Current Affairs 2017 General Election

[Azzurri]

To be honest, I doubt anyone who might change their vote is desperately worried about either Iraq or Corbyn's past dealings with the odd terrorist. They're much more worried about the cash in their pocket.

I agree. Which is maybe why the country is in this shambolic state for the people who need help most.

 

[Woolly Blue]

I agree. Which is maybe why the country is in this shambolic state for the people who need help most.

No arguments from me on that one, but that's the way of the world, and you either deal with it, or die feeling misunderstood.

 

[Seanjd]

Very true that, but, the fact that most people don't pay tax at top rate is a good reason for them to vote for someone who says they're going to extend it. If it raises taxes, but it's not coming from their pocket, then people will like the sound of it. If, as seems likely, all parties are, unofficially at least, acknowledging that taxes need to rise, then your average punter in the street would rather see it raised from people better off than them as opposed to on VAT. Plenty of arl arses remember VAT being increased to 17.5% in the early 90's, and it was dropped to 15% in something like 2007 or 2008, before being put back up a few years later, so it's not unheard of.

I'd agree that most people aren't that arsed about Trident, but enough probably are to make a difference here and there

Just as an aside, conservatives are the only party to have ever raised VAT, and Labour are the only party to have ever lowered it.

 

[JonS]

Amidst all the Tories are the devil simplisticness that can occasionally get spouted on here I'd like to mention and give credit to two of the things that they did that I wouldn't have expected:

The triple lock for state pension increases.

The planned rise in the minimum wage over the next few years (as far as I'm aware up and above the inflation rate)

 

[Woolly Blue]

Just as an aside, conservatives are the only party to have ever raised VAT, and Labour are the only party to have ever lowered it.

If you're trying to say that Denis Healey was a Tory then I think we might be about to fall out !
In general, you're right like, but I'm old enough to remember Healey putting it up to 25% before dropping it back two or three years later.

 

[Seanjd]

If you're trying to say that Denis Healey was a Tory then I think we might be about to fall out !
In general, you're right like, but I'm old enough to remember Healey putting it up to 25% before dropping it back two or three years later.

Healey increased the higher rate only.

I think, considering the regressive nature of VAT, it says a lot about which parties have done what with it.

 

[Woolly Blue]

Healey increased the higher rate only.

You're being pedantic, and anyway, the higher rate was payable on fuel, which affected everyone, not as directly as it would do now, but it fed through to pretty much everything.

 

[Seanjd]

Amidst all the Tories are the devil simplisticness that can occasionally get spouted on here I'd like to mention and give credit to two of the things that they did that I wouldn't have expected:

The triple lock for state pension increases.

The planned rise in the minimum wage over the next few years (as far as I'm aware up and above the inflation rate)

The triple lock didn't last long did it? Isn't May scrapping it?

And isn't the minimum wage raise generally in line with inflation?

 

[Azzurri]

Amidst all the Tories are the devil simplisticness that can occasionally get spouted on here I'd like to mention and give credit to two of the things that they did that I wouldn't have expected:

The triple lock for state pension increases.

The planned rise in the minimum wage over the next few years (as far as I'm aware up and above the inflation rate)

Think this, like employment rates, should probably be considered in the current climate of zero hour contracts.

 

[JonS]

The triple lock didn't last long did it? Isn't May scrapping it?

And isn't the minimum wage raise generally in line with inflation?

I thought the planned minimum wage rises (to what the Tories call the living wage, though its not the living wage quoted by some sort of living wage foundation) were greater than inflation, but could be wrong.

Just thought I'd give the Tories some credit for those things that I wouldn't have expected them to do.

To me Tories, UKIP and anyone except out and out nazis should be welcome on here and I'd hate to see them being scared off as it is no fun debating with yourself

 

[chicoazul]

Amidst all the Tories are the devil simplisticness that can occasionally get spouted on here I'd like to mention and give credit to two of the things that they did that I wouldn't have expected:

The triple lock for state pension increases.

The planned rise in the minimum wage over the next few years (as far as I'm aware up and above the inflation rate)

You a Tory pal?

 

[JonS]

You a Tory pal?

You need to come on here and debate properly. Then you would see what we all are. Those of us that have been posting for a while probably know each others views by now.

 

[chicoazul]

You need to come on here and debate properly. Then you would see what we all are. Those of us that have been posting for a while probably know each others views by now.

Answer my question pal.

 

[Woolly Blue]

The triple lock didn't last long did it? Isn't May scrapping it?

And isn't the minimum wage raise generally in line with inflation?

If you step back a bit, then the triple lock isn't as straightforward as it first appears. It was put in place when inflation and earnings growth were both low, and part of the reason for the 2.5% minimum was because pensioners had got left behind because earnings were increasing faster than prices. There's something to be said for reducing the 2.5% minimum and just letting pensions rise at CPI or earnings inflation. Now, obviously, that's unlikely to be the tories plan, but it would be a credible alternative for a party to put forward.

If we return to a low inflation environment where the 2.5% starts to kick in again, then, if you assume that you're not going to tax workers or companies to fund that, then the obvious effect of that is a need to balance the books, which would likely mean a further increase, over and above what would otherwise be happening, to the age at which the state pension is paid. So, old people would end up with more money, but those approaching retirement would have to wait a year or two longer before they could get their hands on it. There's always a trade off somewhere, and that's the most likely scenario.

 

[JonS]

Answer my question pal.

Getting fed up of you now mate. Unless you come on here and debate properly and start to welcome all shades of opinion I won't have much time for you