2015 General Election

Pettytyrant101 wrote:No, especially not as they committed themselves to Tory budgets. S har to see where the difference will be except in what gets cut, but its  more and more cuts either way.
Miliband is weak- he has been bullied and manipulated into backing Tory austerity plans, he has been bullied and manipulated into ruling out a coalition that could be good for the country by the Tories, he bends to every poll and every bit of public opinion and bad press- not a good sign for a potential leader.

yes he is, that's why I wont be voting for Labour for the first time in my life. It feels weird. I feel cut adrift.

Even if only one person donates its better than it present isn't it?- and I think you underestimate people. I know a few old folks round here who are comfortably off and donate their winter fuel payment to charity.
And if means testing everyone eligible would be more expensive than just making a universal payment then whats the alternative?


yes he is- Figg

We agree on something this election!!! Excuse me, I need to go for a lie down....

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Even if only one person donates its better than it present isn't it?- and I think you underestimate people. I know a few old folks round here who are comfortably off and donate their winter fuel payment to charity.
And if means testing everyone eligible would be more expensive than just making a universal payment then whats the alternative?


yes he is- Figg

 We agree on something this election!!! Excuse me, I need to go for a lie down....

I feel weird. I feel cut adrift!

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Doesn't work like that here- we dont do out taxes every year and hand them in. They are taken at source in most cases, the main exception being the Council Tax which is paid monthly and charged yearly.
So we dont have tax forms.

When you claim a benefit you provide them with your information via a lot of form filling- they then check it out and either grant or deny the benefit. Then you can either accept or appeal the decision and theres a lot more form filling.

But if money is taken out at the source, and there's more than one source, how do they know how much to take out? Doesn't your tax rate change with total income?

We can elect to have money taken out as well - in fact in many cases it's done automatically. But they deliberately take out a little more in a ploy to get you to fill out your form and get it refunded. You can opt out of the with-holding system, but most folks don't bother, I think because it feels so good to get that refund.

Can't imagine how the British system can possibly work if people have multiple sources of income.

Its quite simple really.

Earnings are broken into bands- each band pays a certain amount in tax- if your earnings go up enough you move up a band and pay more, if they go down so do does your tax, if you earn below a certain amount it stops altogether (thats new).

If you have more than one job you have to declare it- to not do so is illegal, as is not declaring your earnings in general. There are different tax rules for people who have more than one job, for those who are self employed (they have to do their own taxes or get an accountant-which is wise, did I mention the amount of bureaucracy?) ect.


'You can opt out of the with-holding system, but most folks don't bother, I think because it feels so good to get that refund.'- Halfy

Well the system here has a tendency to occasionally calculate your rate too high on one tax or another, which you then appeal or they eventually pick up on the error. Then you get a tax refund. So we still get the feel good factor, its just usually its more down to bureaucratic cock-up than intentional.

You can get an overview here- but the fact it feels obligated to star with the Napoleonic War just to help you understand it might explain a lot in itself, and to be honest, they start way to late  in history-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_the_United_Kingdom

Well if people are already declaring which income bracket they're in, that's just one step away from doing their taxes. And folks who are self employed are doing that anyway, seems like a simpler way to go.

Wait a minute: if they have to declare their income bands, why not just declare that for the purposes of child support? Seems simple enough.

if people are already declaring which income bracket they're in- Halfy

No, no, we dont declare that, you only need to declare income and savings if you are claiming a benefit.

Your taxes are automatic. Your wage slip tells you how much tax you've paid, but its already gone before you get the money- as a worker you never see it. Whoever you work for has already paid it to the Treasury.


'if they have to declare their income bands, why not just declare that for the purposes of child support? Seems simple enough.'

You do, you have to declare income to make any benefit claim to see if you qualify for the benefit. But you also have to disclose savings ect too, then all that information has to be put somewhere, then it has to be checked, then a decision has to made on the claim, then the claimant has to have the avenue to dispute the claim if they disagree, then you need adjudicators to judge on the disputed claims and you get the idea for how the cost starts to spiral up, as everyone you need to employ at each stage is on an increasingly high salary.
And as everything needs to be accessible online too, and everything needs to be processed on computers you need an IT system to handle it all.

I have a question maybe you know the answer to this Petty. Over the years I have worked for loads of companies, its a joke  in my family that the only people I haven't yet worked for is NASA or a Columbian drug lord, anyways, I presume for some of these companies they took out money for an occupational pension scheme? question. are there pots of pensions knocking around and what happens to them? do they just lie dormant or do they get interest paid on them as the years whizz by. the thing is I recently remembered a pension I took out when I worked for Manchester airport and to my surprise the gvt has kindly been giving me 20p every so often so this pension which originally had like £10 in it now has £2000.  what I want to know is are there more of these fuckers lying around and so when I am 55 how can I get my paws on them.

