UK General Election 2015 | Conservatives win with an overall majority

[Deleted 20801]

Yep, I removed it because while the planning side of it could be better, in terms of their actual effectiveness it's nothing but praise.

 

[berbatrick]

Why is the trident such a big issue? And the transatlantic trade agreement?

It's scary.

The UK government, like that of the US and 13 other EU members(1), wants to set up a separate judicial system, exclusively for the use of corporations. While the rest of us must take our chances in the courts, corporations across the EU and US will be allowed to sue governments before a tribunal of corporate lawyers. They will be able to challenge the laws they don’t like, and seek massive compensation if these are deemed to affect their “future anticipated profits”.
...
Investor-state dispute settlement means allowing corporations to sue governments over laws which might affect their profits. The tobacco company Philip Morris is currently suing Australia and Uruguay(4), under similar treaties, for their attempts to discourage smoking. It describes the UK’s proposed rules on plain packaging as “unlawful”(5): if TTIP goes ahead, expect a challenge.

Corporations, like natural persons, can use the courts to defend their interests. But, under current treaties, investor-state dispute settlement lets them apply instead to offshore tribunals operating in secret, without such basic safeguards as third-party standing, judicial review and rights of appeal. As Colin Crouch notes, this is not just post-democracy, but “post-law.”(6)
...
There is only one possible justification for a separate judicial system: a failure by the existing courts fairly to arbitrate the legal claims that businesses make. So which judicial systems in the US or the EU discriminate unfairly against corporations?
...
In the House of Commons, Zac Goldsmith MP asked the business minister to name the occasions in the past five years in which companies in the EU or US have been discriminated against in courts across the Atlantic. Answer: the government “does not have access to relevant information.”(11)

The European Commission argues that “the main reason for having an ISDS mechanism is because in many countries investment agreements are not directly enforceable in domestic courts.”(12) Perhaps. But none of those countries are in the proposed trading bloc. A condition of EU membership is “an independent and efficient judiciary” with “legal guarantees for fair trial procedures”(13). What is a provision designed to protect investors in failed states doing in a treaty between the EU and the US?
...
Yes, we’ve been lucky so far; luckier than other nations in Europe, which so far have been sued 127 times under investor-state clauses in other treaties(15). The Czech Republic, Slovakia and Poland have had to pay out enough money to have employed 380,000 nurses for a year(16). Investor-state cases are escalating rapidly(17): as corporations begin to understand the power they’ve been granted, they will turn their attention from the weak nations to the strong ones.

No one will provide a justification because no one can. To protect transnational capital from a non-existent risk, our governments are recklessly abandoning the principle of equality before the law.

http://www.monbiot.com/2015/01/13/trade-secrets/
http://www.monbiot.com/2014/03/10/all-give-and-no-take/
http://www.monbiot.com/2014/11/04/a-gunpowder-plot-against-democracy/

 

[Nick 0208 Ldn]

The flipside of that is the fact that my friend's dad has set up a very successful and award-winning free school and is getting excellent results for the kids. It's the one Cameron visited the other week and made that comment about using jujitsu on Farage.

Besides, is not one aspect to this topic that such demand existed n the first place? What does it say for the level of confidence parents have in local authorities or Ofsted.

 

[Amethyst]

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

My result:
https://www.politicalcompass.org/yourukchart?name=You&ec=-2.75&soc=-5.33

Not sure about where the political parties are placed though.

 

[Berbaclass]

I did that a while ago. My result:

Spoiler

 

[Silva]

Everyone's shit.

 

[rcoobc]

It's scary.
http://www.monbiot.com/2015/01/13/trade-secrets/
http://www.monbiot.com/2014/03/10/all-give-and-no-take/
http://www.monbiot.com/2014/11/04/a-gunpowder-plot-against-democracy/

I mean, I've read a relatively lot about it... a lot of it seems overblown because it takes away national sovereignty. And these "Secret Courts" have everyone scared and intrigued, but are already used across the world.

