Tonight's seven~horse TV debate. Place your bets.

[turbobloke]

Mermaid said:

rover 623gsi said:

I think the Lib Dems ought to be pushing the line that they will work with whoever is the largest party and that a vote for them means a curb on the excessive spending of Labour or a curb on the excessive cuts of the Tories. Clegg alluded to this briefly last night but I think they should go all out and say that they are the safe pair of hands will prevent extreme policies.

That came across well, and needs to be pushed.

Clegg has said it for so long now he must be talking in his sleep, last night not so much but that's a one-off. Where are they now in terms of voting intentions, how far below the green loonies are they? LibDems have been dead weight, they don't know when to encourage and when to do the moderator thing.

Clegg needs to show people some fresh, relevant and credible ideas, not act the part of a political railway buffer to the two locomotive parties.

[VolvoT5]

I watched the whole thing (I know, how sad). I have to say I thought having Leanne Wood and Nicola Sturgeon on was a waste of time, given most of us can't vote for either. The green lady was disappointingly ineffective at getting her points across, although I have some sympathy for the views she holds. Their previous leader was much more effective.

Cameron had a deliberate tactic not to get involved in the scrap, which worked to some extent but did make him seem disinterested at times. He was the best leader by far at delivering the introductory and closing speeches though. - Lots of shine but not much substances.

Miliband - reverse of Cameron really. He got stuck in and was at his best when actively debating with the others. However he was very wooden in the opening/closing speech. Thought he did quite well overall, but that doesn't seem to be the general consensus this morning in the news?

Nick Clegg - who cares - biggest liar of the lot and he will be lucky to hold his seat at the election anyway.

[VolvoT5]

Also, I don't agree with UKIP/Farage but I find it quite distasteful the way everyone ganged up to attack him on a personal level, rather than the facts and argument he was presenting. I suspect this is because a lot of what he says is true, however non "PC" it may be to say so.

[anonymous-user]

Miliband was the most mocked. His zero hours contract diatribe was rubbished by Cameron (70 Labour MPs employ zero hours) & Welsh lady highlighted that labour voted against its abolition there. Add his apology about screwing up the economy last time he had a bad night at the office..

[RYH64E]

turbobloke said:

It's what you can afford, and post-Labour we can't afford every deserving cause to be funded as deservedly as we would wish, or as would have been possible without Brown's disastrous return to true Labour form in 2001/2.

You're missing the point, it isn't what you can afford, and it isn't what the country can currently afford, it's what the less well off in society think that the country could afford if the 'rich' were taxed to death to pay for it all. And even if the country still can't afford it they can always borrow more to fill the gap, it's not real money to some people.

Labour's slogan should be 'Vote Labour for more free stuff paid for by the rich', and unfortunately there's enough 'not rich' people out there to make it happen.

[bitchstewie]

I don't see this obviously being discussed anywhere else - I know there has been a bit of scaremongering but it does seem if the predictions are accurate that the SNP are essentially going to be the third biggest party in the Commons after the election.

If that happens and neither Labour or the Conservatives have a clear majority, just how fked are we?

[andy-xr]

I'm not sure who put Anne Robinsons younger sister as presenter on the telly last night, but that's by the by

Milliband - both me and the Mrs are convinced he's missed a career opportunity. Instead of politics he should be the voiceover guy in trips, claims and non fault TV adverts, he seems better suited to PPI claims marketing than anything. I remember seeing a cartoon that said something about 'he's come to fix something but I'm not sure what' - partly his spleech issue and partly he cant really get over what it is that he seems to want to sort out. There's no real clarity from Labour

Clegg - seemed less rehearsed, not as good as last time around, but he had Brown fairly in his sights and took him apart really nicely. I dont think he had the same opportunity, and they look to be trying to work out if it's better to show an independent LibDem party or a cuddled up with another party party.

Cameron - sensible, steady stuff, bit wavey here and there but rounded up nicely.