Scottish election debate from last night- got a bit tasty at points which livened things up-

Figg this might help on your pension question-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/consumer/24735450

I've heard a couple people on other forums speculate that there might be a second general election later this year if the parties are unable to form coalitions?  Does that actually look like a realistic possibility to anyone in the UK right now?  IIRC it happened in the '70s but it feels like a pretty extreme measure.  Though having two hung parliaments in a row is pretty uncommon for the UK, AFAIK.

What's the longest y'all have gone without a coalition government being formed?  I know the Belgians took 20 months to form a government once.  That's largely because Belgium is coming apart at the seams between the French and Dutch speaking regions, but the same principle (voters abandoning national parties for regional ones) can be seen in Northern Ireland and Scotland.  They're only a small portion of the entire UK electorate, of course, but the rise of the SNP is surely part of the reason why Labour, at least, faces such difficulty building a majority on its own.  (That's not to criticize the SNP for this, just an observation.)

I had to laugh at this image the BBC is using to promote their coverage of the election on the North American version of their website.

A second election is possible but much, much more unlikely than it was just two parliaments ago.
Yo see at the start of the last Parliament the government introduced into law 5 year fixed term Parliaments- which make it much harder to brng a government down over the course of the Parliament.
Ironically the fixed term is playing into the hands of the SNP- as they can even go as far as to bring down a government budget without collapsing the government, whereas in the past that would have been enough to trigger a vote of no confidence in the government.
So its not very likely there will be a second one, it need 3/4 of the House to dissolve the fixed term act (meaning Tory and Labour would both have to vote for it to happen), and its mainly being rolled out as an idea now in a desperate attempt to get people to back the big two parties- vote for us or you will have to go through all this again in six months time.

Before the last coalition you have to back to something like 1928 for a coalition government- up till recent times the 1st past the post system produced majority governments.


the rise of the SNP is surely part of the reason why Labour, at least, faces such difficulty building a majority on its own- Eldo

To a point- but Labour have been in a golden position, years of austerity, lots of cuts, hugely unpopular government in traditional Labour areas- and yet they have never had a clear lead in the polls when they should have a clear lead.
Granted if they lose their block of 50 odd Scottish MP's is makes forming a government a majority almost impossible- but if they were being sensible about it it would not rule them out forming a government. It would just be one in which they would have to deal with the democratic choices of the people- and if thats for Greens, Welsh Nationalist or SNP then so be it- thats what the voting public will have given him to work with. He should just get on with the job.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Figg this might help on your pension question-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/consumer/24735450

nice find! thanks Petty

I think Milliband has been a disaster for the Labour party, he hasn't given wavering Scottish labour voters anything solid to hold onto.
I think in extremis there might be a Tory/Labour coalition, it happens in other countries why not in the UK. ironically they are probably closer than they think. Milliband has excluded the SNP and without them he wont become PM, so the only way is in bed with Dave, and Dave is probably better in bed than Salmond.

he hasn't given wavering Scottish labour voters anything solid to hold onto.- Figg

No he hasn't. He has let the SNP steal utterly their traditional voters and voting grounds- appointing Murphy Scottish Leader was a mistake- ex-Blairite, to this day a defender of the Iraq war, he had a hand in privatizations and worse he wasn't and isn't even a member of the Scottish Parliament- he is an MP not and MSP and he is standing again as an MP even though he says he will at some point quit as MP and stand for MSP in order to be eligible to stand for First Minister next year- but that means his constituents, if they vote for him, don't know if he will still be in the job in a years time or if he will throw them into a by-election in six months time, and from the other side it just looks like he is hedging his bets and not committing to the Scottish Parliament so if it doesn't work out he can go back to his cosy MP job and salary.

The other problem is that Scottish Labour keep contradicting national Labour- Jim Murphy in the Scottish debate said there would be no further cuts under Labour, then Milliband comes out backing Tory cuts already in the pipeline. So folk don't feel that they can take what they are told by Scottish Labour as truth, as chances are Westminster Labour will just overwrite it- which brings back the problem raised when the last Scottish Labour leader, Johann Lamont, left saying Westminster Labour treated the Scottish party like a branch office- that statement confirmed what many feared and sparked a swing to the SNP of disfranchised Labour voters, the SNP are a party who even when people disagree with individual policies, everyone feels that when they say they will speak up for Scotland they are believed. No one believes that of Scottish Labour any more.

Another issue was how they fought the independence campaign- it would have been wise for them to defend their position on the Union alone- it was suicidal to it o platforms all over the country alongside Tories.
For some old Labourites seeing Labour and Tory spouting the same lines and standing shoulder to shoulder was too much to bear. Especially as it was all negative about Scotland.

And their final problem up here is they are obsessed with the SNP, their hatred and loathing of the SNP is well out of control and has been for a long time, its all they talk about- you dont hear what they will do they just rant about how evil the SNP are all the time, people just switch off after a while. Scottish Labour have allowed themselves to be defined not for what they stand for but for what they oppose (oddly enough it seems a similar problem to me as that faced by the Republicans in America).

Interesting point raised by Nick Robinson on the point of a governments legitimacy-

'Some may argue that a Labour government backed by the SNP, Plaid Cymru and Northern Ireland's SDLP has a claim to speak for all the people of these islands whereas a Tory-led government would govern on behalf of England alone.'

Its a good point- surely if England truly does believe in the Union and the polls prove true, then is better to have a Labour party (votes mainly from England) SNP (votes from Scotland) Plaid Cyrmu (votes from Wales) and the SDLP (votes from North Ireland) than it is to have a government with votes from just England?
England might like that but to the rest of the countries of the Union it would just be yet another time when we have had a government we didn't elect foisted upon us against our democratic will.

I have no objections to that.

well with all that lot at the helm its sayonara UK

wheres Lance?

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Before the last coalition you have to back to something like 1928 for a coalition government- up till recent times the 1st past the post system produced majority governments.

I'm pushing up against the limits of my UK history here, but 1928 was during the period when the Liberal Party was being displaced by Labour, right?  First-past-the-post does tend to lead to and support two-party systems, but it can be disrupted, though it usually reverts back to a two-party system (typically with one of the parties replaced).  Five years ago it looked like the Lib Dems were on the cusp of becoming a major party again, but now the regional parties seem to be the more disruptive force.  I would think that the devolution has increased their appeal, but I was reading up on the SNP's history lately and apparently their largest Westminster delegation (not including this year's projected results) were in the '70s from before the first (failed) devolution referendum.  So I dunno.

To a point- but Labour have been in a golden position, years of austerity, lots of cuts, hugely unpopular government in traditional Labour areas- and yet they have never had a clear lead in the polls when they should have a clear lead.

I do wonder how much of this is the chickens that Blair kicked out coming home to roost.  (That's sort of a weird metaphor but let's roll with it.)  The '80s saw a big swing to the right in a number of western countries, with Thatcher and Reagan the poster children for this movement, and the '90s saw their rivals scrambling to swing after them (Clinton and Blair dragging their parties away from the left).  The pendulum seems to have swung slightly back though, at least in the US, where the left-wing of the Democratic Party has been asserting itself more in the last few years.  I know the SNP is kind of a hodgepodge of ideologies united under the banner of independence, but considering their main allies in the independence referendum were the Greens and the Socialists, I wonder how much of the SNP's strength comes from the left.  On the other hand, I recall a couple years ago a quite interesting argument being made on BBC Scotland (which I think you posted here) that the SNP had seized the title of "the patriotic party" from the Tories and were in some ways behaving in a way that is typically associated with conservative parties.

Granted if they lose their block of 50 odd Scottish MP's is makes forming a government a majority almost impossible- but if they were being sensible about it it would not rule them out forming a government. It would just be one in which they would have to deal with the democratic choices of the people- and if thats for Greens, Welsh Nationalist or SNP then so be it- thats what the voting public will have given him to work with. He should just get on with the job.

Miliband could form a minority government though, couldn't he?  I was reading an interesting article last night (whose accuracy I can't really attest to since British constitutional law is not my area of expertise) that Miliband could become PM even if he comes in second, because incumbent PMs are expected to resign if they lose a majority they once held.

http://www.headoflegal.com/2015/04/19/ed-can-enter-no-10-without-nicolas-keys/

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Interesting point raised by Nick Robinson on the point of a governments legitimacy-

'Some may argue that a Labour government backed by the SNP, Plaid Cymru and Northern Ireland's SDLP has a claim to speak for all the people of these islands whereas a Tory-led government would govern on behalf of England alone.'

Its a good point- surely if England truly does believe in the Union and the polls prove true, then is better to have a Labour party (votes mainly from England) SNP (votes from Scotland) Plaid Cyrmu (votes from Wales) and the SDLP (votes from North Ireland) than it is to have a government with votes from just England?
England might like that but to the rest of the countries of the Union it would just be yet another time when we have had a government we didn't elect foisted upon us against our democratic will.

I think any government would like to have a majority that draws from as broad a spectrum of the population as possible, but I take issue with your last sentence.

The way I see it, the only way we can speak of Scotland's (or Wales, or Northern Ireland) democratic rights being violated is if it is treated as a distinct political unit from the rest of the UK.  In the case of the Scottish Parliament, it is, so if Westminster were to try to say "you have to have a Tory First Minister" or something, then that would be a clear violation of Scottish democracy.  But as far Westminster and general elections are concerned, Scotland is merely one part of the UK, and its 59 constituencies do not have any special connection to each other or particular rights not found in the other 591 Westminster constituencies.  So if Scotland's rights are being violated by living under a Tory majority  that was led by English votes, then England's rights have been violated any time they ended up under a Labour government that could form a majority only because of support from Scotland and Wales.

To be clear, I'm not arguing for either of these interpretations, I just think it's rather inaccurate to call the results undemocratic simply because one wishes that Scotland were separate and independent.

Mrs Figg wrote:well with all that lot at the helm its sayonara UK

While I don't entirely understand the acrimony towards the SNP, I do understand why people who favor its continued existence would be very worried about a coalition government dependent on the strength of separatist parties.  Though if current polling turns out to be accurate, I'm not sure what the alternative is, other than a minority government (likely to be unstable and short-lived), or a Tory-Labour grand coalition like what we see in Germany, designed to keep the separatist parties out (seems massively unlikely to me).  Interestingly though, the rationale for the German grand coalition is similar to the proposed UK one: keep a party seen as dangerous to the current constitutional arrangements (Die Linke, descended from East Germany's old ruling communist party) far away from government.

Whether the SNP requires a cordon sanitaire to keep it out of is sure to be a controversial decision and shouldn't be made lightly.  It has the potential to alienated Scottish voters even more. I'm not sure if it's the right thing to do, but I can understand why it might be done.

Mrs Figg wrote:wheres Lance?

I miss hearing his take on UK politics. Come back to us, Lance!

Mrs Figg wrote:wheres Lance?

Who can tell with Lance. Probably hanging out with penguins in Antarctica or yetis in Tibet.

but 1928 was during the period when the Liberal Party was being displaced by Labour, right?- Eldo

I'm impressed Eldo you would know such minutiae of our system, I doubt I'd do as well on historical US governments, but yes it was.
There were also coalition government during the WW2 but it tends to be counted seperately due to the unique circumstances.

'were in the '70s from before the first (failed) devolution referendum.'

Although my memories of the 70's devolution stuff is vague and from a kids perspective it did not seem to have the mass support the SNP have enjoyed since they came to power in the Scottish Parliament.

'their main allies in the independence referendum were the Greens and the Socialists, I wonder how much of the SNP's strength comes from the left.'

More now with the massive influx of Labour voters. Sturgeon was always to the left of Salmond, who many would argue is right of centre more than left overall.
On a basic level of breaking down their policies they are left wing on social issues and right wing on business matters. But even then the two are intertwined- so unlike the Westminster party the SNP embraced Green Energy and has supported its development strongly throughout Scotland, which can be seen as being left of centre energy policy, but they went about it applying more traditional right of centre business policies. But they also strongly supported and promoted at the same time the exploiting of new oil fields and have been calling for years for further cuts to tax for North Sea Oil to free up companies to invest more in future areas, and those are right of centre energy policies.
It makes the SNP very hard to categorize using the traditional left/right dichotomy.


'the only way we can speak of Scotland's (or Wales, or Northern Ireland) democratic rights being violated is if it is treated as a distinct political unit from the rest of the UK. '

Right there is the issue Eldo- it is, and it isnt. For the purposes of voting at Westminster Scotland is just another UK region, and there you are quite right. But the voting region happens to be the same size and shape as the country Scotland, and the country has its own devolved Parliament. And it depends how you view the UK- as one unit made up of seperate regions, or as seperate countries joined in an agreement.
In Scotland it tends to be viewed as the latter these days not the former.

Also the response from large sections of the English media tot he SNP rise- that a Westminster government relying on Scottish votes is illegitimate because people in England would not have voted for it, makes a mockery of the English stance on the Union previously when the 'regions' of the electorate in Scotland got Tory government they never voted for and were told thats how the Union works- lump it.
If when for the first time in my life a part of that might be reversed, and Scotland might hold a balance of power, we are told its illegitimate then its unlikely Scots are going to view ourselves as just a voting region. It will be seen as a denial of Scottish votes and the Scottish democratic voice.


'It has the potential to alienated Scottish voters even more.'

I wold go further than that and say it would be suicide for the Union. The idea Labour and Tory could join together to prevent the democratic voice of one part of the UK from being heard (assuming the polls are roughly right)- especially after all the rhetoric of the referendum campaign from Unionists - is crazy. I don't see how the Union could survive that.
If they do go down that route of anything to block the SNP then they really are in the dark over the mood here.