Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

Soaking the rich won’t cut poverty or inequality
Last week Ed Miliband appeared to claim that the super-wealthy pay no tax. He was wrong.
By Telegraph View7:00AM GMT 16 Nov 2014Comments90 Comments
The Left’s concern about inequality in modern Britain is entirely understandable. Everyone, regardless of their politics, is troubled by the thought that while some enjoy historically high levels of wealth, the middle class feels squeezed, and many of the poor seem locked out of social advancement. But while Ed Miliband and the Labour Party are fine at identifying problems, their solutions are informed by misguided dogma. Taxing, spending and regulating our way to fairness does not work – and the evidence is there to prove it.
Fraser Nelson shares some fascinating data on poverty and tax that turns many Left-wing assumptions on their head. Comparing the very richest and very poorest parts of the country, he found that the problems in society are not always defined by money. For example, while the Left traditionally rails against private education, the fact that 93 per cent of pupils are educated at state schools that sometimes display shocking differences in quality suggests that cultural attitude and management play a bigger role. A school in a poor area that emphasises discipline and rigorous teaching methods can do wonders for its students. Michael Gove’s excellent reforms were all about trying to drag failing schools into the 21st century – to reject the grisly idea of a “bog-standard comprehensive”. It is in the area of education that we really see the poisonous legacy of state-financed egalitarianism. Playing down individual aspiration among children from poor backgrounds has not made society any less equal, but it has prevented many people from realising the potential of their talents. Labour typically wants to soak the rich, but the evidence shows that this is a foolish design. Last week Ed Miliband appeared to claim that the super-wealthy pay no tax, but new data shows that the top 0.01 per cent pay an astonishing 4.2 per cent of all income tax. That means that the top 3,000 contribute more than the lowest-paid nine million taxpayers put together. Given how much they help to subsidise the NHS and other social benefits, the rich ought to be encouraged rather than attacked. Of course, their money benefits them personally – but when taxes are raised and used efficiently they can help Britain to fulfil its ambitions of building a fairer and more compassionate society. It is the height of foolishness to drive wealth creators away through threats of raising the highest rate of income tax or a “mansion tax”. Rather than trying to squeeze more from Britain’s tax base, it would be better if the Government spent money more wisely. Time and again, it has been shown that reforms to working practices in hospitals, schools or social services deliver better value.
David Cameron understands the need for public-sector reform, as well as both the personal and social benefits of letting people keep more of the money that they earn. He has announced that a future Conservative government would “ensure that no one earning less than £50,000 pays the higher rate of tax”, while the tax-free threshold would rise to £12,500 – “lifting a further one million out of income tax altogether”. We welcome that commitment, in part because it reflects a profoundly sensible understanding of how economic growth fuelled by aspiration helps everyone. The Labour Party, by contrast, seems to have surrendered to socialist ideas that belong to an earlier era. Which is why, regardless of the defeat that the Tories may well suffer in Rochester and Strood this week, the Conservative Party deserves the support of the electorate in 2015. It alone understands that the secret to fighting poverty is encouraging success.

ComRes’s monthly online poll for the Indy on Sunday and Sunday Mirror is out tonight and has topline figures of CON 30%, LAB 34%, LDEM 8%, UKIP 19%, GRN 3%

Haystack.

The seat could be vacant tomorrow.

DB4,

Is May really a woman?

Hey that does surprise me.

I thought it was a drag artist.


--------
Max.

Nothing that a bullet couldn't settle.

The ratio of haves to have nots is increasing in "wealth and income", but the number of votes for the moderates and left is not!

The majority of voters are although apathetic at the moment by the time of the G.E. will be more aware of the damages done by Osborne and IDS and Cameron in different ares.