Welsh/Green/Scots people - talked sense but had little scale

Farage - The UK isnt ready for this incarnation of UKIP, it needs a bit more smoothing out, a bit more polish and a bit more thought. It's a shame, as I was thinking of voting UKIP, partly in protest, partly in belief, but I dont want someone to fly to Berlin and tell them to go get fked. Literally, I think he would. Then he'd lock the doors, which isnt the right type of set up, just way way too revolutionary and he showed that a lot last night. I think in maybe 10 years they'll make some good headway once they've got a bit more experience and can get some handle on how to actually run a country and not a night out in Barnsley.

Edited by andy-xr on Friday 3rd April 12:34

Edited by andy-xr on Friday 3rd April 12:54

[irocfan]

it did amuse me when all the lefties were bleating "we don't want austerity" (and on QT afterwards)... I'm surprised that CMD or Faraaaage (or even smeggy) didn't actually reposnd with "tell you what no-one actually WANTS austerity it's just that with the st state the country was left in after the last bunch of pricks we've got no fking choice in the matter."

[turbobloke]

RYH64E said:

turbobloke said:

It's what you can afford, and post-Labour we can't afford every deserving cause to be funded as deservedly as we would wish, or as would have been possible without Brown's disastrous return to true Labour form in 2001/2.

You're missing the point, it isn't what you can afford, and it isn't what the country can currently afford, it's what the less well off in society think that the country could afford if the 'rich' were taxed to death to pay for it all.

That's a different point (perception as opposed to reality).

To get back to the real point, and as I'm pretty sure you appreciate, it won't work because wealthy people and companies don't have to pay taxes here, and because if they did, spending mansion taxes and banker bonus taxes multiple times won't do much - as Miliband knows, we know and as more people than you give credit to will know also.

Remember the infamous poll: Labour supporters want to tax the rich at higher rates even when told it won't work as intended to generate more tax-take. They know well enough, they just want to blame Thatcher and everyone else doing better than them for their own bad decisions and any residual personal inadequacy.

RYH64E said:

And even if the country still can't afford it they can always borrow more to fill the gap, it's not real money to some people.

Yes and we'll end up back where we were in 2010. If all you do is all you've ever done...

RYH64E said:

Labour's slogan should be 'Vote Labour for more free stuff paid for by the rich', and unfortunately there's enough 'not rich' people out there to make it happen.

As above, when looking at perception and reality, somehow I knew we would agree there

[MGJohn]

968 said:

Yes, they were, so from inception the NHS required immigrants to ensure it ran effectively. Given that the whole health economy and population has increased massively from that time, the reliance on immigrants has continued. The previous poster is not reflecting reality or indeed what actually happened with the NHS from the start.

"To ensure" you say. More like typical lazy, poor UK management quick-fix decisions without ever considering the wider longer term harmful implications and resulting problems. Maybe you are one of those who sincerely believe there is no alternative. There are always alternatives.

Just because something is in place for some time does not mean it is or was the correct course of action. The levels of immigrant workers in the NHS years ago was nowhere near the levels in more recent times. Short sighted quick fixes are rarely the best answer.

NHS Health Tourists:~

We are the mugs of the world and the ROTW know it and form queues to come and take costly and harmful advantage. I picked up my son from Terminal 5 Heathrow a while back and was surprised to see so many waddling females heavily pregnant arriving. That was just one fifteen minute visit. Tip of the Iceberg. There is no control and without control, things will never get better no matter what those we entrust to the UK's well being would have you believe.

No good burying our heads in the sand and hope these ever increasing problems all go away. They wont. These things need to be addressed urgently. In fact they will worsen. The ROTW know our long term fate is both assured and deserved and will continue to take full advantage unless we as a Nation as a whole take effective measures to change things double sharpish.

[drivin_me_nuts]

Umm,

What do you think would be the real impact in terms of services and income for those south of the border if there is an SNP + Labour coalition?