This guardian article, highlights the example of " The Tobacco Company Philip Morris... using a trade agreement Australia struck with Hong Kong, asked an offshore tribunal to award it a vast sum in compensation for the loss of what it calls its intellectual property against the Australian Government for requiring plain packaging on cigarettes"

Now this example has also been mentioned elsewhere...

It's probably a good example to use of these secret courts. We have a government being sued by a company for trying to protect its people...

But as far as I can work out... (and agreeing with what John Oliver said) the Australian Government won that case.

And lets be honest, trade agreements are basically NEVER voted in via direct democracy and these International trade agreements already exist.

 

[berbatrick]

I mean, I've read a relatively lot about it... a lot of it seems overblown because it takes away national sovereignty. And these "Secret Courts" have everyone scared and intrigued, but are already used across the world.

This guardian article, highlights the example of " The Tobacco Company Philip Morris... using a trade agreement Australia struck with Hong Kong, asked an offshore tribunal to award it a vast sum in compensation for the loss of what it calls its intellectual property against the Australian Government for requiring plain packaging on cigarettes"

It's probably a good example to use of these secret courts. We have a government being sued by a company for trying to protect its people...

But as far as I can work out... (and agreeing with what John Oliver said) the Australian Government won that case.

Australia may have won but a bunch of other countries have lost (Eastern Europeans IIRC).

For example:

• In the largest award to date, in October 2012, Ecuador was ordered to pay $1.7 billion plus interest to the U.S.-based Occidental Petroleum Corporation (Oxy) for having canceled its operating contract in 2006. In March 2010, Ecuador had lost another oil-related case – this one brought by Chevron for approximately $700 million. These two awards combined are the equivalent of approximately 3.3% of that nation’s GDP. [ii]

• Two international mining firms—Pacific Rim and Commerce Group—have sued El Salvador to pressure the government to grant permits for potentially environmentally devastating gold mining projects. On Pacific Rim, the ICSID tribunal ruled that it did not have jurisdiction under the Central American Free Trade Agreement but allowed the case to go forward under El Salvador’s investment law. Pacific Rim is demanding “compensation” of $315 million (the equivalent of approximately 1.8% of El Salvador’s GDP,[iii] or about half its entire education budget.[iv] Although ICSID dismissed the Commerce Group case, El Salvador still had to pay $800,000 in legal fees, and the company is seeking an annulment of the decision.
• In 2011, Renco Group Inc. filed a claim with UNCITRAL against the Peruvian government on behalf of itself and its subsidiary, Doe Run Peru. The U.S. corporation is asking for $800 million in damages after the Peruvian government revoked Doe Run’s operating license for a smelter in La Oroya, Peru, one of the most polluted sites on Earth. These resources could be better used to combat the poverty that affects 78% of the country’s indigenous children.[v]

http://www.ips-dc.org/mining_for_profits_update2013/

Even the Economist is not a fan.

One of the earliest cases, launched in the late 1990s, was about a fuel additive called MMT, which the Canadian government decided to ban after it concluded that it could be a threat to human health and the environment. After being sued by Ethyl, the American corporation that manufactured MMT, the Canadian government settled the case for $US13 million. To settle, it had to agree to overturn the ban and, to add insult to injury, publish a statement declaring MMT to be safe.

That is just sick.

 

[rcoobc]

Great post @berbatrick I still see it both ways though.

For example, from the economist article:

Following the Fukushima disaster in Japan in 2011, the German government decided to shut down its nuclear power industry.

Soon after, Vattenfall, a Swedish utility that operates two nuclear plants in Germany, demanded compensation of €3.7 billion ($4.7 billion), under the ISDS clause of a treaty on energy investments.

Right there, you had a country under virtually no risk from an earthquake, deciding "on a whim" to close down all its nuclear plants (including any with outstanding safety records, any with competing technologies, etc). They were always going to get sued to a certain extent, regardless of the vehicle.