1) NHS Failings.
2) Welfare cuts of extended families.
3) Repayments of University fees
4) Lack of housing.
5) FOOD BANKS queues.
6) Scorn of other EU members.
7) Soured EU and International relationships. Who see Cameron for what he is and don't like him.
8) Probably downward moving GDP, partially due to previous.
9) Failure in Education
10) Failure on their cock eyed boasts on immigration
11) Failure on recruitment for cut back military forces.
12) Corruption charge and Loss of evidence from Paedophile investigations
14) Power shortages?
15) Exposure of TAX DODGING
ETc, ect

What are the tory odds?

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/15/coalition-helped-rich-hitting-poor-george-osborne


Revealed: how coalition has helped rich by hitting poor
Study shows gains for wealthier half of population, delivering a blow to George Osborne’s claims on fairness


======


■ Sweeping changes to benefits and income tax have had the effect of switching income from the poorer half of households to most of the richer half, with the poorest 5% in the country in terms of income losing nearly 3% of what they would have earned if Britain’s tax and welfare system of May 2010 had been retained.

■ With the exception of the top 5%, who lost 1% of their potential income, it is the better-off half of the country that has gained financially from the changes, with an increase of between 1.2% and 2% in their disposable income.

■ The top 1% in terms of income have also been small net gainers from the changes brought in by David Cameron’s government since May 2010, which include a cut in the top rate of income tax.

■ Two-earner households, and those with elderly family members, were the most favourably treated, as a result of direct tax changes and state pensions respectively.

■ Lone-parent families did worst, losing much more through cuts in benefits and tax credits and higher council tax than they gained through higher income tax allowances. Families with children in general, and large families in particular, also did much worse than the average.

■ A quarter of the lowest paid 10% have shouldered a particularly heavy burden, losing more than 5% of what would have been their income without the coalition’s reforms.

Fred, would you vote for Katie Price if she was your local Labour candidate?!

fred doesn't vote!

while you guy have been have been wasting your w/e by bickering on and on and on, you might have found reading ST financially beneficial for the morrow ..... both QPP and (i think) IGas Energy are due for further tumbles

Fred has a signed portrait of Gordon Brown on his living room wall. A Neil Kinnock alarm clock which plays the red flag to get him up in the morning.

Lol

MaxK
There is no incentive to get Boris into parliament. The party is happy with Cameron. There may be a few eurosceptics that are not, but they don't have enough influence.

Realistically, we are not going to leave the EU no matter what variety of government gets in. The closest to it will be a Conservative clear majority. Even then, there will be talks over rules changes. The upshot is most likely that the government will recommend a stay in response in a referendum and the public will go for that. The public doesn't like uncertainty and that is why the Scottish referendum failed.

At least with the scenario above, you have a chance of a vote. No other combination of parties will give you that.

.

DB4,

Who is Kate Price?

I haven't a clue.

And I have no intention of voting.
=======

P50415


MaxK
There is no incentive to get Boris into parliament. The party is happy with Cameron. There may be a few eurosceptics that are not, but they don't have enough influence.



I am sure Hazeone is losing any of the marbles he ever had or is in complete denial.

The whole of the tory party is in disarray and fermentation over Europe with about 100 tory camp follower (sorry tory right wingers) siding with UKIP and splitting it more and more.

They can't stand the two faced leader they have and I would be surprised if a lot more "Cons" don't run under the UKIP banner before or after the G.E.

Doomed dear boy! Doomed!

Here's a picture of Katie Price, taken last September just before she was rushed in for emergency surgery for her then pregnancy:

My mum wouldn't allow me to bring a girl like that home,.

Damn.

Mind a girl like that wouldn't come home with me!

she's a bit old for you fred

That is what my mum would have said.

======

I did think I could smuggle her home and tell my wife she had come to be my nurse.

But, I thought again and when I realised that there may be two people looking after my needs, and both believing in euthanasia
==-=-=-=-

Anyone watching IM A CELEB GET ME OUT OF HERE????

Melanie Sykes to win it, (northern lass)

Top totty aswel although I think the Yank bird is supposed to be the one we take most notice of under the water fall. Doesnt impress me at the moment mind havent seen her with her kit off yet.

Jimmy Bullard looks a bit soft.