Why? A focus puller is getting focus on his face. It happens before every shot you just don't see it. But even so I cant see what's "amazing"?
It can be both. It's an unexceptional event, but 'politicians/celebrities reacting to seeing they are on camera' is always amusing, even if its totally understandable and normal. The best ones are where someone's face is totally slack in relaxation and then transform into a politic smile or smooth amicability in an instant when they are getting ready to go live.
I feel like we missed a good example of that from the 7-way debate, as at one point while Wood and Sturgeon were attacking Miliband it cut to Cameron with a pleased little grin for a second, but when it came back to him a few seconds later he had marshalled himself back to 'listening intently and respectfully'.
I thought she played a very sticky wicket pretty well - clearly the SNP haven't a clue about how to find the £7.6bn......much like Osborne on Marr and the NHS £8bn - and both used the same strategy 'you know you can trust me on Scotland/the economy'........
Nobody is being remotely honest with the electorate with the state of the nations finances.......which when the global soverign debt crisis gets underway from the start of October this year will mean the whole political class will have a hell of a lot of explaining to do. It's surreal watching it all to be honest. And the Tories have been just as bad over the past few days showering electoral bribes around as though there is a £20bn annual surplus in the budget rather than a £90bn deficit.
There would be mileage here for UKIP if Farage bluntly came out and said words to the effect ' all the other parties are being dishonest with you, given the national debt has doubled over the past 5 years and tough choices have got to be made, we are not going to get into this ridiculous public spending auction with other parties when they know that none of them can be afforded'
"It can be both. It's an unexceptional event, but 'politicians/celebrities reacting to seeing they are on camera' is always amusing,"
It's not though. Unless they don't have cameras in Scotland it's just ignorant. The focus puller would have asked him to briefly look at camera so he or she could focus on his eyes. It's always done so to have an adult behave as though they've just seen a yeti is embarrassing.
@Alistair I reckon there is a decent guy underneath Jim Murphy.
We may see it in the next few years.
At the moment, having watched the debate today, his whole strategy seems to be talking over the top of everyone else without allowing anyone a look in. And all of it is pointless waffle that is so incredibly offputting to even political hacks like me, let alone your average voter. Thought Gordon Brewer quite frankly was absolutely pathetic in moderating the debate, but then again given his background in Socialist Organiser, perhaps it was no surprise:
I thought she played a very sticky wicket pretty well - clearly the SNP haven't a clue about how to find the £7.6bn......much like Osborne on Marr and the NHS £8bn - and both used the same strategy 'you know you can trust me on Scotland/the economy'........
Nobody is being remotely honest with the electorate with the state of the nations finances.......which when the global soverign debt crisis gets underway from the start of October this year will mean the whole political class will have a hell of a lot of explaining to do. It's surreal watching it all to be honest. And the Tories have been just as bad over the past few days showering electoral bribes around as though there is a £20bn annual surplus in the budget rather than a £90bn deficit.
There would be mileage here for UKIP if Farage bluntly came out and said words to the effect ' all the other parties are being dishonest with you, given the national debt has doubled over the past 5 years and tough choices have got to be made, we are not going to get into this ridiculous public spending auction with other parties when they know that none of them can be afforded'
Sadly he appears to possess neither the courage nor the astuteness to do that.
IFS conclusion on the pension-tax announcements from Labour and Tories:
"We risk rushing towards something like chaos in the taxation of pensions for those on high incomes. Both Conservative and Labour plans will have substantial incentive and behavioural effects for those with incomes in the £150,000 to £200,000 range – potentially bigger effects than the 45% (or 50% under Labour) income tax rate itself.
This matters. Of course nobody on these sorts of incomes is going to be pushed into penury by such changes. But the undesirable distortions to savings behaviour and to work incentives have the potential to be significant. The two main parties seem to be competing to tie their own hands on the main tax rates whilst scooping up apparently free money from “the rich”, non-doms and tax avoiders on the other. There is a danger that the tax proposals being put forward through this general election campaign will have a long term malign influence on our tax system and economic welfare."
I thought she played a very sticky wicket pretty well - clearly the SNP haven't a clue about how to find the £7.6bn......much like Osborne on Marr and the NHS £8bn - and both used the same strategy 'you know you can trust me on Scotland/the economy'........
Nobody is being remotely honest with the electorate with the state of the nations finances.......which when the global soverign debt crisis gets underway from the start of October this year will mean the whole political class will have a hell of a lot of explaining to do. It's surreal watching it all to be honest. And the Tories have been just as bad over the past few days showering electoral bribes around as though there is a £20bn annual surplus in the budget rather than a £90bn deficit.
There would be mileage here for UKIP if Farage bluntly came out and said words to the effect ' all the other parties are being dishonest with you, given the national debt has doubled over the past 5 years and tough choices have got to be made, we are not going to get into this ridiculous public spending auction with other parties when they know that none of them can be afforded'
Sadly he appears to possess neither the courage nor the astuteness to do that.
Well that's one of the main reasons that UKIP are losing libertarians like me. Given the apalling nature of the campaign over the last week and only the main 5 parties on offer, I'm increasingly hardening in my opinion that I'll spoil my ballot paper 3 weeks on Thursday.....if so I'll prepare a short summary to slip inside the ballot paper why I simply find it impossible to back anything of Green, Labour, Lib Dem, Tory or UKIP.
I thought she played a very sticky wicket pretty well - clearly the SNP haven't a clue about how to find the £7.6bn......much like Osborne on Marr and the NHS £8bn - and both used the same strategy 'you know you can trust me on Scotland/the economy'........
Nobody is being remotely honest with the electorate with the state of the nations finances.......which when the global soverign debt crisis gets underway from the start of October this year will mean the whole political class will have a hell of a lot of explaining to do. It's surreal watching it all to be honest. And the Tories have been just as bad over the past few days showering electoral bribes around as though there is a £20bn annual surplus in the budget rather than a £90bn deficit.
There would be mileage here for UKIP if Farage bluntly came out and said words to the effect ' all the other parties are being dishonest with you, given the national debt has doubled over the past 5 years and tough choices have got to be made, we are not going to get into this ridiculous public spending auction with other parties when they know that none of them can be afforded'
Sadly he appears to possess neither the courage nor the astuteness to do that.
Taxes are supposed to try to help to even things out between rich and poor. There couldn't be a more inequitable unredistributive tax than this one.
Cameron is a cynical disgrace
Surely taxes are there to pay for Govt services. To what extent they "even things out" is up for debate. Too little is pretty Dawinian, too much nobody will bother doing anything as you'll have disincentivised it. Personally, I worry when the desire to be seen ( note "seen") to be doing something ( banning non doms outright, 50% tax rate) outweighs actually raising revenue, as then you are in reality just having to borrow more or make the shortfall up from the less well off, which is just sanctimoniously odd really.
Scottish Labour really reminds me of the Conservatives circa 1997.
Absolutely, and remember the Tories weren't exactly getting the help of the BBC, let alone BBC Scotland back then. And now scraping the bottom of the barrel, all they can go on about is a few loose cannons allied to the SNP who in no way are representative of the SNP at large......truly desperate stuff from SLAB
I thought she played a very sticky wicket pretty well - clearly the SNP haven't a clue about how to find the £7.6bn......much like Osborne on Marr and the NHS £8bn - and both used the same strategy 'you know you can trust me on Scotland/the economy'........
Nobody is being remotely honest with the electorate with the state of the nations finances.......which when the global soverign debt crisis gets underway from the start of October this year will mean the whole political class will have a hell of a lot of explaining to do. It's surreal watching it all to be honest. And the Tories have been just as bad over the past few days showering electoral bribes around as though there is a £20bn annual surplus in the budget rather than a £90bn deficit.
There would be mileage here for UKIP if Farage bluntly came out and said words to the effect ' all the other parties are being dishonest with you, given the national debt has doubled over the past 5 years and tough choices have got to be made, we are not going to get into this ridiculous public spending auction with other parties when they know that none of them can be afforded'
Sadly he appears to possess neither the courage nor the astuteness to do that.
? He did that during the leaders debate.
Not to the extent that was required to make the voters sit up and think just how ludicrous all this spending confetti really is given the realities of the current economic climate. And the OBR and the IFS are totally incredible themselves, as all their projections are predicated on interest rates REMAINING at their current levels. I can't even beging to explain to anyone how dumb that is given the collective weight of economic history since the dawn of time.
Taxes are supposed to try to help to even things out between rich and poor.
No they are not. They are to pay for the things society thinks should be provided by the state (and there are a lot of differences of opinion of how much should be). In order to pay for those things in as fair a way as possible the rich should be taxed more for the collective good of society, but the aim is not to even things out (even as that is in part something that occurs, an important distinction I feel). That suggests being rich is some shameful position the government is tasked with correcting.
For many people, the purpose of taxation is to punish people they don't like.
Manchester City and schadenfreude come to mind......all those millions spent and to what effect? A pretty pitiful return over the past 7 or 8 years given the money is no object culture that has pervaded the club over the time......until financial fair play has started catching up with them.
Well that's one of the main reasons that UKIP are losing libertarians like me. Given the apalling nature of the campaign over the last week and only the main 5 parties on offer, I'm increasingly hardening in my opinion that I'll spoil my ballot paper 3 weeks on Thursday.....if so I'll prepare a short summary to slip inside the ballot paper why I simply find it impossible to back anything of Green, Labour, Lib Dem, Tory or UKIP.
Well they still haven't lost me. I am by no means a party man but consider UKIP the best of a bad lot so they will still get my vote.
Actually that is slightly disingenuous of me because in a way that is fairly easy for me to do because I can vote with my conscience in the knowledge that unfortunately it will make no difference in the constituency I am voting in. So I can vote for the local candidate I agree with most locally who also happens to be the candidate for the party I agree with most of all nationally. All I am doing with my vote is expressing support for a local representative and also adding to the overall number of votes UKIP get nationally. We will still get the Tory as a victor here as sadly I live in one of the 'monkey' constituencies*.
I would have a tougher time if I lived in, say, Frank Field's constituency as I would be compelled to vote for him as a constituency representative even though he was Labour.
*As in you could dress a monkey in the right coloured rosette and they would still win.
In order to pay for those things in as fair a way as possible the rich should be taxed more for the collective good of society, but the aim is not to even things out (even as that is in part something that occurs, an important distinction I feel).
The poor pay a higher proportion of their income in tax, so it doesn't even it out.
I think council tax should be reformed or replaced to remove the part it plays in that calculation.
Malcolm I said Sturgeon was the best in the 7 debate.
I just watched it and Scott is correct she was awful , it was a meltdown.
You are to partisan or blind to realty.
Nobody could have won anything , it was just a rabble , Murphy just kept talking , it was dire. It was not a debate, it was a harangue. Brewer was useless. I did not see anyone get a chance to answer a question.
Taxes are supposed to try to help to even things out between rich and poor.
No they are not. They are to pay for the things society thinks should be provided by the state (and there are a lot of differences of opinion of how much should be). In order to pay for those things in as fair a way as possible the rich should be taxed more for the collective good of society, but the aim is not to even things out (even as that is in part something that occurs, an important distinction I feel). That suggests being rich is some shameful position the government is tasked with correcting.
For many people, the purpose of taxation is to punish people they don't like.
Governments around the world are in a desperate scramble trying to raise more money via taxes all the time. How on earth anyone thinks you can have a succesful economy on this basis I don't know. Businesses need to have the ability to plan ahead, not subject to uncertainty as to what will happen to taxes over the coming years. As a result, there is a lack of CONFIDENCE in investing in the future, although the demographics are distinctly unhelpful I will admit.
I thought she played a very sticky wicket pretty well - clearly the SNP haven't a clue about how to find the £7.6bn......much like Osborne on Marr and the NHS £8bn - and both used the same strategy 'you know you can trust me on Scotland/the economy'........
The irony is it was Murphy "Mr Magic Tree" who was doing the shouting. He really is 3rd rate. It was a waste of time.
Malcolm I said Sturgeon was the best in the 7 debate.
I just watched it and Scott is correct she was awful , it was a meltdown.
You are to partisan or blind to realty.
Nobody could have won anything , it was just a rabble , Murphy just kept talking , it was dire. It was not a debate, it was a harangue. Brewer was useless. I did not see anyone get a chance to answer a question.
I agree it was chaotic, with everyone talking over the rest. I honestly thought on this occasion the Lib Dem bloke, apologies do not know his name had the most gravitas.
Accepting i haven't read any of the detail, but the inheritance tax on family homes thing is nonsense isn't it? Firstly inheritors in any family with more than one child will not be in a position to live in it since they will presumably be multiple families and will just sell up. Secondly it puts elderly parents in a difficult position once all their children have 'fled the nest' and they are looking to downsize. Because downsizing would cost (their inheritors) a lot of money since it would presumably significantly reduce the value of the non-taxable asset (that's before you get into scenarios of really elderly parents selling up completely to move into care homes or their children's homes). It disincentivises lining in a home appropriate to circumstances. If on the other hand the policy is for it not to be taxed until sold - well it's just a gimmick.
In order to pay for those things in as fair a way as possible the rich should be taxed more for the collective good of society, but the aim is not to even things out (even as that is in part something that occurs, an important distinction I feel).
The poor pay a higher proportion of their income in tax, so it doesn't even it out.
I think council tax should be reformed or replaced to remove the part it plays in that calculation.
No they don't not unless you're very deceptive about the way you count it. Are you counting benefits for example which are a negative tax? If you're not its totally dishonest.
Well that's one of the main reasons that UKIP are losing libertarians like me. Given the apalling nature of the campaign over the last week and only the main 5 parties on offer, I'm increasingly hardening in my opinion that I'll spoil my ballot paper 3 weeks on Thursday.....if so I'll prepare a short summary to slip inside the ballot paper why I simply find it impossible to back anything of Green, Labour, Lib Dem, Tory or UKIP.
Well they still haven't lost me. I am by no means a party man but consider UKIP the best of a bad lot so they will still get my vote.
Actually that is slightly disingenuous of me because in a way that is fairly easy for me to do because I can vote with my conscience in the knowledge that unfortunately it will make no difference in the constituency I am voting in. So I can vote for the local candidate I agree with most locally who also happens to be the candidate for the party I agree with most of all nationally. All I am doing with my vote is expressing support for a local representative and also adding to the overall number of votes UKIP get nationally. We will still get the Tory as a victor here as sadly I live in one of the 'monkey' constituencies*.
I would have a tougher time if I lived in, say, Frank Field's constituency as I would be compelled to vote for him as a constituency representative even though he was Labour.
*As in you could dress a monkey in the right coloured rosette and they would still win.
As far as I'm concerned, I'd be happy if Farage lost in Thanet South, and then with any luck, Carswell would be in a position to inherit the leadership, although it would be better for him if UKIP weren't just a one man band in parliament. And then we might get a properly libertarian party on the right shorn of its nationalistic tendencies.....which will be well placed to pick up support once the global sovereign debt crisis gets underway.
In order to pay for those things in as fair a way as possible the rich should be taxed more for the collective good of society, but the aim is not to even things out (even as that is in part something that occurs, an important distinction I feel).
The poor pay a higher proportion of their income in tax, so it doesn't even it out.
I think council tax should be reformed or replaced to remove the part it plays in that calculation.
Only the top 40% of households are net contributors when both taxes and benefits are included.
You really cannot ignore benefits and tax credits when saying the poor are overtaxed.
The Coalition raise of the starting rate did a tremendous amount for taking the lower paid out of tax. Something Labour failed to do in 13 years of government.
It is worth reflecting upon the origins of the SNP, founded in 1934 in the wake of the rise in German nationalism.
During the 1939-45 war, senior members of SNP campaigned to encourage Scots not to fight for the British Army (some were interred)
At one time Alex Salmond (who appears to be hiding during the present campaign) was expelled for supporting the Provisional IRA.
There is at its core a nasty streak of jingoistic racism within the Nats
It might be worth you reflecting upon your knowledge of subjects on which you wish to comment.
Much as the UK government might have wanted to inter ex Labour Party member Douglas Young, he was actually imprisoned (rather than interned) for his refusal to be conscripted.
Arthur Donaldson was interned for 6 weeks and then released without charge; people got longer than that for making frothy coffee.
Malcolm I said Sturgeon was the best in the 7 debate.
I just watched it and Scott is correct she was awful , it was a meltdown.
You are to partisan or blind to realty.
Nobody could have won anything , it was just a rabble , Murphy just kept talking , it was dire. It was not a debate, it was a harangue. Brewer was useless. I did not see anyone get a chance to answer a question.
I agree it was chaotic, with everyone talking over the rest. I honestly thought on this occasion the Lib Dem bloke, apologies do not know his name had the most gravitas.
Willie Rennie.
It was a no-score draw in truth, but right now that's good enough for Nicola. Its Jim Murphy and SLAB with all the problems, hence their increasingly desperate and frankly ridiculous attacks on the SNP. Sore losers don't go down well anywhere, least of all Scotland.
Malcolm I said Sturgeon was the best in the 7 debate.
I just watched it and Scott is correct she was awful , it was a meltdown.
You are to partisan or blind to realty.
Nobody could have won anything , it was just a rabble , Murphy just kept talking , it was dire. It was not a debate, it was a harangue. Brewer was useless. I did not see anyone get a chance to answer a question.
I agree it was chaotic, with everyone talking over the rest. I honestly thought on this occasion the Lib Dem bloke, apologies do not know his name had the most gravitas.
Willie Rennie.
It was a no-score draw in truth, but right now that's good enough for Nicola. Its Jim Murphy and SLAB with all the problems, hence their increasingly desperate and frankly ridiculous attacks on the SNP. Sore losers don't go down well anywhere, least of all Scotland.
For me it really shows how poor Murphy is and how bereft of policies and answers SLAB are. He sounded like a loser.
Well that's one of the main reasons that UKIP are losing libertarians like me. Given the apalling nature of the campaign over the last week and only the main 5 parties on offer, I'm increasingly hardening in my opinion that I'll spoil my ballot paper 3 weeks on Thursday.....if so I'll prepare a short summary to slip inside the ballot paper why I simply find it impossible to back anything of Green, Labour, Lib Dem, Tory or UKIP.
Well they still haven't lost me. I am by no means a party man but consider UKIP the best of a bad lot so they will still get my vote.
Actually that is slightly disingenuous of me because in a way that is fairly easy for me to do because I can vote with my conscience in the knowledge that unfortunately it will make no difference in the constituency I am voting in. So I can vote for the local candidate I agree with most locally who also happens to be the candidate for the party I agree with most of all nationally. All I am doing with my vote is expressing support for a local representative and also adding to the overall number of votes UKIP get nationally. We will still get the Tory as a victor here as sadly I live in one of the 'monkey' constituencies*.
I would have a tougher time if I lived in, say, Frank Field's constituency as I would be compelled to vote for him as a constituency representative even though he was Labour.
*As in you could dress a monkey in the right coloured rosette and they would still win.
As far as I'm concerned, I'd be happy if Farage lost in Thanet South, and then with any luck, Carswell would be in a position to inherit the leadership, although it would be better for him if UKIP weren't just a one man band in parliament. And then we might get a properly libertarian party on the right shorn of its nationalistic tendencies.....which will be well placed to pick up support once the global sovereign debt crisis gets underway.
Surely Farage will not stay on as leader even if he wins South Thanet? The man looks exhausted. He's taken the party to undreamed of heights, and I hope he remains a central force, but I think it's time to let someone else be the figurehead.
On topic R&S is very tight and could go either way which we all know .Was down there a couple of weeks ago and there is no doubt Mark Reckless is getting good funding for his campaign.Would be a disgrace if Kelly Tolhurst wins -she is an appallingly bad candidate.In Thanet S today and had a good chat with one of the Labour candidates standing in the locals .FWIW he thinks the Tories are out of the race in Thanet S and it is between UKIP and Labour.
Well that's one of the main reasons that UKIP are losing libertarians like me. Given the apalling nature of the campaign over the last week and only the main 5 parties on offer, I'm increasingly hardening in my opinion that I'll spoil my ballot paper 3 weeks on Thursday.....if so I'll prepare a short summary to slip inside the ballot paper why I simply find it impossible to back anything of Green, Labour, Lib Dem, Tory or UKIP.
Well they still haven't lost me. I am by no means a party man but consider UKIP the best of a bad lot so they will still get my vote.
Actually that is slightly disingenuous of me because in a way that is fairly easy for me to do because I can vote with my conscience in the knowledge that unfortunately it will make no difference in the constituency I am voting in. So I can vote for the local candidate I agree with most locally who also happens to be the candidate for the party I agree with most of all nationally. All I am doing with my vote is expressing support for a local representative and also adding to the overall number of votes UKIP get nationally. We will still get the Tory as a victor here as sadly I live in one of the 'monkey' constituencies*.
I would have a tougher time if I lived in, say, Frank Field's constituency as I would be compelled to vote for him as a constituency representative even though he was Labour.
*As in you could dress a monkey in the right coloured rosette and they would still win.
As far as I'm concerned, I'd be happy if Farage lost in Thanet South, and then with any luck, Carswell would be in a position to inherit the leadership, although it would be better for him if UKIP weren't just a one man band in parliament. And then we might get a properly libertarian party on the right shorn of its nationalistic tendencies.....which will be well placed to pick up support once the global sovereign debt crisis gets underway.
Surely Farage will not stay on as leader even if he wins South Thanet? The man looks exhausted. He's taken the party to undreamed of heights, and I hope he remains a central force, but I think it's time to let someone else be the figurehead.
Well that's another reason why it would be better for Farage to lose for the long term future of UKIP. I thought Farage would be refreshed and bursting with energy after his comparative quiet spell in February and March.
"Accepting i haven't read any of the detail, but the inheritance tax on family homes thing is nonsense isn't it? Firstly inheritors in any family with more than one child will not be in a position to live in it since they will presumably be multiple families and will just sell up. Secondly it puts elderly parents in a difficult position once all their children have 'fled the nest' and they are looking to downsize. Because downsizing would cost (their inheritors) a lot of money since it would presumably significantly reduce the value of the non-taxable asset (that's before you get into scenarios of really elderly parents selling up completely to move into care homes or their children's homes). It disincentivises lining in a home appropriate to circumstances. If on the other hand the policy is for it not to be taxed until sold - well it's just a gimmick."
There is at its core a nasty streak of jingoistic racism within the Nats
Faisal Islam, who clearly has mixed heritage, has reported from many different countries round the World, but the only people to question whether he was suitable to report on a story were the SNP
@faisalislam: only place in world I been questioned about suitability to report a story on basis of my background, not UKIP, an SNP rally @ChristHeRead
I thought she played a very sticky wicket pretty well - clearly the SNP haven't a clue about how to find the £7.6bn......much like Osborne on Marr and the NHS £8bn - and both used the same strategy 'you know you can trust me on Scotland/the economy'........
The irony is it was Murphy "Mr Magic Tree" who was doing the shouting. He really is 3rd rate. It was a waste of time.
Murphy was doing quite well, demolishing Sturgeon's fatuous "growth" answer to "where the money is going to come from......."
Until when asked about Labour's lower austerity he said "growth".....
Luckyguy/Hunchman Farage said exactly that in the debate, that there was still too much being spent and too big a deficit, his solution was to slash overseas aid and get out of the EU and control pressure from immigration on the NHS. UKIP also wants to cut the top tax rate to 40%, increase the personal allowance to the minimum wage level and introduce a 35p band from £42,000-£55,000 and scrap inheritance tax altogether, economically it is the most libertarian of the parties manifestos
'Accepting i haven't read any of the detail, but the inheritance tax on family homes thing is nonsense isn't it?'
I agree IHT on the family home is nonsense,the home has been paid from taxed income with stamp duty,VAT on Estate Agents & Solicitors fees etc at the time of purchase. and then they want to tax it yet again.
Luckyguy/Hunchman Farage said exactly that in the debate, that there was still too much being spent and too big a deficit, his solution was to slash overseas aid and get out of the EU and control pressure from immigration on the NHS. UKIP also wants to cut the top tax rate to 40%, increase the personal allowance to the minimum wage level and introduce a 35p band from £42,000-£55,000 and scrap inheritance tax altogether, economically it is the most libertarian of the parties manifestos
How do you "increase the PA to the minimum wage level"? One is an annual rate, one is an hourly rate.
I thought she played a very sticky wicket pretty well - clearly the SNP haven't a clue about how to find the £7.6bn......much like Osborne on Marr and the NHS £8bn - and both used the same strategy 'you know you can trust me on Scotland/the economy'........
The irony is it was Murphy "Mr Magic Tree" who was doing the shouting. He really is 3rd rate. It was a waste of time.
Murphy was doing quite well, demolishing Sturgeon's fatuous "growth" answer to "where the money is going to come from......."
Until when asked about Labour's lower austerity he said "growth".....
And to think of all the hype about Jim Murphy when becoming SLAB leader that he was finally going to be the answer to the SNP. SLAB's problems are a little more deep rooted than simply a change in leader.
Well that's one of the main reasons that UKIP are losing libertarians like me. Given the apalling nature of the campaign over the last week and only the main 5 parties on offer, I'm increasingly hardening in my opinion that I'll spoil my ballot paper 3 weeks on Thursday.....if so I'll prepare a short summary to slip inside the ballot paper why I simply find it impossible to back anything of Green, Labour, Lib Dem, Tory or UKIP.
Well they still haven't lost me. I am by no means a party man but consider UKIP the best of a bad lot so they will still get my vote.
Actually that is slightly disingenuous of me because in a way that is fairly easy for me to do because I can vote with my conscience in the knowledge that unfortunately it will make no difference in the constituency I am voting in. So I can vote for the local candidate I agree with most locally who also happens to be the candidate for the party I agree with most of all nationally. All I am doing with my vote is expressing support for a local representative and also adding to the overall number of votes UKIP get nationally. We will still get the Tory as a victor here as sadly I live in one of the 'monkey' constituencies*.
I would have a tougher time if I lived in, say, Frank Field's constituency as I would be compelled to vote for him as a constituency representative even though he was Labour.
*As in you could dress a monkey in the right coloured rosette and they would still win.
As far as I'm concerned, I'd be happy if Farage lost in Thanet South, and then with any luck, Carswell would be in a position to inherit the leadership, although it would be better for him if UKIP weren't just a one man band in parliament. And then we might get a properly libertarian party on the right shorn of its nationalistic tendencies.....which will be well placed to pick up support once the global sovereign debt crisis gets underway.
That is pretty much my view as I have repeated on here before. I am rather of the opinion that Farage is pretty Libertarian in his views but has made the crucial error of trying to move his party into one of pure protest against anything - right or wrong - that he thinks the public are opposed to. He should have set out his stall as a man of small government and of reducing state interference in our lives - which would have put him in favour of gay marriage for example - and then made his stand on those principles.
Trying to be populist no matter what the issue has put him on the wrong side of too many arguments from a libertarian point of view.
Incidently the most regressive taxes are the ones on tobacco. 50% of single mums on benefits smoke, averaging 10% of their income on the deadly weed.
Is that definitely true? Its disgusting IMO if it is.
Smoking while pregnant or smoking in front of kids is utterly vile.
The very highest smoking rate is homeless men. With a pack of fags now £8 ish that is quite a dent in income. Smoking rates are inversely associated with social class.
I supect that alcohol and gambling taxes also are very regressive.
Had to shake my head in regard to one of those recent documentaries following those round on benefits. They interviewed one man who visited a food bank while he chain smoked outside. That's the problem free food which meant he could get his ciggies of course.
Should close food banks and open cigarette banks instead. Then the users can spend their benefits on food of their choice before going to the cigarette bank for their freebies.
I guess "having to choose between smoking and heating" doesn't have the same ring for bleating lefties though
Just looking through constituency candidate lists - hadn't realised that David Rendel is standing for the Lib Dems in Somerton & Frome - and I doubt a successful return to parliament after losing Newbury in 2005:
It is worth reflecting upon the origins of the SNP, founded in 1934 in the wake of the rise in German nationalism.
During the 1939-45 war, senior members of SNP campaigned to encourage Scots not to fight for the British Army (some were interred)
At one time Alex Salmond (who appears to be hiding during the present campaign) was expelled for supporting the Provisional IRA.
There is at its core a nasty streak of jingoistic racism within the Nats
It might be worth you reflecting upon your knowledge of subjects on which you wish to comment.
Much as the UK government might have wanted to inter ex Labour Party member Douglas Young, he was actually imprisoned (rather than interned) for his refusal to be conscripted.
Arthur Donaldson was interned for 6 weeks and then released without charge; people got longer than that for making frothy coffee.
Only Tory values would be to make it a priority to spend £1bn on a policy which the Treasury says would not apply to 90% of estates.
Would not be my value whilst cutting £12bn from welfare and having an £8bn black hole in respect of NHS panic pledge.
Always wonder about the stat that says it's 90% that it doesn't apply to - surely that's massively skewed by the first death of a married couple when the estate is just left to the widow?
the problem comes on the second death.
as for lefties moaning about IHT issues for non-married parents on this thread, perhaps they'd like to take that up with Darling and Brown who brought in the transferable IHT allowance for marries couples?
Only Tory values would be to make it a priority to spend £1bn on a policy which the Treasury says would not apply to 90% of estates.
Would not be my value whilst cutting £12bn from welfare and having an £8bn black hole in respect of NHS panic pledge.
Always wonder about the stat that says it's 90% that it doesn't apply to - surely that's massively skewed by the first death of a married couple when the estate is just left to the widow?
the problem comes on the second death.
as for lefties moaning about IHT issues for non-married parents on this thread, perhaps they'd like to take that up with Darling and Brown who brought in the transferable IHT allowance for marries couples?
Just looking through constituency candidate lists - hadn't realised that David Rendel is standing for the Lib Dems in Somerton & Frome - and I doubt a successful return to parliament after losing Newbury in 2005:
Comments
We may see it in the next few years.
I feel like we missed a good example of that from the 7-way debate, as at one point while Wood and Sturgeon were attacking Miliband it cut to Cameron with a pleased little grin for a second, but when it came back to him a few seconds later he had marshalled himself back to 'listening intently and respectfully'.
There would be mileage here for UKIP if Farage bluntly came out and said words to the effect ' all the other parties are being dishonest with you, given the national debt has doubled over the past 5 years and tough choices have got to be made, we are not going to get into this ridiculous public spending auction with other parties when they know that none of them can be afforded'
"It can be both. It's an unexceptional event, but 'politicians/celebrities reacting to seeing they are on camera' is always amusing,"
It's not though. Unless they don't have cameras in Scotland it's just ignorant. The focus puller would have asked him to briefly look at camera so he or she could focus on his eyes. It's always done so to have an adult behave as though they've just seen a yeti is embarrassing.
During the 1939-45 war, senior members of SNP campaigned to encourage Scots not to fight for the British Army (some were interred)
At one time Alex Salmond (who appears to be hiding during the present campaign) was expelled for supporting the Provisional IRA.
There is at its core a nasty streak of jingoistic racism within the Nats
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Brewer
"We risk rushing towards something like chaos in the taxation of pensions for those on high incomes. Both Conservative and Labour plans will have substantial incentive and behavioural effects for those with incomes in the £150,000 to £200,000 range – potentially bigger effects than the 45% (or 50% under Labour) income tax rate itself.
This matters. Of course nobody on these sorts of incomes is going to be pushed into penury by such changes. But the undesirable distortions to savings behaviour and to work incentives have the potential to be significant. The two main parties seem to be competing to tie their own hands on the main tax rates whilst scooping up apparently free money from “the rich”, non-doms and tax avoiders on the other. There is a danger that the tax proposals being put forward through this general election campaign will have a long term malign influence on our tax system and economic welfare."
http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/7708
He did that during the leaders debate.
"I thought she played a very sticky wicket pretty well - clearly the SNP haven't a clue about how to find the £7.6bn...."
I agree. She was fine. Used the standard technique of all politicians.
What is it about Scottish politics that seems to bring out the inner child in (presumably) adult posters?
Actually that is slightly disingenuous of me because in a way that is fairly easy for me to do because I can vote with my conscience in the knowledge that unfortunately it will make no difference in the constituency I am voting in. So I can vote for the local candidate I agree with most locally who also happens to be the candidate for the party I agree with most of all nationally. All I am doing with my vote is expressing support for a local representative and also adding to the overall number of votes UKIP get nationally. We will still get the Tory as a victor here as sadly I live in one of the 'monkey' constituencies*.
I would have a tougher time if I lived in, say, Frank Field's constituency as I would be compelled to vote for him as a constituency representative even though he was Labour.
*As in you could dress a monkey in the right coloured rosette and they would still win.
I think council tax should be reformed or replaced to remove the part it plays in that calculation.
I honestly thought on this occasion the Lib Dem bloke, apologies do not know his name had the most gravitas.
You really cannot ignore benefits and tax credits when saying the poor are overtaxed.
The Coalition raise of the starting rate did a tremendous amount for taking the lower paid out of tax. Something Labour failed to do in 13 years of government.
Much as the UK government might have wanted to inter ex Labour Party member Douglas Young, he was actually imprisoned (rather than interned) for his refusal to be conscripted.
Arthur Donaldson was interned for 6 weeks and then released without charge; people got longer than that for making frothy coffee.
I'm unaware of other SNP members being interned.
It was a no-score draw in truth, but right now that's good enough for Nicola. Its Jim Murphy and SLAB with all the problems, hence their increasingly desperate and frankly ridiculous attacks on the SNP. Sore losers don't go down well anywhere, least of all Scotland.
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/china-post-race-analysis.html
http://www.arcofprosperity.org/can-the-snp-realistically-take-east-renfrewshire/
locals .FWIW he thinks the Tories are out of the race in Thanet S and it is between UKIP and Labour.
For anyone that would like to play, the game for Finland is now out, entries close 12 noon next Sunday:
http://www.electiongame.co.uk/finland/
Opinion poll and background links available as always - the UK and Poland games will be out next.
Many thanks,
DC
"Accepting i haven't read any of the detail, but the inheritance tax on family homes thing is nonsense isn't it? Firstly inheritors in any family with more than one child will not be in a position to live in it since they will presumably be multiple families and will just sell up. Secondly it puts elderly parents in a difficult position once all their children have 'fled the nest' and they are looking to downsize. Because downsizing would cost (their inheritors) a lot of money since it would presumably significantly reduce the value of the non-taxable asset (that's before you get into scenarios of really elderly parents selling up completely to move into care homes or their children's homes). It disincentivises lining in a home appropriate to circumstances. If on the other hand the policy is for it not to be taxed until sold - well it's just a gimmick."
Yes complete nonsense
@faisalislam: only place in world I been questioned about suitability to report a story on basis of my background, not UKIP, an SNP rally @ChristHeRead
Until when asked about Labour's lower austerity he said "growth".....
I'd never have forgiven myself....
'Accepting i haven't read any of the detail, but the inheritance tax on family homes thing is nonsense isn't it?'
I agree IHT on the family home is nonsense,the home has been paid from taxed income with stamp duty,VAT on Estate Agents & Solicitors fees etc at the time of purchase. and then they want to tax it yet again.
Trying to be populist no matter what the issue has put him on the wrong side of too many arguments from a libertarian point of view.
I guess "having to choose between smoking and heating" doesn't have the same ring for bleating lefties though
Guess that would be zero.
BBC really have given up even the pretense of impartiality in this election
https://yournextmp.com/constituency/65812/somerton-and-frome
the problem comes on the second death.
as for lefties moaning about IHT issues for non-married parents on this thread, perhaps they'd like to take that up with Darling and Brown who brought in the transferable IHT allowance for marries couples?
Ton on the Tories here.