Tories Blowing It?

[LiverpoolHibs]

Latest poll sees their lead reduced to 2% (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7044185.ece)

It means Labour is heading for a total of 317 seats, nine short of an overall majority, with the Tories languishing on a total of just 263 MPs. Such an outcome would mean Brown could stay in office and deny Cameron the keys to No 10.

[Hibbyradge]

I really don't believe that poll. The Tories must be further ahead than that.

I think they want Brown to call a snap election.

[bobbyhibs1983]

I really don't believe that poll. The Tories must be further ahead than that.
.

Dont thse polls happen weekly or soemthing?i recall the torries being like 10points plus the other week.

what has brown done recently to get so many people wanting to vote for him?
i mean in the last week or 2, it has been claimed brown has bullied people(unsure if this has been proven though)

[LiverpoolHibs]

I really don't believe that poll. The Tories must be further ahead than that.

I think they want Brown to call a snap election.

Obviously it's largely speculation, but I'd be more inclined to think previous polls showing a substantial Tory lead were the exaggerated ones.

Yougov have consistently put the Tory lead narrower than other pollsters, but at about 6%. throughout last week. This coming week will show if it's an anomaly or not.

N.B. Apparently a snap election would require dissolving parliament tomorow.

[J-C]

The % has got closer ever since Brown had that heat warming interview on telly about his dead daughter, started showing his human side, also this bullying thing shows him to be someone with a bit of fire in his belly as he's giving his cabinet a bollicking when they're not up to it.

[AgentDaleCooper]

if so, then hahahahahahaha, labour are useless, but if the tories can't even beat them then that really makes me giggle...it's all buggered anyway, it really doesn't matter who wins as long as it's not the tories, who will just decimate everything ten times worse than even THIS labour government...

[Leicester Fan]

Brown could stay in office

What a dreadful thought.

[AgentDaleCooper]

What a dreadful thought.

incredible as it may seem, it could be worse. i'd rather virtually anyone to that plastic toff.

[BroxburnHibee]

Doubt the poll's accuracy to be honest..........

Better the devil you know anyway.

I suspect southern England will put the toff in office.

[steakbake]

Obviously it's largely speculation, but I'd be more inclined to think previous polls showing a substantial Tory lead were the exaggerated ones.

Yougov have consistently put the Tory lead narrower than other pollsters, but at about 6%. throughout last week. This coming week will show if it's an anomaly or not.

N.B. Apparently a snap election would require dissolving parliament tomorow.

Very detailed polling in marginal seats show the Tories between 10 and 12% ahead.

This is an election unlike many others because the winner will not be defined as the party who got the highest percentage points like in opinion polls, but who got their vote out most importantly, where it really matters.

If Brown wants to cling on for another 4-5 years, he'll need to do very well in the English towns. There is no indication from detailed polling of the marginals that he is or will do so. :nerd:

I would say that the 2% poll is a bit of a freak and the 10-12% point lead polls don't detail the position enough.

Yes it would - not totally sure if Brown will though, but I have a bet on it as I had heard from a reliable source that 25th March was being more closely looked at. After that was April 8th. I understand that both dates would avoid having to go through a budget - which Brown does not want to do right now because the country is absolutely rooked financially and that would have to emerge in the next budget.

[hibsdaft]

i said on here six months ago that this election wasn't in the bag (and its not often i get to be smug so i'm going to enjoy it :greengrin )

that said i think this poll will turn out to be a bit of a blip, i think their lead is probably narrowing, but still around 5%.

one way or another it looks like being a hung parliament, with another election likely in autumn.

[Dashing Bob S]

I don't have time for the Lib Dems, and think they're pretty much a nothing party, but I've come to prefer them to either Labour or Tory, both right-wing parties ran by careerists, and both with a solid track record of failure.

At least Cable for Lib Dems was the one senior politician who called it right on the economic collapse.

The culture of greed and self-interest propagated by Thatcher and sustained by the hypocrites Blair and Brown that has got us into this mess, would only be further advanced by the squeaky-bollocked toff Cameron and his rip-off acolytes.