I get the jist of Sturgeon's comments re. keeping Labour 'true', but in real terms what would that be likely to mean?

[vanvan]

irocfan said:

it did amuse me when all the lefties were bleating "we don't want austerity" (and on QT afterwards)... I'm surprised that CMD or Faraaaage (or even smeggy) didn't actually reposnd with "tell you what no-one actually WANTS austerity it's just that with the st state the country was left in after the last bunch of pricks we've got no fking choice in the matter."

This. It’s a question of minimising interest payments to enable said monies to be redistributed allowing for more state spending without increasing taxation. Granted in a simplistic sense. Seems a missed trick in my mind?

[Funk]

Cupramax said:

Cant believe all the comments re Farage and Aids, are you all really suggesting you support letting anyone, from anywhere, to come here and get free Aids treatment? Youre all fking mad. There are old people, ex forces, alls sorts of our own that come first when its comes to health and wellbeing services. I despair.

Absolutely. Once we're taking care of our own and have cash to spare I have no issue with charitably helping foreigners.

But right now we're drowning in national debt, services are creaking and we can't provide an international health service to the world free of charge. Every other country charges foreigners (or refuses treatment). Until we're swimming in so much cash we don't know what to do with it, we must look after those who live here and have contributed to the whole system.

[4v6]

Funk said:

Cupramax said:

Cant believe all the comments re Farage and Aids, are you all really suggesting you support letting anyone, from anywhere, to come here and get free Aids treatment? Youre all fking mad. There are old people, ex forces, alls sorts of our own that come first when its comes to health and wellbeing services. I despair.

Absolutely. Once we're taking care of our own and have cash to spare I have no issue with charitably helping foreigners.

But right now we're drowning in national debt, services are creaking and we can't provide an international health service to the world free of charge. Every other country charges foreigners (or refuses treatment). Until we're swimming in so much cash we don't know what to do with it, we must look after those who live here and have contributed to the whole system.

Absolutely agree, the NHS (the clue is in the name NATIONAL-not InterNational health service) is supposed to be for the exclusive benefits of the people who pay into it. And they are? British.

It was NEVER envisioned to be utilised by someone flying in from nigeria or romania to have their twins by ceasarean, aftercare provided and then flown back out at our expense, amongst other wheezes that the idiotic left allowed to start.

Politicians,Wake up!

[Mermaid]

Funk said:

Cupramax said:

Cant believe all the comments re Farage and Aids, are you all really suggesting you support letting anyone, from anywhere, to come here and get free Aids treatment? Youre all fking mad. There are old people, ex forces, alls sorts of our own that come first when its comes to health and wellbeing services. I despair.

Absolutely. Once we're taking care of our own and have cash to spare I have no issue with charitably helping foreigners.

But right now we're drowning in national debt, services are creaking and we can't provide an international health service to the world free of charge. Every other country charges foreigners (or refuses treatment). Until we're swimming in so much cash we don't know what to do with it, we must look after those who live here and have contributed to the whole system.

When the books are balanced and we have no debt, then charity has a place. We need to be careful now, so we can help later. And we will.

We are maxed out right now, and some.

[RYH64E]

turbobloke said:

I think we agree there

Which makes a change.

It's difficult to come up with a definition of rich, especially when most peoples wealth is tied up in assets rather than income, and the proposals largely concern taxes on income rather than wealth. It's quite possible to be very rich and yet pay little tax if your current income is modest, if only because it's not easy to tax wealth as such (thankfully).

There are a few people who are obviously very rich, these people would find it very easy to relocate to avoid punitive taxation, but there aren't that many of them and not enough to make a serious impact on public spending. People in the danger zone are those earning >£100k but <£500k, not enough to be properly rich and most likely not sufficiently wealthy to relocate, especially when their income is dependant upon a fixed place of work. It's the same with companies, very large corporations can transfer production or move money around to minimise their tax liability, whereas those making a few million pounds net profit are unlikely to be sufficiently mobile to just up sticks and move.

