anything that they will never have ..

Get over it ..

Jumping to conclusions is not the best form of exercise!

Without giving you personal details, in response to a personal attack,
-lets just say that my Dad died before the threshold was raised.
And the above view is both ignorant of the facts, and totally incorrect.
I have paid higher rate taxes for most of my working life, and never resented it,
I was paying 60% in the eighties, and it never bothered me, I still had plenty left.

Tony Benn is a hero of mine, and he renounced his inherited peerage to stand as a democratically elected MP.
It is not only "poor people" who object to unfair systems,
and not all "rich people" vote tory.
That conclusion just shows a narrow minded, blinkered view of the world.
Try to stick to facts rather than making sweeping generalisations about things which you have absolutely no knowledge of.
Joined: 1/17/2009
Msg: 88
view profile
The Great Debate
Posted: 5/2/2010 5:35:23 PM
another kick in the bollocks for brown

The next government must move urgently to axe the planned National Insurance hike and outline plans to reduce the UK's deficit or risk a recession relapse, a business group has warned.

In a down a 90 day challenge laid down to the incoming government, the British Chambers of Commerce (BCC) set out a 12-step plan to promote business growth and economic recovery after the General Election.

It said Labour's planned rise in employer National Insurance contributions in 2011 was a "tax on jobs" and must be cancelled in full, alongside other proposals including freezing public sector pay, developing a radical plan to speed-up next generation broadband and introducing a moratorium on any new employment law before 2014.

David Frost, director general of the BCC, said: "During the first 90 days after an election, an incoming government must make concrete proposals to reduce red tape and tax burdens on business; review how to move the economy away from an over-reliance on consumption and the public sector; and commit to improving Britain's energy, transport and digital infrastructure."

He added: "We will be judging the performance of the next government against its delivery of a clear plan for business.

"Putting business growth at the very core of a new administration's thinking is fundamental to returning our economy to health quickly and for the long-term."

Recent output figures for the economy showed the fragility of the UK recovery, with gross domestic product (GDP) growing by a weaker-than-expected 0.2% in the first quarter of 2010.

The GDP estimate added to economic fears, coming as unemployment data also showed joblessness rising to a 16-year high of 2.5 million.

Public borrowing for the year to the end of March came in lower than the Government's original grim forecasts, at £163.4 billion versus a Budget prediction of £167 billion.

But the figure was still the worst on record and confirmed the scale of the challenge faced in reducing the deficit to a manageable level.
 Jo van
Joined: 5/23/2009
Msg: 90
The Great Debate
Posted: 5/3/2010 2:26:58 PM
I watched a program earlier on Ch 4, and it seems the little embarrassment that Brown had, while on 'walkabout', could never happen to Cameron;
Everywhere he went, Tory supporters, and people from Central Office were bussed in to make sure the press only saw happy smiling people!
There were no 'ordinary members of the public allowed anywhere near him,
the reporter was asking everyone how they knew Cameron was visiting, and every single one was from Tory Central Office, or the Local Conservative Club!
The whole thing was 'stage-managed' and a complete sham.
Shame he seems to think the British public is so stupid, and that this wouldn't come out!

Joined: 1/17/2009
Msg: 91
view profile
The Great Debate
Posted: 5/3/2010 2:37:58 PM

I watched a program earlier on Ch 4, and it seems the little embarrassment that Brown had, while on 'walkabout', could never happen to Cameron;

ahhh you mean the dear old life long labour supporter who was pushed to the front by a labour aide?

looking forward to next friday .....

brown on the phone to pickfords, im moving house can you arrange a few wagons?

errrrr mr brown, 10 downing street? no worries sir that was booked ages ago by a mr mandleson and blair

 Jo van
Joined: 5/23/2009
Msg: 92
The Great Debate
Posted: 5/3/2010 3:41:42 PM

so the other poster was (as do often happens) wrong to claim that the raising of the threshold was a tax break for the very wealthy.

Ok sorry, I'll rephrase that: A Tax Giveaway to the most wealthy


Like the ones you made on Dave and foxhunting?

Yes facts exactly like those , you've got it

 Forrest Grump
Joined: 6/2/2007
Msg: 95
view profile
The Great Debate
Posted: 1/18/2011 1:03:32 PM
Sorry about the delay in replying. but I need to clarify certain points.

Anniesea Msg132

3. The two-year period may be extended if and ONLY IF both the Council (the party of the first part) and the Member State (the party of the second part) agree.

4. After two years, if the Member State does not agree with the Council to extend the period and there is no withdrawal agreement in place, the Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question.

Spot on. At last someone who understands PLAIN ENGLISH.

unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned,unanimously decides to extend this period.

Means exactly what is says on the tin….
Show ALL Forums  > UK forums  >