I've come to the conclusion that we could do worse than have a hung parliament with the Libs Dems holding the balance of power. Neither Brown or Cameron or either of their shabby, shallow opportunist parties are up to the job in my opinion.

[AgentDaleCooper]

I don't have time for the Lib Dems, and think they're pretty much a nothing party, but I've come to prefer them to either Labour or Tory, both right-wing parties ran by careerists, and both with a solid track record of failure.

At least Cable for Lib Dems was the one senior politician who called it right on the economic collapse.

The culture of greed and self-interest propagated by Thatcher and sustained by the hypocrites Blair and Brown that has got us into this mess, would only be further advanced by the squeaky-bollocked toff Cameron and his rip-off acolytes.

I've come to the conclusion that we could do worse than have a hung parliament with the Libs Dems holding the balance of power. Neither Brown or Cameron or either of their shabby, shallow opportunist parties are up to the job in my opinion.
agree with you on cable, i just wish he was the leader - hate nick clegg, seems like a cameron-lite to me, total ego.

out of the three leaders, i have to say i like...ok, not like, but dislike the least gordon brown - he's the only one who seems like he might actually be human. i know what you mean about his careerist approach, but i think the one thing that sets him apart from the other two is that he wants that career not for his ego, but because he genuinely REALLY wants to do a good job - even if he isn't.

he's still a rubbish PM - i just think we would be worse off with one of the other two.

politics is fked.

[GlesgaeHibby]

agree with you on cable, i just wish he was the leader - hate nick clegg, seems like a cameron-lite to me, total ego.

out of the three leaders, i have to say i like...ok, not like, but dislike the least gordon brown - he's the only one who seems like he might actually be human. i know what you mean about his careerist approach, but i think the one thing that sets him apart from the other two is that he wants that career not for his ego, but because he genuinely REALLY wants to do a good job - even if he isn't.

he's still a rubbish PM - i just think we would be worse off with one of the other two.

politics is fked.

Another 4 years with Brown as our PM would be a complete disaster.

His recklessness as chancellor, where we continued to borrow and spend great amounts during the good years has only added fuel to the economic collapse.

Under labour we have seen:


Billions spent on an uniwnnable war in Afghanistan
Gap between rich and poor wider than ever
National Debt at a record level
Loss of secret data
Mass Unemployment
The development of a Nanny State


I've had enough of Labour. I can't stand the Tories or David Cameron, but another 4/5 years of Labour and I dread to think what the state of our country will be in.

Labour need to be booted out of office to rediscover their values.

[LiverpoolHibs]

I don't have time for the Lib Dems, and think they're pretty much a nothing party, but I've come to prefer them to either Labour or Tory, both right-wing parties ran by careerists, and both with a solid track record of failure.

At least Cable for Lib Dems was the one senior politician who called it right on the economic collapse.

The culture of greed and self-interest propagated by Thatcher and sustained by the hypocrites Blair and Brown that has got us into this mess, would only be further advanced by the squeaky-bollocked toff Cameron and his rip-off acolytes.

I've come to the conclusion that we could do worse than have a hung parliament with the Libs Dems holding the balance of power. Neither Brown or Cameron or either of their shabby, shallow opportunist parties are up to the job in my opinion.


agree with you on cable, i just wish he was the leader - hate nick clegg, seems like a cameron-lite to me, total ego.

This Vince Cable stuff has got waaaaay out of hand.

His 2003 'prediction' (which wasn't really all that accurate) is slightly undercut by him then being a signatory of the Lib Dem Orange Book in 2004 which reinforced every aspect of the economic policy that caused the collapse - including affirming support for deregulation of the banking sector, replacing the NHS with a U.S. style PFI insurance system, wholesale privatisation of the prison system (and pretty much everything else going).

N.B. That's not to mention being Shell's chief economist when they were colluding with the Nigerian nilitary junta in the execution and toruture of opposition activists and government critics. Something he's never spoken up about...

[Beefster]

I don't have time for the Lib Dems, and think they're pretty much a nothing party, but I've come to prefer them to either Labour or Tory, both right-wing parties ran by careerists, and both with a solid track record of failure.

At least Cable for Lib Dems was the one senior politician who called it right on the economic collapse.

