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

[VolvoT5]

MarkRSi said:

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vc6YH4-IHME

[Troubleatmill]

MarkRSi said:

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

Fill your boots.
https://www.itv.com/itvplayer/the-leaders-debate/s...

[KTF]

4v6 said:

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!

My point being that shouldn't an eu national who is working over here paying tax and NI also be entitled even though they are not a British citizen? By your definition they have paid into the system so are then entitled.

[MarkRSi]

VolvoT5 said:

MarkRSi said:

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vc6YH4-IHME

Cheers

[Yazar]

KTF said:

My point being that shouldn't an eu national who is working over here paying tax and NI also be entitled even though they are not a British citizen? By your definition they have paid into the system so are then entitled.

You would have to consider it in more detail.

A migrant on low income will be paying little in tax, and if in reciept of working tax credits etc than may actually be taking more out, more so if a family. Wheras a single doctor type salary may be paying in from day one.

Probably need to set a threshold of £x pounds of tax paid which would probably not be palatable, so a standard time based period for all migrants would be the way forward. Such as working for a full 5 years first and paying health insurance during that period, then NHS.

[bad company]

Bradgate said:

bad company said:

Scuffers said:

Bradgate said:

Of course that is the case, but the typical UKIP voter is older, not well educated and likely to associate HIV with gay people. Except they would probably use different terminology to describe homosexuals....

you do talk rubbish!

complete crap.

YouGov said:

Demographically, UKIP voters attract men slightly more than women – and the party draws its support disproportionately from older people with fewer qualifications. Whereas 46% of all voters are over 50, and 38% under 40, the figures for UKIP are 71% and 15% respectively. And just 13% of UKIP supporters have university degrees – half the national average.

Looks like the evidence strongly supports my view. Do you have any evidence to support yours?

The YouGov stuff may or may not be accurate but that hardly justifies -

'not well educated and likely to associate HIV with gay people. Except they would probably use different terminology to describe homosexuals'.

More on UKIP voters here - http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/laurence-stellings...

[Mr Whippy]

andy-xr said:

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.

In 10 yrs UKIP won't exist, as we'll be a part of the neo-commie Euro dream.

You won't have a choice at all soon as power will devolve to Europe. That is the entire Euro plan. Your UK politicians will be talking shop participants at a huge cost.

Cameron seems to think he can fight Europe, but just like Greece, we'll be shafted for everything to keep that mighty gravy train going.


Anyone but UKIP will see us being bhes to Europe and slaves to their form of corporate elite oligarchy under TTIP and the 'best that money can buy' democracy the USA offers.



I'm confused why anyone wants to be part of the EU given how the Greece situation is unfolding. It's proving the EU is only there for those in power. The people of member states are treated like st for the benefit of a few.

Dave

[markcoznottz]

RYH64E said:

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...


Increased NI will mean more agency staff/disguised employment etc, especially as most growth seems to be in service based jobs. How about that for a 'globalised workforce' double whammy - individuals who pay no tax and are also supported by the welfare system. Superb .

Edited by RYH64E on Friday 3rd April 13:04

[irocfan]

bad company said:

The YouGov stuff may or may not be accurate but that hardly justifies -

'not well educated and likely to associate HIV with gay people. Except they would probably use different terminology to describe homosexuals'.

More on UKIP voters here - http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/laurence-stellings...

wow! Someone actually quoted the huff on here!! I am amazed that this 'news' is even taken seriously, they make the daily mirror and mail look positively intellectual. Indeed they make the guardian look right leaning

[bad company]

Mr Whippy said:

In 10 yrs UKIP won't exist, as we'll be a part of the neo-commie Euro dream.

You won't have a choice at all soon as power will devolve to Europe. That is the entire Euro plan. Your UK politicians will be talking shop participants at a huge cost.

Cameron seems to think he can fight Europe, but just like Greece, we'll be shafted for everything to keep that mighty gravy train going.


Anyone but UKIP will see us being bhes to Europe and slaves to their form of corporate elite oligarchy under TTIP and the 'best that money can buy' democracy the USA offers.



I'm confused why anyone wants to be part of the EU given how the Greece situation is unfolding. It's proving the EU is only there for those in power. The people of member states are treated like st for the benefit of a few.

Dave

Careful, Bradgate will be along shortly to say that you are too stupid or poorly educated to have an opinion.

[Mr Whippy]

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).

Talk to the wealthy in Cyprus

And it'll be lots easier to nick your wealth once you're in the EU a bit deeper, which is where we're going day by day. Get those Euro coins and see your money 'eased' away, sent away in more bad debt bailouts, bank accounts raided. Probably even tax on bank accounts soon too.

