UK General Election - 12th December 2019 | Con 365, Lab 203, LD 11, SNP 48, Other 23 - Tory Majority of 80

How do you intend to vote in the 2019 General Election if eligible?

  • Brexit Party

    Votes: 30 4.3%

  • Conservatives

    Votes: 73 10.6%

  • DUP

    Votes: 5 0.7%

  • Green

    Votes: 23 3.3%

  • Labour

    Votes: 355 51.4%

  • Liberal Democrats

    Votes: 58 8.4%

  • Plaid Cymru

    Votes: 3 0.4%

  • Sinn Fein

    Votes: 9 1.3%

  • SNP

    Votes: 19 2.8%

  • UKIP

    Votes: 6 0.9%

  • Independent

    Votes: 1 0.1%

  • Other (BNP, Change UK, UUP and anyone else that I have forgotten)

    Votes: 10 1.4%

  • Not voting

    Votes: 57 8.3%

  • Undecided

    Votes: 41 5.9%
  • Total voters
    690
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
sebsheep said:
Aren't the government subsidising the railway industry anyway?

We also have foreign governments running train companies in the UK.
Click to expand...

Indeed. I think it's fair to say that nationalisation isn't exactly a magic key to success - but by the same token pointing to previous failures wouldn't exactly be an indicator that it's something which can't work at all. Certainly, it's not like other public services in that the government would poor money into it without gain; if they charge modest but reasonable prices there's still plenty of money to be made from it, and the environmental benefits are tangible if you can get cars off the road in the longer term.

The rail sector is ultimately one of those sectors where government interference is always going to be necessary to some degree - it can't just be left to the markets as such, because once you run trains on a line you have a natural monopoly that can't be broken by private enterprise - the only way you can fail is if your profits dip drastically because your service is so bad people aren't taking trains anymore, and that would in itself be disastrous in that roads would become more cluttered, and the government would still end up stepping in eventually. In such sectors it feels sort of silly for the government to be paying massive subsidies without necessarily reaping any of the rewards. Especially when the service itself isn't actually all that good anyway.
 
EI24QqLWkAIu8_3


I refuse to learn the context because this is glorious.
 
I was saying to the missus last night, I'm really hoping people will watch the usual good feel Christmas movies you know Muppets Christmas Carol and the usual good feel adverts and realise only a grade A cnut could vote Tory 2 week before christmas!

The christmas appeals and Christmas cheer are quite effective anti-tory camapaigns themselves...hopefully
 
Last edited:
Flying high said:
Costs like fair pay for staff and adequate safety standards? Worth paying.

Costs like profit for shareholders and directors who have squeezed every penny they can at the expense of staff/safety/environment etc? Not as worth it.
Click to expand...

That's not what happens though is it? State owned inevitably ends up bloated, bureaucratic and inefficient, and increased safety is far from guaranteed. That's down to regulation.

sebsheep said:
Aren't the government subsidising the railway industry anyway?

We also have foreign governments running train companies in the UK.
Click to expand...

Yes they are, but nowhere near to the level of other European countries.
 
All that happens with nationalised industries is their investment budgets have to compete with other budgets like schools or the NHS and they end up becoming underfunded as a result. The whole point of privatisation was to bring new money into industries that lacked it.
 
nickm said:
All that happens with nationalised industries is their investment budgets have to compete with other budgets like schools or the NHS and they end up becoming underfunded as a result. The whole point of privatisation was to bring new money into industries that lacked it.
Click to expand...
Not to mention that, by their own admission, Labour would ensure that all jobs were fully unionised. A Labour government - put there by union support will be a green light for never-ending wage claims. They will be met in the short term, to keep the unions sweet. Then the inefficiencies kick in and, as you say, competing departments will mean that money for juicy pay deals gets short. Strikes will be the inevitable result and the nation held to ransom. Then it will be 33% across the board basic level of tax again. Why do you think that Len McCluskey is almost having walking orgasms over the Labour manifesto?
 
Cheesy said:
I'd argue inheritance tax is fine but that it should have a fairly high starting point. I don't necessarily think it should hit moderately well-off people who nevertheless aren't what you'd describe as rich, and who could potentially be left in a difficult situation with a heavy tax; when it gets to genuinely rich, high-earners though, I think it's absolutely fair game; plenty of rich families coast off their wealth for generations without having to really earn it at all, and while I don't think they should be stripped of that wealth entirely, they should be expected to contribute substantially to maintaining an upholding a system which benefits them massively.
Click to expand...
This is a good point, inheritance tax should exist, otherwise you end up in a society like the one we're currently in, where all the real wealth has already been horded before many of us were ever born. It should only take affect if the value of the assets are worth over 500k or 750k per inheriter, but should be taxed heavily at that point.
 