The culture of greed and self-interest propagated by Thatcher and sustained by the hypocrites Blair and Brown that has got us into this mess, would only be further advanced by the squeaky-bollocked toff Cameron and his rip-off acolytes.

I've come to the conclusion that we could do worse than have a hung parliament with the Libs Dems holding the balance of power. Neither Brown or Cameron or either of their shabby, shallow opportunist parties are up to the job in my opinion.


agree with you on cable, i just wish he was the leader - hate nick clegg, seems like a cameron-lite to me, total ego.

out of the three leaders, i have to say i like...ok, not like, but dislike the least gordon brown - he's the only one who seems like he might actually be human. i know what you mean about his careerist approach, but i think the one thing that sets him apart from the other two is that he wants that career not for his ego, but because he genuinely REALLY wants to do a good job - even if he isn't.

he's still a rubbish PM - i just think we would be worse off with one of the other two.

politics is fked.

Blows the myth that Vince Cable is some sort of economic Nostradamus.....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00mzzwj/b00mzzks/Straight_Talk_19_09_2009/

[steakbake]

I can't remember who said it or where I saw it, but there is a saying: that politicians, much alike nappies, need changing frequently and for the same reason.

I'm not looking forward to a Tory government if that happens, but we sorely need some change to happen, whatever that change needs to be. Brown is an awful Prime Minister, in my opinion. The idea of another 5 years of his self-aggrandising, arrogant bull***** is just too much to bear for me. It's got me seriously considering voting LibDems, which is a big step for me as I think they themselves are pretty useless, but they are the only party close to toppling Labour in my area.

The way some folk go on about the election, you think they'd be happy with a one-party state with Labour at the helm forever.

[GlesgaeHibby]

I can't remember who said it or where I saw it, but there is a saying: that politicians, much alike nappies, need changing frequently and for the same reason.

I'm not looking forward to a Tory government if that happens, but we sorely need some change to happen, whatever that change needs to be. Brown is an awful Prime Minister, in my opinion. The idea of another 5 years of his self-aggrandising, arrogant bull***** is just too much to bear for me. It's got me seriously considering voting LibDems, which is a big step for me as I think they themselves are pretty useless, but they are the only party close to toppling Labour in my area.

The way some folk go on about the election, you think they'd be happy with a one-party state with Labour at the helm forever.

:agree::top marks

Pretty much sums it up for me. Something desperately needs to change.

[IWasThere2016]

I don't have time for the Lib Dems, and think they're pretty much a nothing party, but I've come to prefer them to either Labour or Tory, both right-wing parties ran by careerists, and both with a solid track record of failure.

At least Cable for Lib Dems was the one senior politician who called it right on the economic collapse.

The culture of greed and self-interest propagated by Thatcher and sustained by the hypocrites Blair and Brown that has got us into this mess, would only be further advanced by the squeaky-bollocked toff Cameron and his rip-off acolytes.

I've come to the conclusion that we could do worse than have a hung parliament with the Libs Dems holding the balance of power. Neither Brown or Cameron or either of their shabby, shallow opportunist parties are up to the job in my opinion.

I concur 100% Sir Bob

[AgentDaleCooper]

hung parliament is what i'm hoping for too.

[Beefster]

A hung parliament will more than likely damage Britain's economy and probably lead to another general election being called fairly quickly.

It'd be a disaster with pretty much no action being taken while Britain goes down the toilet. Even Labour being voted back in would be better than that.

Edit: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8543007.stm

[Phil D. Rolls]

i said on here six months ago that this election wasn't in the bag (and its not often i get to be smug so i'm going to enjoy it :greengrin )

that said i think this poll will turn out to be a bit of a blip, i think their lead is probably narrowing, but still around 5%.

one way or another it looks like being a hung parliament, with another election likely in autumn.

Have you got a link? I recall saying much the same thing, comparing Brown to Major. When times are difficult people are more inclined to stay with the Status Quo, rather than take a chance on change.

(There used to be a smug smiley.)

[steakbake]

Have you got a link? I recall saying much the same thing, comparing Brown to Major. When times are difficult people are more inclined to stay with the Status Quo, rather than take a chance on change.