I dont really understand these ISDS courts, but I understand why they exist. If you have a company, let's call them Shell, invest 100 billion german francs in an offshore plantation. Then BP has their own one nearby blow up, and the government shuts the Shell one down overnight as well... Well, shell need some system to argue their case.

It's just a court system. There are good court systems and bad court systems and corrupt goods court systems and uncorrupted bad court systems.

Going back to the German nuclear plants, that Swedish company has invested billions, it hasnt done anything wrong itself, the technology hasn't become more unsafe overnight..

 

[peterstorey]

That is just sick.

It's a sick joke, transnational corporations need to be reined in not given ridiculous powers to subvert democratic government. Why isn't it out on the table for starters?

 

[saivet]

I fully sympathise, my favourite freezer pizza is ristorante, but I have to eat that with a knife and fork. The choose layer is impossible to break through with your teeth, meaning you end up with just the pizza base layer after one bite.

Those pizza's are top class. I tend to eat most pizza that's shop bought with a fork and knife though for some reason.

 

[berbatrick]

Great post @berbatrick I still see it both ways though.


Right there, you had a country under virtually no risk from an earthquake, deciding "on a whim" to close down all its nuclear plants (including any with outstanding safety records, any with competing technologies, etc). They were always going to get sued to a certain extent, regardless of the vehicle.

I dont really understand these ISDS courts, but I understand why they exist. If you have a company, let's call them Shell, invest 100 billion german francs in an offshore plantation. Then BP has their own one nearby blow up, and the government shuts the Shell one down overnight as well... Well, shell need some system to argue their case.

It's just a court system. There are good court systems and bad court systems and corrupt goods court systems and uncorrupted bad court systems.

Going back to the German nuclear plants, that Swedish company has invested billions, it hasnt done anything wrong itself, the technology hasn't become more unsafe overnight..

Thanks
I don't think Germany did the right thing but they had the right to do it.
I don't see why Shell can't take the case to the courts of that country. In the particular context of EU, there's a good separation of judiciary and executive/legislature, so there's no reason the companies should need a different court.

 

[rcoobc]

Thanks
I don't think Germany did the right thing but they had the right to do it.
I don't see why Shell can't take the case to the courts of that country. In the particular context of EU, there's a good separation of judiciary and executive/legislature, so there's no reason the companies should need a different court.

Yeah, as you say I'm sure there are other systems for companies to use.

I think the thing that scares people about the ISDS, is that there is no system to help or protect the common man. It's literally a system designed for companies to challenge governments, and that's it. And of course the fear of running foul of the system may be worse than not doing anything in the first place.

If its done sensibly, it may turn out fine. The EU has a history of protecting its citizens, far more than any single European nation.

 

[Nick 0208 Ldn]

Green Party members told: dress in a 'mainsteam' manner, and don't stand too close to voters

This season, sandals, smocks and beards are out.

Green Party activists have been asked to dress in a “mainstream” manner while meeting the public in order to avoid put potential supporters at ease.

The party’s foot-soldiers are instructed to appear “level-headed”, to not stand too close to people’s front doors and to express their admiration for voters’ homes.

The candid advice is contained in a manual for volunteers distributed in the Greater London seat of Hayes and Harlington, and written by candidate Alick Munro.

The Green Party believes it could win up to three seats next month. Membership has surged to above 50,000, outnumbering the Liberal Democrats and Ukip and providing a vast army of enthusiastic campaigners.

Natalie Bennett, the leader, is carefully trying to calibrate its radical platform comprising of a universal citizens’ income, dismantling the army and legalising drugs and brothels for a mass audience, without riding roughshod over the will of the membership that voted for the platform.

By way of compromise, Ms Bennett insists the policies still stand, but are merely a “long term vision” that will not be delivered in the next Parliament.

In an acknowledgement of the bold nature of some of Ms Bennett’s proposals, the guide provides advice on responding to statements including “You’ll cause economic disaster”, “A Green vote is a wasted vote,” and “You’ll leave us defenceless.”

The first week of the election campaign has seen David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband appear in a near-identical ‘everyman’ uniform of smart jeans, a blue shirt and a navy V-neck pullover.

In a section entitled ‘presenting ourselves’, the Green manual advises being “open, friendly, confident, mainstream appearance, level headed, agreeable.”

“Bring a notebook to note down successful contacts. Stand back three feet from people’s front doors so as not to appear threatening. Admire anything that you can reasonably admire. Take a friendly interest in people.”

Canvassers are encouraged to visit car boot sales, supermarkets and sporting events, with potential Green voters identified particular among the young, the ill and public sector workers.

If voters ask why they should consider voting Green, members are encouraged to say: “We want a health world where people can live meaningful lives. We all need clean air, health food, a healthy local economy, education that brings out the best in everybody – we don’t want to waste our lives sitting in traffic jams, destroying the planet and hating each other.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/gen...anner-and-dont-stand-too-close-to-voters.html

 

[berbatrick]

Yeah, as you say I'm sure there are other systems for companies to use.

I think the thing that scares people about the ISDS, is that there is no system to help or protect the common man. It's literally a system designed for companies to challenge governments, and that's it. And of course the fear of running foul of the system may be worse than not doing anything in the first place.

If its done sensibly, it may turn out fine. The EU has a history of protecting its citizens, far more than any single European nation.

I'm from India and our Supreme Court recently passed this judgement whic
1. Really really infuriated big pharma
2. 99% would be reversed by a tribunal

Spoiler

India's Supreme Court rejected Monday a patent bid by Swiss drug giant Novartis in a landmark ruling that activists say will protect access to cheap generic drugs and save lives in developing nations.
...
MSF says Glivec -- often hailed as a "silver bullet" for its breakthrough in treating a deadly form of leukaemia -- costs $4,000 a month in its branded form while the generic version is available in India for around $73.

Novartis, which reported net profit of $9.6 billion in 2012 on sales of $56.7 billion, condemned the judgement, saying in a statement it "discourages innovative drug discovery essential to advancing medical science for patients"
...
India's huge generic drug industry has been a major supplier of copycat medicines to treat diseases such as cancer, TB and AIDS for those who cannot afford expensive branded versions across the developing world.

The copycat drugs industry, which supplies one-fifth of the world's generics, grew into a powerhouse because the country did not issue drug patents until 2005 when it began complying with World Trade Organisation rules.

Pratibha Singh, a lawyer acting on behalf of generics group Cipla, said the judgement "makes it clear you cannot patent a drug by just making some minor modifications -- the key Section 3(d) of the patent law has been upheld by the court".

Global drugmakers say India's generics industry reduces commercial incentives to produce cutting-edge medicines and Novartis has warned it might stop introducing new drugs in India.

At the same time, the market is difficult to ignore and is set to touch $74 billion in sales by 2020 from $11 billion in 2011, according to industry estimates.

It also passed some awesome judgements, expanding the 'right to life':

The Supreme Court's creative and expansive interpretations of Article 21 (Life and Personal Liberty), primarily after the Emergency period, have given rise to a new jurisprudence of public interest litigation that has vigorously promoted many important economic and social rights (constitutionally protected but not enforceable) including, but not restricted to, the rights to free education, livelihood, a clean environment, food and many others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_India#Post-1980:_an_assertive_court


They may not be perfect at all (they didn't strike down the law making homsexuality illegal, at the same there was a judgement in favour of transgender rights), but I'm happy to be guarded from both corporates and my government by a progressive supreme court and hope that does not change anytime soon.

 

[sun_tzu]

TTIP should be high on the election agenda but I haven't heard it mentioned once.

Probably hard for the conservatives and UKIP to admit that those silly euro bureaucrats are doing something they actually agree with

 

[Jippy]

It's scary.




http://www.monbiot.com/2015/01/13/trade-secrets/
http://www.monbiot.com/2014/03/10/all-give-and-no-take/
http://www.monbiot.com/2014/11/04/a-gunpowder-plot-against-democracy/

Good to see Zac Goldsmith querying it.

The Economist piece on ISDS is obviously the most balanced. These clauses have been around for over 50 years, initially introduced for legitimate concerns, but looks like they now are being abused.
Monbiot is somewhat sensationalist and his view that Britain is leading the charge clashes with the Economist saying it is the US.
Given the scale of the fines meted out to the banks and tobacco firms in recent years, it sounds like bullshit that corporates can overturn any laws they want and get compensation for every gripe etc...

 

[sun_tzu]

I should probably vote green... Only they have not bothered to field a candidate in my area which kind of ruins that idea

 

[berbatrick]

Good to see Zac Goldsmith querying it.

The Economist piece on ISDS is obviously the most balanced. These clauses have been around for over 50 years, initially introduced for legitimate concerns, but looks like they now are being abused.
Monbiot is somewhat sensationalist and his view that Britain is leading the charge clashes with the Economist saying it is the US.
Given the scale of the fines meted out to the banks and tobacco firms in recent years, it sounds like bullshit that corporates can overturn any laws they want and get compensation for every gripe etc...

It depends on the country and the company. Not surprisingly, the smaller countries are paying heavier prices. (Ecuador, Peru, and, erm, Canada)

Also the tobacco fines: if you're talking about US lawsuits that's a different (and crazy) ballgame. The banks: as much as they have paid fines, you can find very criminal activity for which they should/could have been more aggressively prosecuted. (the HSBC drug stuff, etc. )

Monbiot sometimes sensationalises and is a real pessimistic downer every single time but always cites his sources and is willing to retract his claims -- I like reading his stuff.

I think the basic premise here is: all these countries have independent judiciaries, there has to be some huge concern with the operation of their courts to justify extra-national authorities.

 

[Nick 0208 Ldn]

Miliband has just given a key speech in which he laid out plans to clamp down on non-doms, that from here on in they would have to submit to the UK taxation. There is a slight wrinkle however and Ed Balls himself explained the problem in a BBC interview, namely that these people are not tied to the country and would very likely modify their status accordingly. When asked in January if Labour would abolish existing non-dom rules, Balls stated that such a course of action would lead to the exchequer brining in less rather than more revenue.

Is Miliband making spending commitments on the back of money which doesn't actually exist?

 

[sun_tzu]

Miliband has just given a key speech in which he laid out plans to clamp down on non-doms, that from here on in they would have to submit to the UK taxation. There is a slight wrinkle however and Ed Balls himself explained the problem in a BBC interview, namely that these people are not tied to the country and would very likely modify their status accordingly. When asked in January if Labour would abolish existing non-dom rules, Balls stated that such a course of action would lead to the exchequer brining in less rather than more revenue.

Is Miliband making spending commitments on the back of money which doesn't actually exist?

Aren't they all?

As for today it was a proper (Ed) Balls up but in the main I think the policy is pretty easy to defend from an ideological standpoint and I dont see the conservatives making too much of an issue over the (Ed) Balls up as they would likely paint themselves into a corner defending non dom status which may be a difficult place to be

 

[Jippy]

Miliband has just given a key speech in which he laid out plans to clamp down on non-doms, that from here on in they would have to submit to the UK taxation. There is a slight wrinkle however and Ed Balls himself explained the problem in a BBC interview, namely that these people are not tied to the country and would very likely modify their status accordingly. When asked in January if Labour would abolish existing non-dom rules, Balls stated that such a course of action would lead to the exchequer brining in less rather than more revenue.

Is Miliband making spending commitments on the back of money which doesn't actually exist?

It's a ridiculous, not thought out populist measure that will most likely fail miserably. The odd thing is Osborne was slated for raising the annual charge for non-doms to as high as £90k, plus they pay tax charges on properties held through companies and tax on their UK earnings. It's not exactly the giveaway that Labour is painting (and did nothing about in 13 years.)
Plus on closer inspection, the policy is riddled with loopholes and a potential 4-5 year grace period.

Wonder if Abramovich would stick around?

Aren't they all?

As for today it was a proper (Ed) Balls up but in the main I think the policy is pretty easy to defend from an ideological standpoint and I dont see the conservatives making too much of an issue over the (Ed) Balls up as they would likely paint themselves into a corner defending non dom status which may be a difficult place to be

It's just another thing, like zero hour contracts, that Labour is suddenly up in arms about despite never having tried to legislate against them when they were in power with a massive majority.

I'm on all the parties mailing lists. The Tories are making a lot of it, believe me- they are barraging me with emails. Sample of the latest below.

Today Ed Miliband’s announcement is in chaos for five reasons:

1. A video has emerged of Ed Balls saying in January: ‘if you abolish the whole status it will probably end up costing Britain money’
2. Which is why the small print of Labour’s press release states that they are not abolishing the whole non dom status
3. HM Treasury figures show that the majority of non doms would remain non doms under Ed Miliband’s policy.
4. Ed Balls’ aides admit that this policy just means Labour will ‘tighten up rules around non doms’, rather than abolishing the whole non dom status.
5. The ‘independent’ expert Ed Miliband cited is a Labour Party member, and this person now admits that there is: ‘some uncertainty about the numbers’.

Responding to Ed Miliband’s chaotic announcement on non-doms, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, said:

“This is a complete shambles from Ed Miliband. He has announced a policy on non-doms that has already completely unravelled. Ed Balls has admitted that abolishing non-dom status will cost Britain money; when you look at the small print of Labour’s policy,it turns out that the headline is completely misleading and the majority of non-doms are not affected at all. It is a classic example of the confusion and the economic chaos you get with Ed Miliband.

“Our approach on non-doms has been clear and consistent. I have increased the levy we charge on non-doms – a levy which we originally proposed in 2007. That has raised over £1 billion for Britain and will continue to raise more in the next parliament, without threatening the jobs in Britain that depend on foreign investment.

“Today’s gaffe from Labour illustrates the stark choice at this election: between the chaos and incompetence of Ed Miliband, and the Conservatives with our long term economic plan that is working and building a stronger economy and a more secure Britain.”

ENDS

Notes to editors

A video has emerged of Ed Balls ruling out abolishing the non-dom status just three months ago because it would cost Britain money – even though this is what Ed Miliband said Labour’s policy was this morning

· Ed Balls in January: ‘if you abolish the whole status it will probably end up costing Britain money because there will be some people that then leave the country’ (BBC Radio Leeds, January 2015).

· Ed Balls today: ‘we’re going to change it, abolish it, and it will raise a lot of money.’ (BBC Radio 5).

· Ed Miliband today: ‘The next Labour government will abolish the non-dom rule’ (Ed Miliband speech, 8 April 2015).

Which is why the small print of Labour’s policy makes clear they are not actually abolishing non-dom status – it’s just rhetoric to get some headlines

· An asterisk at the bottom of Labour’s press release reveals they won’t abolish non-dom status.It reads: ‘The next government will consult on the length of time for which the new rules for temporary residents should apply and on the transition period over which existing non-doms will come within them’ (Labour Press Release, 8 April 2015).

HM Treasury figures confirm Labour’s policy wouldn’t scrap the non-dom status for more than 60 per cent of non-doms – despite Labour briefing last night that they were

· HM Treasury figures show more than 60 per cent of non-doms are here for 5 years or less, which is what The Guardian reported the grace period would be under Labour’s policy. This means the majority of non-doms would not actually be affected by Labour’s policy.

· ‘Labour will stress that foreigners in the UK for a genuine temporary short period will be able to retain non-dom status…Richard Murphy, the left-of-centre tax expert, has suggested that the grace period could amount to five years’ (Guardian online, 7 April 2015).

Labour aides are now backtracking on the policy – it’s no longer abolishing the non-dom status and now ‘tightening up rules’

· Norman Smith tweeted:‘Aides to @edballsmp reject claims of U turn over non doms- “We promised to tighten up rules around non doms and that is what we are doing” (Twitter, 8 April 2015).

And the expert Labour were relying on for their numbers has now admitted he got his numbers wrong

This morning Ed Balls namechecked ‘tax expert’ Jolyon Maugham and Ed Miliband described him as an ‘independent expert’.

But Jolyon Maugham has now been forced to admit his figures were wrong, after it became clear he had not taken account of double tax treaties: “I accept DTCs could have some impact. There’s plainly some uncertainty about the numbers.” (Twitter, 8 April 2015).

 

[sun_tzu]

It's a ridiculous, not thought out populist measure that will most likely fail miserably.

Yes - its labours equivalent of we will cut net migration to the 10's of thousands - not workable and in the long run probably damaging even if they could achieve it

 

[MikeUpNorth]

The Tories are worried because this is actually a popular policy and a clear differentiation.

 

[Jippy]

The Tories are worried because this is actually a popular policy and a clear differentiation.

It is populist, no doubt, but worrying if the shadow chancellor did recently say it would be counter-productive.

 

[sun_tzu]

It is populist, no doubt, but worrying if the shadow chancellor did recently say it would be counter-productive.

The argument will be though that you cant put a price on morals... not saying I agree with the argument but I think as the spin takes hold it may make balls look like a bit of a cock (that probably wont loose many votes as most people outside of labours core vote have a pretty low opinion of him anyway) - but being on the wrong side of the moral debate could play badly with the key middle ground / undecided voters

 

[MikeUpNorth]

The argument will be though that you cant put a price on morals... not saying I agree with the argument but I think as the spin takes hold it may make balls look like a bit of a cock (that probably wont loose many votes as most people outside of labours core vote have a pretty low opinion of him anyway) - but being on the wrong side of the moral debate could play badly with the key middle ground / undecided voters

Exactly. If the argument from the Tories looks like 'you have to let the super rich avoid some tax or they'll leave' most people's instinctive reaction will be 'let them leave then!'

 

[Nick 0208 Ldn]

Aren't they all?

As for today it was a proper (Ed) Balls up but in the main I think the policy is pretty easy to defend from an ideological standpoint and I dont see the conservatives making too much of an issue over the (Ed) Balls up as they would likely paint themselves into a corner defending non dom status which may be a difficult place to be

To one extent or another, yes they probably are.

With public perception of Labour's economic competence being what it is, there is still some political traction to be gained here. Whilst Miliband can perhaps claim to some degree of moral superiority, the other parties would be daft to highlight the muddled nature to his spending commitments. I'd also make an attempt at exposing Labour's duplicity and ill usage of the NHS, one would need to tread carefully of course and Clegg rather than Cameron.

 

[Jippy]

Exactly. If the argument from the Tories looks like 'you have to let the super rich avoid some tax or they'll leave' most people's instinctive reaction will be 'let them leave then!'

They are not always permanent residents here anyway and only avoid tax on overseas earnings. You know they pay £30k-90k a year, plus full income tax on UK earnings, along with CGT, VAT, stamp duty land tax etc...Many invest significantly and create loads of jobs. If you want to go for tax avoiders, go for the corporates that legally pay next to feck all here, like Starbucks, because of the way the EU tax treaties are structured. Seems to stupid to try and take a moral high ground to drive out individuals that benefit your economy. Singapore, Dubai, NY or wherever will happily take these people in.