Dave

[spaximus]

turbobloke said:

968 said:

spaximus said:

It would be easy to stop health Tourism from outside the EU. Make every airline, every train operator every shipping company liable for any passenger who travels with them without medical insurance liable.
Make it a compulsory requirement and you can be sure Ryan air etc would check every detail.

The other thing to look at for the NHS. Require every nurse or Doctor who has trained to be contracted for 10 years to remain in the NHS.
At the moment my daughter is a newly qualified Doctor, they are being encouraged to go to Australia for higher wages and a better life work balance. If she went, there is no requirement to pay back the training she has received at all. So all the money invested we lose. So we attract Doctors and nurses for abroad so we can fill the holes they leave.

No pay back apart from the tuition fees they pay to attend University for 5-6 years you mean?

This is utterly absurd that junior doctors should be effectively compelled to be employed by one state monopoly for 10 years. Why juniors leave this country is that they can get paid far better and have far better working conditions than in this country. Instead of forcing them to accept servitude, how about trying to ensure they don't want to leave in the first place, by making their pay/conditions more attractive? Why do you think there's such a high drop out rate in junior doctor numbers after qualification?

It would be desirable to retain via P&C but to answer at the moment and in terms of the recent past:

Liam Byrne of Labour We Crash The Economy Party said:

Dear Chief Secretary I'm afraid to tell you there's no money left.

Pick your cause, check out why it's not better funded even if it's got political approval.

Well many go in to Med school as post grad, here they pay the first year and the NHS pays the rest. So would it be wrong to expect any country taking a Doctor once qualified to not pay that.
I agree we could make it better for Doctors, but she works hard but understands that others not a medical profession work just as hard if not harder. She has no intention of leaving but others are already looking at this as there are jobs which pay more for much less. As for drop out rates, many reasons, not all of those are workload or conditions.

I see nothing wrong in having an arrangement that people sign to keep them for a period of time so society gets the benefit, we could argue the length, we could argue the compensation level from another country. In the army you sign up for a period of time, so is it that wrong?

[Rollin]

spaximus said:

Well many go in to Med school as post grad, here they pay the first year and the NHS pays the rest. So would it be wrong to expect any country taking a Doctor once qualified to not pay that.
I agree we could make it better for Doctors, but she works hard but understands that others not a medical profession work just as hard if not harder. She has no intention of leaving but others are already looking at this as there are jobs which pay more for much less. As for drop out rates, many reasons, not all of those are workload or conditions.

I see nothing wrong in having an arrangement that people sign to keep them for a period of time so society gets the benefit, we could argue the length, we could argue the compensation level from another country. In the army you sign up for a period of time, so is it that wrong?

Are you going to apply this restriction of work to all graduates?

How do you think the number of applications to medical schools will change?

[HonestIago]

Farage leading MSN poll of the debate by a long way:

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/generalelection2015

[Roy Lime]

Posted this on the Climate Change thread but it seems equally relevant here.

[Laurel Green]

HonestIago said:

Farage leading MSN poll of the debate by a long way:

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/generalelection2015

I see Clegg's doing well.

[anonymous-user]

HonestIago said:

Farage leading MSN poll of the debate by a long way:

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/generalelection2015

Only 1 part of the survey is correct :-

TOTAL RESPONSES:8905VOTES
Not scientifically valid.

[HonestIago]

Jimboka said:

HonestIago said:

Farage leading MSN poll of the debate by a long way:

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/generalelection2015

Only 1 part of the survey is correct :-

TOTAL RESPONSES:8905VOTES
Not scientifically valid.

Annoying isn't it when a pollster doesn't "weight" the responses in favour of the established parties.

[clockworks]

My other half has never voted, and she's 50 next year. In the 2 years that I've known her, we've talked about politics, but she really hasn't taken much interest in politicians and party politics. She has views on political stuff that affects working people, but has always felt that voting makes no difference, so hasn't bothered.

She was working last night as a carer, and watched the programme "because there was nothing else on".
She is now going to vote for the first time. It'll be UKIP. Not my choice, but I can see why, and I can't fault her reasoning when she explained it to me. Nigel Farage talks a lot of sense, and speaks for the average Brit. I'm not sure that UKIP could ever be capable of actually running the country, but a Tory/UKIP coalition seems like the best option this time around.

Personally, I think that a Boris/Farage double act would be a good thing in 5 years time.

[wc98]

RYH64E said:

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

this is exactly the reason no one in their right mind should vote labour, and i suspect many working traditional labour voters know this. i certainly hope they do ,if not we will be back to square one in no time.