(There used to be a smug smiley.)

i sware if parfitt and rossi ever done a cover of an abba song, i'd do time :grr::grr:

[Phil D. Rolls]

i sware if parfitt and rossi ever done a cover of an abba song, i'd do time :grr::grr:

The winner takes it all? Try telling that to Baby P or Maddie!!!! :confused: Time to end the disastrous democratic experiment. :agree:

[AgentDaleCooper]

Have you got a link? I recall saying much the same thing, comparing Brown to Major. When times are difficult people are more inclined to stay with the Status Quo, rather than take a chance on change.

(There used to be a smug smiley.)

:smug:

it's a beast

[steakbake]

:smug:

it's a beast

It's a thing of genius.

[Mibbes Aye]

Another 4 years with Brown as our PM would be a complete disaster.

His recklessness as chancellor, where we continued to borrow and spend great amounts during the good years has only added fuel to the economic collapse.

Under labour we have seen:


Billions spent on an uniwnnable war in Afghanistan
Gap between rich and poor wider than ever
National Debt at a record level
Loss of secret data
Mass Unemployment
The development of a Nanny State
I've had enough of Labour. I can't stand the Tories or David Cameron, but another 4/5 years of Labour and I dread to think what the state of our country will be in.

Labour need to be booted out of office to rediscover their values.

To take your examples in order, you said "under Labour" we had seen:

Billions spent on an uniwnnable war in Afghanistan

I doubt anyone believes any British government would have done anything other than engage the way we have. They may wish differently, but being realistic it's hard to envisage an alternative approach given the political circumstances. Tactically, it may have the appearance of being a waste of resources, most precious of which are lives. Strategically it's far too early to judge the full impact or appreciate the totality of the consequences. I'm not sure that the intervention in Afghanistan actually sits outside the 'values' that Labour might be described as espousing. I suspect Ernest Bevin would have had us in there, but then he spoke for only a wing of the party in his time. And in a twisted sort of way, the war serves to keep the Taliban out of overall power which is arguably what the Blair/Kosovo doctrine was all about.

Gap between rich and poor wider than ever

If you want that gap cut, whatever made you think Labour were the party to do it? We don't live in a socialist society, nor were Labour elected in 1997 on a socialist manifesto. We live in a free-market economy and no major party is proposing any departure from that (because there's no popular appetite for it, if we're being candid and regardless of one's own views)

What has happened is that the number of children and old people in poverty, whether you measure it in 'absolute' or 'relative' terms has shrunk by a massive amount. You can choose your definitions but either way, we are talking about millions of people who are better-off than they would have found themselves in 1997. Bear in mind, we live in a free market economy. There's an accomplishment there that means something to people.

National Debt at a record level

I'm not an economist, but I would understand the basic principles of Keynesian economics to be that the global economy was put in jeopardy by an unrestrained free-market economy. The pragmatic solution is for the state to invest heavily and invest heavily now, with the security that government investment provides, off-set against a return in future years from taxation that would see the investment recouped and with interest. National debt was already rising because we invested heavily in education and health from the beginning of the 21st century - again spending money on schools and hospitals with the hope of seeing a long-term return.

Loss of secret data

Governments have lost data, information, classified and even top-secret files since governments began. Sometimes accidentally, sometimes as a consequence of wrongdoing and sometimes deliberately. It's all too easier in the computer age and all too 'hype-able' in a media age. Yes, the potential consequences are greater but it's hardly a party political issue, is it?

Mass Unemployment

What's your definition of 'mass unemployment' GH? Under Labour it's hovered around the 5% mark IIRC which is a far cry from the 10-12% through the early-mid 1980s of Thatcherite Conservatism. The unemployment rate has spiked since 2009, in the face of what is commonly described as the worst recession since the Great Depression. If there are remedies, what would you suggest? The Keynesian approach is to bump up public spending and thus reduce unemployment, so far so good, but that leads to short-term rises in national debt levels which you seem to be against???

