Wes Tender

The most sensible thing said on this thread in relation to the original subject. It is 30 years since MT came to be Prime Minister. She did things that some people admire and others loathe. But what exactly is the relevance now? The current Conservative party now has no more resemblance to Maggie Thatcher's party then, than today's Labour party has any resemblance to the one of that era also. The whole political landscape has changed, partly as a result of what she did and obviously by what followed. If these stupid calls to revise on history 20/30 years ago were applied to other periods in earlier history, then some similar idiot would have reminded us to view the history of the 40's at the time leading up to us signing the Treaty of Rome to join what was then laughably called the Common Market.

All fair comment. We might differ in our opinions as to whether VAT or income tax is the way forward in the current crisis, as do the main parties, but we fought our corners with some good points either way. We will have to wait and see what transpires on Thursday to have any idea as to which path will be chosen.

I've certainly experienced some left-wing lunatics in British politics in my time, as I have some right-wing lunatics too. I have no problem with people making up their own minds and selecting a party to vote for based on informed opinion. They make their choice based on a series of policy areas and choose the party that they think most closely echoes their beliefs. You believe that Labour represents your views better, whereas I think that the Conservatives represent mine. The lunatics are not the moderates in those parties, but the extremists.

Why not try something from the variety of restaurants here http://www.oxfordstreetsouthampton.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=15&Itemid=20 It's not too far from the ground and there are several possibilities. The Olive Tree does vegetarian, also probably some choice at Kuti's which is good Indian Food. Also the White Star has two Rosettes (according to their website) for food and might well have vegetarian choices.

Was that the one by the M27 roundabout near Hedge End? It seems to have been taken down.

No, he sounds more like a Lib/Dem to me with his woolly thinking. Disgruntled Labour supporters often end up there. Take Han**** in Pompey for example. I forgot about the swear word filter. How appropriate!

Firstly, I had not mentioned the revenue from tourists charged VAT, as those from outside of the Europe can claim it back on leaving. It is nice though that we can get some money back from Europe. What would be good though, would be some sort of tax on their tourists and lorry drivers coming over here, based on the extra burden they put on our roads infrastructure, the unfair competition they give to our haulage industry because of their lower fuel duties and also as a reciprocal reprisal to counter the motorway tolls that we have to pay on many of the European roads. As to your main argument, that VAT increases favour the savers who avoid paying it, therefore tax increases are better, I would counter and say that against the loss of revenue to the Exchequer from those savers, must be compared the loss of revenue from tax increases. I would suggest that the loss of revenue because VAT is not levied on savers who do not spend, is vastly overshadowed as a proportion by the loss of revenue when income tax is increased. There are several examples of what the net result of that might be. 1) Higher taxation is a disincentive to work harder, especially when higher rates apply to increased earning levels. 2) There is a natural inclination for workers to demand salary increases, as their nett income decreases, but their overheads and bills stay the same or increase. The reduction in their earnings because of tax increases is instantly visible, whereas the price of goods in the shops is not particularly noticeable. Anyway, to counter another point you made, VAT might be flat rate, but the price of a particular item on which it is levied is seldom the same from shop to shop. 3) The higher taxed an individual is, the more inclination he shows to not paying it, either by emigrating or through creative accounting. It is already proven that beyond a certain percentage of income tax, the exchequer takes a lesser amount of tax than if the rate was lower. I fear that the top rate of over 50% is already counter-productive and the repercussions are yet to be seen, as it has only just been introduced 4) at a time of low GDP, growth in the manufacturing sector should not be stifled by taxes on jobs, like income tax and the NI contribution. So the VAT rate is the same regardless of whether one earns £5000 or £50 million PA. So what? Do you seriously infer that it would be better to have the VAT at varying rates, so that every item bought had a price to it that reflected not the cost of the item, but the level of earnings of the purchaser? This loaf of bread will cost a low income earner 50p and the high earner £5? This situation already applies to the Community charge, where the cost of services varies dependent on the value of the property, not on the cost of the service supplied. (The Lib/dems want to introduce a local income tax). It already applies to taxation. I suppose that it is only a matter of time before the Socialists begin to think about applying the principle to everything. You can afford to pay more for that loaf of bread, you rich arrogant bastard.