Honest John said:
Not to mention that, by their own admission, Labour would ensure that all jobs were fully unionised. A Labour government - put there by union support will be a green light for never-ending wage claims. They will be met in the short term, to keep the unions sweet. Then the inefficiencies kick in and, as you say, competing departments will mean that money for juicy pay deals gets short. Strikes will be the inevitable result and the nation held to ransom. Then it will be 33% across the board basic level of tax again. Why do you think that Len McCluskey is almost having walking orgasms over the Labour manifesto?
Click to expand...

indeed. That’s what’s driving the privatisation agenda.

how much does Len McCluskey earn again? £150k per year?

I’m sure we would see train drivers breaking that £80k barrier in no time.
 
ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg said:
indeed. That’s what’s driving the privatisation agenda.

how much does Len McCluskey earn again? £150k per year?

I’m sure we would see train drivers breaking that £80k barrier in no time.
Click to expand...

conservatism is when you see a 3b public subsidy result in a 500m profit for a private company, and then get mad at the unionised drivers for making 20k more than they would have otherwise and having job security.
 
Cheesy said:
I'd argue inheritance tax is fine but that it should have a fairly high starting point. I don't necessarily think it should hit moderately well-off people who nevertheless aren't what you'd describe as rich, and who could potentially be left in a difficult situation with a heavy tax; when it gets to genuinely rich, high-earners though, I think it's absolutely fair game; plenty of rich families coast off their wealth for generations without having to really earn it at all, and while I don't think they should be stripped of that wealth entirely, they should be expected to contribute substantially to maintaining an upholding a system which benefits them massively.
Click to expand...
This approach most could get behind, but how you structure it is a difficult one. You'd need to limit the amount that can be shielded in trusts, but I don't want to derail the thread.
 
Jippy said:
This approach most could get behind, but how you structure it is a difficult one. You'd need to limit the amount that can be shielded in trusts, but I don't want to derail the thread.
Click to expand...

the biggest asset is the family property, it shouldn’t have to be sold in my opinion. The challenge you have is that a 6 bed mansion in Blackburn might be £350k and under the threshold, and yet a 3 bed terrace in London might be £800k, and will either have to be sold or a big inheritance bill has to be paid.
 
berbatrick said:
conservatism is when you see a 3b public subsidy result in a 500m profit for a private company, and then get mad at the unionised drivers for making 20k more than they would have otherwise and having job security.
Click to expand...
Train drivers get pretty good pay. £50k - £65k for a 35 hour week with a final salary pension scheme. The subsidy is for the network which is pretty much state owned anyway. I'm not fussed about that, it's infrastructure like the roads.
 
ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg said:
the biggest asset is the family property, it shouldn’t have to be sold in my opinion. The challenge you have is that a 6 bed mansion in Blackburn might be £350k and under the threshold, and yet a 3 bed terrace in London might be £800k, and will either have to be sold or a big inheritance bill has to be paid.
Click to expand...
I agree about the family home- second home much less so.
Three bed terrace round here more £1.1m than £800k. Stamp duty (another heinous tax) is brutal.
 
Pink Moon said:
Because he emboldened the bigots after calling that old woman out?
Click to expand...

If only he had 'called her out', but in fact away from the woman's hearing, in what he thought was a safe area, and supposedly with the mic closed down, he whispered to his aids that he thought "her just a bigot", that's what landed him in the 'shi**er' and lit the blue touch-paper and you could argue disavowed millions of traditional Labour voters.
 
Maticmaker said:
If only he had 'called her out', but in fact away from the woman's hearing, in what he thought was a safe area, and supposedly with the mic closed down, he whispered to his aids that he thought "her just a bigot", that's what landed him in the 'shi**er' and lit the blue touch-paper and you could argue disavowed millions of traditional Labour voters.
Click to expand...
He sure had bad aids.
 
Smores said:
I was saying to the missus last night, I'm really hoping people will watch the usual good feel Christmas movies you know Muppets Christmas Carol and the usual good feel adverts and realise only a grade A cnut could vote Tory 2 week before christmas!

The christmas appeals and Christmas cheer are quite effective anti-tory camapaigns themselves...hopefully
Click to expand...
The population of the UK should all sit down and watch A Christmas Carol on the 11th. It's essentially one mans journey from being a Tory to becoming a Labour voter.
 