The development of a Nanny State

That's perhaps the most subjective of the factors you claim, yet perhaps the one closest to the 'values' which you claim Labour has lost! It's probably worth a thread in its own right. TBH I think we've moved on from old, dualist definitions and while some of what Labour has done since 1997 has seen the state wrestle back control, much has continued in the vein of the 1979-97 administrations in its responsibilising of individuals, 'communities' and local bodies (councils, Health Boards etc etc)

[Dashing Bob S]

I didn't say that Cable was some great economic visionary or wonderful human being we should all rally round, simply that he was one of the very few mainstream politicians to say that our so-called economic miracle was built on an illusion and that there was going to be trouble ahead.

Perspective, please gentlemen!

[Leicester Fan]

National Debt at a record level

I'm not an economist, but I would understand the basic principles of Keynesian economics to be that the global economy was put in jeopardy by an unrestrained free-market economy. The pragmatic solution is for the state to invest heavily and invest heavily now, with the security that government investment provides, off-set against a return in future years from taxation that would see the investment recouped and with interest. National debt was already rising because we invested heavily in education and health from the beginning of the 21st century - again spending money on schools and hospitals with the hope of seeing a long-term return.



The basic principle of Keynesian economics is that the govt cut spending during a boom and pay off national debt so that you can increase spending and reflate the economy during a recession.
This govt spent more than we were earning during a boom. Under any economic theory that is blatant incompetence.

[LiverpoolHibs]

ComRes bears out (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/feb/26/new-poll-tory-lead-five-points) the contraction, though they have it at five points.

And this is before the, erm, revelations [sic.] about grasping Tory **** (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8542744.stm).

[Mibbes Aye]

The basic principle of Keynesian economics is that the govt cut spending during a boom and pay off national debt so that you can increase spending and reflate the economy during a recession.
This govt spent more than we were earning during a boom. Under any economic theory that is blatant incompetence.

Or it can increase tax.

It doesn't change the point that the national debt reflects a level of investment designed to combat the effects of a global (not UK) recession. Nor does it change the fact that people want better public services whilst not perhaps being as keen to pay for them, in general.

[Beefster]

ComRes bears out (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/feb/26/new-poll-tory-lead-five-points) the contraction, though they have it at five points.

And this is before the, erm, revelations [sic.] about grasping Tory **** (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8542744.stm).

Have you seen the list of Labour nom-dom financial backers? It's a doozy.

[hibsbollah]

Have you seen the list of Labour nom-dom financial backers? It's a doozy.

The obvious difference is that Ashcroft isnt just a 'donor', he's directly involved in policy making, being a Tory peer.

[Beefster]

The obvious difference is that Ashcroft isnt just a 'donor', he's directly involved in policy making, being a Tory peer.

Lord Paul? Not long ago made a member of the Privy Council.

Edit: Between them, Mittal, Cohen and Paul have donated almost £2m more than Ashcroft since 2001. All non-doms.

PS. Just like to add, I don't have a problem with non-doms or them donating to political parties. I just don't like hypocrisy in politicians.

[Beefster]

ComRes bears out (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/feb/26/new-poll-tory-lead-five-points) the contraction, though they have it at five points.

And this is before the, erm, revelations [sic.] about grasping Tory **** (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8542744.stm).

Latest YouGov has them back to 7 points.

[GlesgaeHibby]

To take your examples in order, you said "under Labour" we had seen:

Billions spent on an uniwnnable war in Afghanistan

I doubt anyone believes any British government would have done anything other than engage the way we have. They may wish differently, but being realistic it's hard to envisage an alternative approach given the political circumstances. Tactically, it may have the appearance of being a waste of resources, most precious of which are lives. Strategically it's far too early to judge the full impact or appreciate the totality of the consequences. I'm not sure that the intervention in Afghanistan actually sits outside the 'values' that Labour might be described as espousing. I suspect Ernest Bevin would have had us in there, but then he spoke for only a wing of the party in his time. And in a twisted sort of way, the war serves to keep the Taliban out of overall power which is arguably what the Blair/Kosovo doctrine was all about.

Gap between rich and poor wider than ever

If you want that gap cut, whatever made you think Labour were the party to do it? We don't live in a socialist society, nor were Labour elected in 1997 on a socialist manifesto. We live in a free-market economy and no major party is proposing any departure from that (because there's no popular appetite for it, if we're being candid and regardless of one's own views)

What has happened is that the number of children and old people in poverty, whether you measure it in 'absolute' or 'relative' terms has shrunk by a massive amount. You can choose your definitions but either way, we are talking about millions of people who are better-off than they would have found themselves in 1997. Bear in mind, we live in a free market economy. There's an accomplishment there that means something to people.