Imo, Labour will hit the soft targets, individuals earning >£100k are likely to see an increase in PAYE, small and medium sized businesses are likely to see their employers NI increase still further (from an already punitive and totally unjustifiable 13.8%), corporation tax is likely to go up, and a load of tinkering with taxes that they hope we won't notice. None of which will cause the average Labour voter to lose any sleep at all (and won't affect their take home in the short term), but will cost those of us who already pay for their free stuff to pay even more, and will be a massive disincentive for investment. What they should be doing is encouraging people and businesses to invest for growth, but that would only end up helping the rich get richer and who'd want that...

Edited by RYH64E on Friday 3rd April 13:04

[KTF]

4v6 said:

Absolutely agree, the NHS (the clue is in the name NATIONAL-not InterNational health service) is supposed to be for the exclusive benefits of the people who pay into it. And they are? British.

And the immigrants who have come over, found a job and pay tax and NI?

[4v6]

KTF said:

4v6 said:

Absolutely agree, the NHS (the clue is in the name NATIONAL-not InterNational health service) is supposed to be for the exclusive benefits of the people who pay into it. And they are? British.

And the immigrants who have come over, found a job and pay tax and NI?

Duh! Read and comprehend.
Illegals arent british are they?
The immigrants that have come here, gained british citizenship and are paying in I have no truck with.
So your point was?
Go on, id love to have the racist card pulled out and flashed like a fake ID at me!

[turbobloke]

RYH64E said:

turbobloke said:

I think we agree there

Which makes a change.

RYH64E said:

It's difficult to come up with a definition of rich, especially when most peoples wealth is tied up in assets rather than income, and the proposals largely concern taxes on income rather than wealth. It's quite possible to be very rich and yet pay little tax if your current income is modest, if only because it's not easy to tax wealth as such (thankfully).

Indeed. Hang on, we're in agreement again.

RYH64E said:

There are a few people who are obviously very rich, these people would find it very easy to relocate to avoid punitive taxation, but there aren't that many of them and not enough to make a serious impact on public spending. People in the danger zone are those earning >£100k but <£500k, not enough to be properly rich and most likely not sufficiently wealthy to relocate...

Relocation isn't necessary, there are other options such as spending time away (sufficient for HMRC) and simply not earning as much - given that the government takes more than it leaves you with, above the point where marginal taxation goes over 50%.

RYH64E said:

...income is dependant upon a fixed place of work.

Carefully employ a Director of Works, then see above for options

RYH64E said:

Imo, Labour will hit the soft targets, individuals earning >£100k are likely to see an increase in PAYE, small and medium sized businesses are likely to see their employers NI increase still further (from an already punitive and totally unjustifiable 13.8%), corporation tax is likely to go up, and a load of tinkering with taxes that they hope we won't notice. None of which will cause the average Labour voter to lose any sleep at all (and won't affect their take home in the short term), but will cost those of us who already pay for their free stuff to pay even more, and will be a massive disincentive for investment.

In which case let's hope enough people see sense and avoid a repeat of 1997 (and the rest).

RYH64E said:

What they should be doing is encouraging people and businesses to invest for growth, but that would only end up helping the rich get richer and who'd want that...

Who indeed, apart from anyone with a shred of sense! The more tax paid by all individuals is what matters, not the rate of tax. Along with many like-minded people I meet in the context of work, paying more tax because there's an incentive to earn more and better your position and that of your family is one thing (investment and reward carrot) paying more tax via disincentives (higher rate stick) is another.

Productive people don't need to work as long and as hard as they do while being smacked down by punitive marginal tax rates and vilified for the privilege just because armies of envyists depend on them.

[MarkRSi]

Apologies if this has already been answered, but is there a way to watch it again (online?) or when it will be shown again?