Firstly, why is a firm stance on not joining the Euro labelled by you to be arrogant? It is a principled stand, a declared policy. The usual woolly rhetoric and weasel words surface again and again in the debate on Europe. When the conditions are right, in the fullness of time, when the voting public form a consensus on it. Does it begin to sound like Sir Humphrey from "Yes Minister"? So the Lib/Dems will grant us a referendum on it will they? But then I don't seem to recall them being in favour of a referendum on the various Treaties that changed our membership of just a trading block into becoming a Federal State with a centralised Parliament whose laws over rode our elected Parliament. And when will the conditions ever be right and in whose opinion? The Libs are being hypocritical here. I was interested and amazed to see the results of a survey this morning that showed the order of importance that the public attaches to the various issues in this election campaign. It seems that the number one issue isn't the economy, surprisingly, but Immigration leads as most important by several percent. I might be wrong, but somehow I suspect that this public opinion on the subject is not coming down on the side of giving illegal immigrants an amnesty if they have been here a decade, or the looney idea that those additional new immigrants can somehow be evenly dispersed throughout the land. Europe comes way down the priorities in this survey. As for your agreement with the other poster on the matter of personalities, I agree entirely with you both. Take this thread, for instance. It is all about how the individual party leaders came across in front of an audience from a particular sector of society, a collective of charity and citizenship pressure groups. To a certain extent, this was not entirely a typical grouping as a cross section of the electorate and neither were the leaders in a position to cross examine each other as in the television debates. But in this election campaign more than in any other in British political history, it is all about presentation over substance, which is wrong. So Brown came across well. So what? It was all platitudes and sound bites. Where was the Beef? Blair made presentation an art form with his spin doctor Campbell, but this election has taken us a step further down that road. We are much the worse for it.

The definition of rich needs defining and while we're about it, how about defining poor. As Nick points out, many people living in London are property rich compared to other parts of the country and would come into the grasp of Inheritance Tax as a result. Of course, that tax was never designed to include them. Turning to the definition of poor, that has been redefined over and over again. As far as I'm aware, if your household doesn't have a range of electronic items and white goods it is deemed now to be poor. My, how things have changed since the definition meant that a family couldn't afford shoes for the children and were hard pressed to feed them. Whilst we're about it, why do the so-called rich need child benefit and winter heating allowances? Brown went spare about the suggestion that it should not be universally applied in the TV debates. Some consistency is required here.

I certainly hope so. The Lib/Dems have been obnoxious in their election propaganda these past couple of elections. In every issue of their propaganda that falls onto the doormat, they have a little chart showing the last general election result where they won by a small majority of 300 or so. And so they call it a two horse race and state categorically that Labour cannot win here. In the last issue, they had the gall to state that Labour had already lost, even though not one vote had been cast. One marvels at the bare-faced cheek of it, as they have often been the third party in by-elections and have come through to win the seat. What might they have thought of similar statements telling the electorate that the Lib/Dems could not win the seat? I'm hoping that a combination of factors will unseat Huhne. Some Labour supporters might take heed of his statement and vote for somebody else other than him, in anger at his presumption. Others might vote for the Liberal candidate who is standing on a platform that Huhne had made some election pledge the last time around which he did not honour. Huhne had overturned a usual Conservative seat largely because of the fallout surrounding the Stephen Milligan scandal. Now that the electorate have given the Conservatives a kicking over that, time to move on and forget that and vote on the strengths of the candidates and what they could do for the constituency. Most will realise that if they are to get rid of the busted flush that is Brown and the Labour party, they will not achieve that by voting in Lib/Dems, who will toady up to them in a hung Parliament.

Ah! The arrogance of youth, who think they know it all, when the ink has hardly dried on their birth certificates. I couldn't care a toss if you think that you're being patronised. You deserve it. How much personal experience backs up your legitimate views? None. You sound like the Lib/Dem version of Tory Boy. Goodnight.

Don't pull any punches GM. Tell it as it is. I must say that I agree with you though. This election is a poisoned chalice. Even if the Conservatives eventually manage to get back some order into the economy, the pill will have been so bitter, that when the next election comes around, they will probably be booted out. I'm a bit disappointed that Cameron didn't come out harder about what a mess we're in and how hard the medicine would be to take. He could have laid it on with a trowel and have the electorate praising his openess, his frank honesty. If elected, he would have the perfect comeback if people started howling at the pain, as he could remind them that he had warned them of what a great mess it was at the start.

Not so. My opinions have been formed over decades of experience of British politics, going back to the time at the end of the Macmillan era and the start of the Harold Wilson government. Yours? As for your assertion that the Lib/Dems will do wealth distribution best, I beg to differ, They have no track record at it, as the last time they were the Government was under Lloyd George 90 odd years ago. Labour do it best, with their "Squeeze 'em til the pips squeak mantra. I really can't be bothered to go over all the old ground as to why taxing the rich isn't the panacea you might think it is, but suffice it to say that if you are bright enough, or industrious enough to make a success of your life, you might take a different view of it all if you should find that somehow, what you considered to be a reasonable level of income, might be deemed to categorise you as rich in the eyes of a future Labour or Lib/Dem Government. But then again, you might revel in paying a disproportionate percentage of your income to the Exchequer and it might give you a nice warm feeling. I don't.

Ah, the Guardian, that bastion of totally unbiased middle of the road opinion. What a recommendation for the impartiality of the judgement.

But didn't you get the entire point of the sketch? It was Labour propaganda. It obviously failed in your case. So the Lib/Dems "offer a true route to a fairer system". Full marks for swallowing their sound bite. It sounds great, but means nothing, like all good sound bites. You've obviously thought this through and concluded that of the other two parties, one offers the untrue route to a fair system and the other offers the true route to an unfair system. Ah, the unblemished idealism of sweet innocent youth.

I just defended it. At the very least a clear distinction could be made between those idle rich who do not have to work because they inherited a fortune and those who become wealthy because they are brilliant entrepreneurs. The first category is a small number of individuals and most would probably spend a large part of the year abroad anyway to avoid taxation and death duties. The second category has probably also created wealth and jobs along the way and been taxed at the highest rates to boot. Why should they have to pay tax during their working lives and then again when they die? That is what is indefensible IMO. It is purely and simply the politics of envy writ large.

Agree with everything you say.

Stop for a minute and consider what you have written. Cuts are the reductions in public spending, yes? I presume that is what you are talking about. So you are not talking about taxes there, although it is a certainty that general taxation, either direct or indirect, or both, will have to increase, no matter which party wins the election. But in the next breath, you are talking about inheritance tax, which is levied in the event of somebody's death. So when somebody dies, do they get some tax back if the inheritance tax is reduced or abolished? No. Their estate simply does not pay it. And when you say that everybody pays for the cuts, then you really mean everybody working, including those who are very wealthy and still alive. They then have to pay all over again when they shuttle off this mortal coil. So when you ask why you should pay and not them, what you really mean, is why should you pay once and why shouldn't they pay twice, just because they are wealthier than you. Isn't that really what you are saying?

I'm delighted that apparently we manage to achieve such a low profile when our owner's wealth would place us so very high in the hierarchy of English clubs. Firstly, it is a credit to the private man that Liebherr is that he doesn't have any sort of ego to puff himself up and secondly it is a distinct benefit that we maintain this low profile and are not ripped off by other clubs and agents thinking that because Liebherr can afford it, they ought to jack up the prices of their players. On the other hand, we know and Pardew knows, that if we do not want to sell a player, we do not have to because of financial restraints, so we can keep them all unless stupid money is thrown at us making it silly not to take it. What a lovely position we are in. And if some ignorant Swindon fan tries to extract the urine on the basis of that report, we can put them right, that what their owners are worth is just small change compared to what ours is worth.

Are you Noddy, or Big Ears?

You fail to see the merits of an increase in VAT, so let me explain it to you (against the background of whether it is a better option than increasing income tax) 1) it is not so obvious to the payer that the tax has been collected. Look at your pay slip and it is immediately apparent how much has disappeared in tax deductions and NI. Depressing, isn't it? Buy anything in a shop and although you know that 17.5% of the price is tax unless it's food or books, it hardly registers how much extra you are paying. You look at the price and pay it if you think it is reasonable. But often you can shop around and get that product for 17.5% less elsewhere, but it doesn't mean that you are not paying the VAT. When Labour introduced the VAT reduction to 15%, it was a nonsense against the background of shops with sales notices saying that there were reductions of up to 70% off the prices. And it probably cost more than that to the shops having to alter all of their prices. 2) It is a tax on expenditure, so beneficial to savers who only pay tax on it when they spend. 3) I'll make a counter statement of my own and will await your effort at justifying it. At a time when we need people spending in the High Streets to stimulate the economy I fail to see the merits of an income tax increase. The next Government, no matter who it is, will have to increase either direct or indirect taxation, or maybe both, as well as cutting the public sector. If they can minimise that by cutting down on wasteful bureaucracy, then so much the better. Increasing the NI contribution is a tax on jobs. How would you justify that when we need people spending money in the High Street? As to your second line, that is twaddle. The price of goods for purchase, whether it is items for sale in a shop, holidays, houses, or indeed anything that is sold, also favours those with more money, who naturally are better able to afford those goods. Those goods cost the same regardless of somebody's ability to pay for them. Would you have it that those on lower income could buy those goods for less? Life is so unfair, isn't it? Some work harder than others and earn more. Others have inherited wealth. (Bastards ) Others win the lottery or are good at spotting entrepreneurial opportunities. It's so unfair that they can buy those goods and products at the same prices as the lower paid or feckless, isn't it? So what it comes down to, is whether you would consider it better that people had less money to pay for those goods because of higher income tax, or that the prices were higher because of higher VAT?

It comes as no surprise that this sort of woolly thinking comes from you. So you honestly believe that the two current opposition parties don't want to stimulate growth? That neither realise that tax increases will be required to pay off the massive deficit run up by the Government? Labour stimulating the economy pretty much comes down to them increasing the NI rates, aptly identified as a tax on jobs. As for public sector cuts, they have seldom had the stomach for those in the past, so I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you. For some reason, you seem to believe that the party who got us into this mess is the one best placed to get us out of it too. Have you received some leaked document about what might be contained in the Conservative emergency budget? Please do share it with us.

Says he, ignoring the privileged upbringing and extremely expensive private education that Blair had. One has to laugh at the pure hypocrisy and cant spouted by the class warriors of the left. Mind you, Blair only became electable because he seemed to be a sea change from old Labour. That lot had some of the biggest hypocrites of all time, spouting on about their working class credentials at the same time that their children were privately educated and they enjoyed private health care.

But there is no reason whatsoever that we would need to cease trading with the EU on much the same basis as we do now. As many others have said and I include myself in this, I am quite happy that we continue trading with the EU. But when we signed the Treaty of Rome, it was merely a trading agreement. Subsequent Treaties like Maastricht have brought us ever deeper into a Federation of States with the subsequent loss of sovereignty that nobody voted for originally. Each treaty should have been subject to a Referendum. But our MPs knew damned well that the British Public would have rejected them. The British electorate has been cheated by their MPs in Parliament. Voting at a General Election is a fudge that allows them to get away with it time and time again, as some vote for a party because they always have, regardless of whether that party's line on Europe is not what they want. Others take the view that they are helpless because the vote is for a basket of policies and they go for the party who satisfies most of the ones that they support. If there is a hung Parliament and the Lib/Dems force through changes in the voting system, the single transferable vote might bring about change, as in the European Elections, I'm pretty sure that after a vote for their chosen historic party, many would vote for UKIP as their second choice. It would make for an extremely interesting situation.

So I asked you to come out with chapter and verse as to why we wouldn't be able to continue trading with Europe on a reciprocal basis if we left the EU and why we couldn't also return to trade with the Commonwealth and other parts of the World and your response is only to repeat your mantra that it will never happen. And then you clutch at the straw offered to you by Whitey Grandad as a reason. Couldn't you think of any cogent reasons of your own? You could start by saying why you think that all of the European car makers would wish to cease trading with us, the Italian refrigeration and washing machine industry, the French with their apples, cheese, etc, the Dutch with their caps and the Belgians with their Brussel Sprouts.