National Debt at a record level

I'm not an economist, but I would understand the basic principles of Keynesian economics to be that the global economy was put in jeopardy by an unrestrained free-market economy. The pragmatic solution is for the state to invest heavily and invest heavily now, with the security that government investment provides, off-set against a return in future years from taxation that would see the investment recouped and with interest. National debt was already rising because we invested heavily in education and health from the beginning of the 21st century - again spending money on schools and hospitals with the hope of seeing a long-term return.

Loss of secret data

Governments have lost data, information, classified and even top-secret files since governments began. Sometimes accidentally, sometimes as a consequence of wrongdoing and sometimes deliberately. It's all too easier in the computer age and all too 'hype-able' in a media age. Yes, the potential consequences are greater but it's hardly a party political issue, is it?

Mass Unemployment

What's your definition of 'mass unemployment' GH? Under Labour it's hovered around the 5% mark IIRC which is a far cry from the 10-12% through the early-mid 1980s of Thatcherite Conservatism. The unemployment rate has spiked since 2009, in the face of what is commonly described as the worst recession since the Great Depression. If there are remedies, what would you suggest? The Keynesian approach is to bump up public spending and thus reduce unemployment, so far so good, but that leads to short-term rises in national debt levels which you seem to be against???

The development of a Nanny State

That's perhaps the most subjective of the factors you claim, yet perhaps the one closest to the 'values' which you claim Labour has lost! It's probably worth a thread in its own right. TBH I think we've moved on from old, dualist definitions and while some of what Labour has done since 1997 has seen the state wrestle back control, much has continued in the vein of the 1979-97 administrations in its responsibilising of individuals, 'communities' and local bodies (councils, Health Boards etc etc)

You've raised some interesting points here. I can understand your views on Afghanistan, and it was always going to be the case in the aftermath of Sept 11th that we would join America in the pursuit of the Taliban.

Given the amounts of money spent, amount of British lives lost in Afghanistan and the fact that nobody has won a war in Afghanistan in recent history, it is highly unlikely that we will succeed. It's also all very well trying to set up democracy and order to politics in Afghanistan, but it is not up to us to dictate these orders and enforce them using force.

On National Debt Labour have seriously failed us. They proudly declared that they had ended boom and bust. They came to power and had 10 good years of economic growth (averaging around 3% annually) yet they continued to borrow. That cannot be papered over or described as anything other than recklessness.

[hibsbollah]

Lord Paul? Not long ago made a member of the Privy Council.

Edit: Between them, Mittal, Cohen and Paul have donated almost £2m more than Ashcroft since 2001. All non-doms.

PS. Just like to add, I don't have a problem with non-doms or them donating to political parties. I just don't like hypocrisy in politicians.

Well you should, especially when they are part of Government. The message is, tax dodging is OK if you're rich, but expect the full force of the law and a jail term if you're poor:rolleyes:

[Beefster]

Well you should, especially when they are part of Government. The message is, tax dodging is OK if you're rich, but expect the full force of the law and a jail term if you're poor:rolleyes:

Being a non-dom is legal so no jail terms for anyone.

I think that paying tax where it is earned is a perfectly sensible idea. As long as these guys are paying UK tax on their UK earnings, I don't see the problem.

[hibsbollah]

Being a non-dom is legal so no jail terms for anyone.

I think that paying tax where it is earned is a perfectly sensible idea. As long as these guys are paying UK tax on their UK earnings, I don't see the problem.

So he's earning his fortune in Belize? You have to be very naive to believe that:faf:

Morally, its theft, pure and simple. My point about jail terms is if Ashcroft had not been a billionaire and had instead of fiddling his corporation tax, been, say, fiddling his Incapacity Benefit, I doubt he would still be in the Lords.

[Beefster]

So he's earning his fortune in Belize? You have to be very naive to believe that:faf:

Morally, its theft, pure and simple. My point about jail terms is if Ashcroft had not been a billionaire and had instead of fiddling his corporation tax, been, say, fiddling his Incapacity Benefit, I doubt he would still be in the Lords.