 

[sun_tzu]

They are not always permanent residents here anyway and only avoid tax on overseas earnings. You know they pay £30k-90k a year, plus full income tax on UK earnings, along with CGT, VAT, stamp duty land tax etc...Many invest significantly and create loads of jobs. If you want to go for tax avoiders, go for the corporates that legally pay next to feck all here, like Starbucks, because of the way the EU tax treaties are structured. Seems to stupid to try and take a moral high ground to drive out individuals that benefit your economy. Singapore, Dubai, NY or wherever will happily take these people in.

yes - but they would still have to pay tax on their overseas earnings in NY - not sure on the law in Singapore and Dubai

 

[Jippy]

In separate news, they got a good snap of Farage on the campaign trail in Grimsby.

 

[soap]

Greens represent about 1% of the vote and they'd never get them all anyway. As for SNP, thats not really a left vs right issue.

They've been polling at around 6% for the last couple of months. I agree SNP are not necessarily "left wing", they're just quite far to the left of Lib/Lab/Con.

Why is the trident such a big issue? And the transatlantic trade agreement?

Trident is just way too expensive. TTIP - I copied this from an article on the Independent - "One of the main aims of TTIP is the introduction of Investor-State Dispute Settlements (ISDS), which allow companies to sue governments if those governments’ policies cause a loss of profits. In effect it means unelected transnational corporations can dictate the policies of democratically elected governments."

The flipside of that is the fact that my friend's dad has set up a very successful and award-winning free school and is getting excellent results for the kids. It's the one Cameron visited the other week and made that comment about using jujitsu on Farage.

Oh yeah I'm sure there are plenty of counter examples, was just an incidental remark. At my friends Mrs school some bloke has taken over and decided to move teachers who've only ever taught year 6 to teach reception just because, they're all mad stressed out there.

@Nick 0208 Ldn you're right about voting reform, however that was for AV, proportional representation seems more popular, and desire for reform seems more prominent now. The Lib Dems managed their campaign pretty horribly too IIRC It still wouldn't pass now even if you factor both of those things in, probably. I know it will be a while before there's any chance of it passing, getting it back into the public's attention is a start. Their education reforms are about a broader curriculum, I guess its what they called "life skills" when I was in school. How to deal with stress and things like that, would have been extremely helpful to me at school. Growing your own food and stuff like that as well. Also, not starting academic learning until the age of 7 like in Scandinavia is a good idea I think.

 

[Jippy]

 

[Smores]

The attack from the right on this seems to be that Labour once said that abolishing it fully would be damaging (which they're not proposing) and then on the other hand saying it doesn't go far enough as it wont target everyone (which isn't the aim).

Tories can't get there argument straight as theyre in a difficult position, doesn't help when a conservative led public committee last week attacked these outdated tax rules.

Truth it I dont think this has as much impact as is made out. Ideologically though there's no reason for these arrangements and they should be opposed from the working classes and British elite alike.

 

[711]

Trident is just way too expensive. TTIP - I copied this from an article on the Independent - "One of the main aims of TTIP is the introduction of Investor-State Dispute Settlements (ISDS), which allow companies to sue governments if those governments’ policies cause a loss of profits. In effect it means unelected transnational corporations can dictate the policies of democratically elected governments."

There are plenty of moral reasons not to have nuclear weapons, but not financial ones.
You could spend twenty times as much on conventional weapons, yet would still have to surrender unconditionally to a nuclear-armed enemy.

 

[Ubik]

Quite lucky in a small way that the AV referendum lost, we'd have absolutely no clue of the likeliest results at the moment.

Also woop woop for the non-dom announcement.

 

[Cheesy]

Quite lucky in a small way that the AV referendum lost, we'd have absolutely no clue of the likeliest results at the moment.

Nah, it's more fun when it's unpredictable.

 

[Ubik]

Nah, it's more fun when it's unpredictable.

Only for the SNP!

 

[Cheesy]

Only for the SNP!

True, although in all seriousness, I'd like to see PR in the UK which would mean you could see multiple parties doing quite well and being in it. 2 horse races are incredibly boring.

 

[Ubik]

True, although in all seriousness, I'd like to see PR in the UK which would mean you could see multiple parties doing quite well and being in it. 2 horse races are incredibly boring.

Fully agree, I'd like genuine choice for all.