Raven said:
This is a good point, inheritance tax should exist, otherwise you end up in a society like the one we're currently in, where all the real wealth has already been horded before many of us were ever born. It should only take affect if the value of the assets are worth over 500k or 750k per inheriter, but should be taxed heavily at that point.
Click to expand...

Disagree on a number of points.
Firstly, the overwhelming amount of peoples estate is made up of the value of their house. And that is very much a function of where they happened to live.
On that basis why should the family of a person be penalised because of that.

Further. Why should inheritance tax be levied at 40%. This is the higher level income tax when it is highly probable that the deceased person was a standard level income tax payer.

The current IHT threshold is £325,000 per person. That is pretty much the average house price in the UK.
It is being progressively increase to 500,000 but only if the house price is that figure.
People work all their life and pay taxes only to have their estate taxed before their families for example actually receive the money.
Even worse is the scandalous increase in Probate costs again payable before the money is released.
 
TheReligion said:
The issue I have with inheritance tax is why should anyone take away something which is legally yours and your families. It has been paid for on a salary that has already been taxed. It's really no bodies business to take anything left to you from your parents from you.
Click to expand...

Also what about all that earned wealth that goes to the state when someone dies intestate, and/or when there is no one to claim it?

Death and Taxes indeed.. the only two certainties in life!
 
GDaly95 said:
The population of the UK should all sit down and watch A Christmas Carol on the 11th. It's essentially one mans journey from being a Tory to becoming a Labour voter.
Click to expand...

Not sure that you can use the word voter.
 
Personally, I don’t think we should give preferential treatment to houses for inheritance tax purposes. It creates artificial distortions and incentives for old people not to downsize.

It shouldn’t make any difference if someone has £500k in a house or in an index fund - it’s the same asset value and should be taxed at the same level, whatever we think that should be.
 
MikeUpNorth said:
Personally, I don’t think we should give preferential treatment to houses for inheritance tax purposes. It creates artificial distortions and incentives for old people not to downsize.

It shouldn’t make any difference if someone has £500k in a house or in an index fund - it’s the same asset value and should be taxed at the same level, whatever we think that should be.
Click to expand...

You are missing the point.
The value of a house is highly dependant on where the house is.
The value of an index fund would be the same wherever that person lived.
 
Smores said:
I was saying to the missus last night, I'm really hoping people will watch the usual good feel Christmas movies you know Muppets Christmas Carol and the usual good feel adverts and realise only a grade A cnut could vote Tory 2 week before christmas!

The christmas appeals and Christmas cheer are quite effective anti-tory camapaigns themselves...hopefully
Click to expand...
GDaly95 said:
The population of the UK should all sit down and watch A Christmas Carol on the 11th. It's essentially one mans journey from being a Tory to becoming a Labour voter.
Click to expand...

Looks like there's new adaptation on the BBC this Christmas from the makers of Peaky Blinders and starring Tom Hardy and Guy Pearce!



Sadly after the election......BBC bias and all that.
 
Buster15 said:
You are missing the point.
The value of a house is highly dependant on where the house is.
The value of an index fund would be the same wherever that person lived.
Click to expand...
All you are saying is that more expensive houses are more expensive. So what? A flat in London is not the same asset as a flat in Birmingham.

It like saying “my collection of Picasso paintings are more valuable than your collection of prints from IKEA. But they’re all pictures you hang on the wall aren’t they? Basically the same. Why should I have to pay more taxes?”
 
Buster15 said:
Disagree on a number of points.
Firstly, the overwhelming amount of peoples estate is made up of the value of their house. And that is very much a function of where they happened to live.
On that basis why should the family of a person be penalised because of that.

Further. Why should inheritance tax be levied at 40%. This is the higher level income tax when it is highly probable that the deceased person was a standard level income tax payer.

The current IHT threshold is £325,000 per person. That is pretty much the average house price in the UK.
It is being progressively increase to 500,000 but only if the house price is that figure.
People work all their life and pay taxes only to have their estate taxed before their families for example actually receive the money.
Even worse is the scandalous increase in Probate costs again payable before the money is released.
Click to expand...
You've made a couple of good points there, as I mentioned, I feel the threshold for any taxation should be quite high, more than generous enough I feel with no tax whatsoever before that point. If it's purely based on property, however, it could potentially be taxed after multiple properties, depending again on the number of inheriters.

Inheritance taxes are incredibly important for me, wealth should be more evenly distributed and that's impossible unless you heavily tax inheritance beyong a certain amount.
 
ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg said:
indeed. That’s what’s driving the privatisation agenda.

how much does Len McCluskey earn again? £150k per year?

I’m sure we would see train drivers breaking that £80k barrier in no time.
Click to expand...

Because you couldn't possibly want better workers rights if you earn £150k per year.

I'm sick of this ridiculous argument.

If someone wants better workers rights but is earning a low wage they are called bitter/selfish.

Ultimately it doesn't matter who is asking for better workers rights get criticised, whatever their income.
 
Raven said:
You've made a couple of good points there, as I mentioned, I feel the threshold for any taxation should be quite high, more than generous enough I feel with no tax whatsoever before that point. If it's purely based on property, however, it could potentially be taxed after multiple properties, depending again on the number of inheriters.

Inheritance taxes are incredibly important for me, wealth should be more evenly distributed and that's impossible unless you heavily tax inheritance beyong a certain amount.
Click to expand...

Now I completely agree with you that wealth should be more evenly distributed.
As someone who has worked all their life (from 16 to 67) and always paid taxes on my earnings, albeit at the standard rate, I find it unacceptable for my family to be taxed at the higher rate just because of where I happened to live. House prices in Bristol are very high.
My house is not strictly wealth. I am not passing on vast sums of money.
 
It’s so incredibly frustrating watching people spout such utter untruths. The wealthy people will be worse off after Brexit and the poorer will be better for it.

 
How about taxes on the winnings of gambling? I mean inheritance is nothing else really, only we all just signed up to the gamble without knowing. In my opinion inheritance taxes on regular houses don't lead to a more equal society. It will just make ever larger numbers of middle income earners renters for life because the super wealthy won't pay the taxes and their money will buy the houses those who have to pay the taxes can't afford anymore. Making the middle classes poorer will hardly help the poorest, especially when any potential tax take will just be pissed away by Boris and chumps for fictional shipping companies etc. anyway.
 
Buster15 said:
Now I completely agree with you that wealth should be more evenly distributed.
As someone who has worked all their life (from 16 to 67) and always paid taxes on my earnings, albeit at the standard rate, I find it unacceptable for my family to be taxed at the higher rate just because of where I happened to live. House prices in Bristol are very high.
My house is not strictly wealth. I am not passing on vast sums of money.
Click to expand...

Why are house prices higher in certain regions than others?
 
Fluctuation0161 said:
Not in most European countries actually.
Click to expand...

You sure about that?

Certainly not in Italy, where the trains are so late they have to routinely reduce fares to compensate.
Or France, where trains wont be running into Belgium at this rate in 2020 because they forgot to update to the latest safety systems required there. They were probably on strike.
Or Germany, where despite government subsidies 4x that of the UK, they managed to run just 33% of their trains on time at one point this year.
Or Spain, where they're racking up a healthy list of deaths from all the accidents they keep having.

I could go on. All state owned, and all have flagship high speed lines that make people think they're a lot better than they actually are.


Aside from the cost to the user, the UK railway system is actually pretty good.
 
11101 said:
You sure about that?

Certainly not in Italy, where the trains are so late they have to routinely reduce fares to compensate.
Or France, where trains wont be running into Belgium at this rate in 2020 because they forgot to update to the latest safety systems required there. They were probably on strike.
Or Germany, where despite government subsidies 4x that of the UK, they managed to run just 33% of their trains on time at one point this year.
Or Spain, where they're racking up a healthy list of deaths from all the accidents they keep having.

I could go on. All state owned, and all have flagship high speed lines that make people think they're a lot better than they actually are.


Aside from the cost to the user, the UK railway system is actually pretty good.
Click to expand...
:lol:
You're having a laugh? It cost me nearly as much to get from London to Cambridge as it cost me to get to Paris from Marseilles. Almost took as long too.
 
Buster15 said:
Now I completely agree with you that wealth should be more evenly distributed.
As someone who has worked all their life (from 16 to 67) and always paid taxes on my earnings, albeit at the standard rate, I find it unacceptable for my family to be taxed at the higher rate just because of where I happened to live. House prices in Bristol are very high.
My house is not strictly wealth. I am not passing on vast sums of money.
Click to expand...
That's an interesting point, however if it's not vast sums of money and only a single property, I'm not sure how my notion of a high threshold would affect your kids. I am of course assuming that each of the kids won't be getting an asset value of more than 500-750k. If it is just the family home, then the tax could be taken upon the sale or let of the property as well.

There are many different ways of more fairly distributing wealth and housing in this country, writing off inheritance tax entirely is not the way to do it. What needs to happen is a discussion between different demographics so that an amicable solution can be found.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.