Opinions, huh?

Seeing as you're only concentrating on Ashcroft, despite me pointing out three Labour donors who do it, I'm assuming you're more concerned for political than moral reasons.

[hibsbollah]

Opinions, huh?

Seeing as you're only concentrating on Ashcroft, despite me pointing out three Labour donors who do it, I'm assuming you're more concerned for political than moral reasons.

Eh? You're the one who said you 'dont have a problem' with tax evasion:confused: I think its morally repugnant whichever party they belong to.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Have you seen the list of Labour nom-dom financial backers? It's a doozy.

I'm certainly not defending Labour, but it's a bit different because...


The obvious difference is that Ashcroft isnt just a 'donor', he's directly involved in policy making, being a Tory peer.

Exactly.


Latest YouGov has them back to 7 points.

Yep, just seen that. 2% must have been an outlier. Still in hung parliament territory.


Being a non-dom is legal so no jail terms for anyone.

I think that paying tax where it is earned is a perfectly sensible idea. As long as these guys are paying UK tax on their UK earnings, I don't see the problem.

He's not paying tax where it's earned, though. That's not what non-domicile status is. Most, though not all, of his businesses are based in Belize but he doesn't earn his money in Belize.

He pays barely any tax whatsoever Belize either - that's why he's based there. He also bankrolled the Belizean PUP in order to ensure they wouldn't enforce payment of tax and to legislate in his interests more generally.

He's dodgy as ****.

[Beefster]

Eh? You're the one who said you 'dont have a problem' with tax evasion:confused: I think its morally repugnant whichever party they belong to.

I didn't say I had no issue with tax evasion. I did say that I don't have a problem with the 'non-domicile' tax status. As far as I know, Labour hasn't fundamentally changed it in 13 years so I'm assuming that they don't have an issue with it either.


I'm certainly not defending Labour, but it's a bit different because...



Exactly.



Yep, just seen that. 2% must have been an outlier. Still in hung parliament territory.



He's not paying tax where it's earned, though. That's not what non-domicile status is. Most, though not all, of his businesses are based in Belize but he doesn't earn his money in Belize.

He pays barely any tax whatsoever Belize either - that's why he's based there. He also bankrolled the Belizean PUP in order to ensure they wouldn't enforce payment of tax and to legislate in his interests more generally.

He's dodgy as ****.

I've already pointed out that Lord Paul is a Labour 'non-dom' peer and a Privy Councillor, who has funded Brown personally (and promised to do so again). Ashcroft isn't unique.

I'm not going to defend Ashcroft's personality or affairs as I'm no authority but the Lib Dems, Labour and the SNP have their own particular skeletons on that front. Again, the hypocrisy from politicians of all sides is breath-taking.

[hibsbollah]

I didn't say I had no issue with tax evasion. I did say that I don't have a problem with the 'non-domicile' tax status.

In reality, its the same thing.

To be pedantic, do you have a problem with the abuse of said tax status?

[LiverpoolHibs]

I've already pointed out that Lord Paul is a Labour 'non-dom' peer and a Privy Councillor, who has funded Brown personally (and promised to do so again). Ashcroft isn't unique.

He's the only one who's concealed his tax status whilst pouring money into marginal constituencies and he's the only one who holds a very senior position on his party's steering committee.

I'm not claiming the Labour and Lib Dem non-doms are really much less morally objectionable, but there is quite a significant distinction.

[Leicester Fan]

All this about Lord Ashcrofts tax status or Cameron being a toff is all a load of crap. If a tory was a hard working philanthropist from a council estate who donated all his money to charity you'd still hate him.
You don't really know why it's just you were brought up to hate tories.

[Phil D. Rolls]

All this about Lord Ashcrofts tax status or Cameron being a toff is all a load of crap. If a tory was a hard working philanthropist from a council estate who donated all his money to charity you'd still hate him.
You don't really know why it's just you were brought up to hate tories.

That's a bit harsh LF. I was 18 when Thatcher came to power. My hatred is self taught.:greengrin

[LiverpoolHibs]

All this about Lord Ashcrofts tax status or Cameron being a toff is all a load of crap. If a tory was a hard working philanthropist from a council estate who donated all his money to charity you'd still hate him.
You don't really know why it's just you were brought up to hate tories.

Crikey, that's an incredible insight to glean just from some posts on a forum.

I'd always thought it was fairly reasoned base hatred which has been constantly reinforced throughout my life both rationally and empirically, but it's interesting to learn that actually I have no idea why I hate them.

Cheers mate.

N.B. Just to be safe, is there anything else that I hate without knowing why?

[Leicester Fan]

Yeah. But I'm right though aren't I?

[LiverpoolHibs]

No.

[Leicester Fan]

No.
Bet I am.

[The_Todd]

Yeah. But I'm right though aren't I?


No.


Bet I am.


Face it, LH - LF has got you. He's right and you're wrong - and you'll come round to his way of thinking as long as he keeps saying he's right :wink:

[LiverpoolHibs]

Face it, LH - LF has got you. He's right and you're wrong - and you'll come round to his way of thinking as long as he keeps saying he's right :wink:

The offer of a wager's convinced me.

Someone get me a copy of The Road to Serfdom.

[Leicester Fan]

One down, six million Scotsmen to go.:wink:

[lyonhibs]

One down, six million Scotsmen to go.:wink:

LH is - as far as I'm aware - as English as you are, just not, for all his multiple faults :greengrin:devil: a Tory.

6 million and 1 Scotsfolk to go then, and nothing I can see about that odious oik Cameron and, even worse, George Osborne has convinced me that they are the party for me.

[Leicester Fan]

LH is - as far as I'm aware - as English as you are, just not, for all his multiple faults :greengrin:devil: a Tory.

6 million and 1 Scotsfolk to go then, and nothing I can see about that odious oik Cameron and, even worse, George Osborne has convinced me that they are the party for me.

You were brought up to think like that weren't you?

[majorhibs]

That's a bit harsh LH. I was 18 when Thatcher came to power. My hatred is self taught.:greengrin

Twice in my lifetime I´ve caught myself agreein wi you- the shame- but fwiw I also was subjected to that particular regime, & it was not nice being a school leaver desperate to work who had attended my local job centre every weekday morning for 6 months to then hear Thatchers blue eyed thug Tebbit say "all you complaining about being out of work- on your bike" or thereabouts, I couldnt afford a bike because I couldnt get a job anywhere, so I gave it Shank´s pony, & eventually got a start no thanks to the insensitive c#@n#s who made me feel at the time it was MY fault I couldnt find a job, but that regime & the aforementioned duo were particularly hurtful to a 16 year old with the best of intentions, although not really representative of whats around today surely?

[Phil D. Rolls]

Twice in my lifetime I´ve caught myself agreein wi you- the shame- but fwiw I also was subjected to that particular regime, & it was not nice being a school leaver desperate to work who had attended my local job centre every weekday morning for 6 months to then hear Thatchers blue eyed thug Tebbit say "all you complaining about being out of work- on your bike" or thereabouts, I couldnt afford a bike because I couldnt get a job anywhere, so I gave it Shank´s pony, & eventually got a start no thanks to the insensitive c#@n#s who made me feel at the time it was MY fault I couldnt find a job, but that regime & the aforementioned duo were particularly hurtful to a 16 year old with the best of intentions, although not really representative of whats around today surely?

Careful MH, this could become a habit.:greengrin

[majorhibs]

Careful MH, this could become a habit.:greengrin

Half glass full from you here obviously- theres more chance of me agreein wi Liverpoolhibs once than wi you a 3rd time. :wink:

[LiverpoolHibs]

LH is - as far as I'm aware - as English as you are, just not, for all his multiple faults :greengrin:devil: a Tory.

6 million and 1 Scotsfolk to go then, and nothing I can see about that odious oik Cameron and, even worse, George Osborne has convinced me that they are the party for me.

Yup.

And I'm certainly needed more to boost the numbers in Ingurland than Scotland.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Half glass full from you here obviously- theres more chance of me agreein wi Liverpoolhibs once than wi you a 3rd time. :wink:

:boo hoo: