2015 Elections : Who is voting for who and why ?

[Rob_B]

Thing is they do get elected again. People have short memories.

I am also finding it difficult to know who to vote for. I'd rather vote for an independent, but I can't even find a comprehensive list on who is standing in my constituency. On the YourNextMP site it lists Tory, Labour, Lib Dem and UKIP as standing, but I have had a leaflet through about an independent saying he is as well. So, I can't even find a definitive guide so I can do a little research. But all in all, its probably looking like UKIP this time round.

Your local council website should have a list of those standing I believe.

As for me, I'm also in the "they're all a bunch of liars so why bother" boat :/

[Bluecube]

I'll be voting SNP. They've done a good job of running Scotland so I'd like them to continue to do so. Giving the SNP a strong presence at Westminster will set the cat amongst the pigeons especially given the completely dismal state of Westminster politics.

[Saracen]

Do you really believe that?

Well, it's going to go way off topic if we go into it in detail, but .... it depends quite what you mean.

Self-evidently, the wealthy are more able to withstand a drop in disposable income than the poor. If you earn £0.5m a year, and get hit for 10% cut, you'tr going to feel it a lot less than if you're already struggling yo keep food on the table and bailiffs from the door and get hit for £10/week .... or whatever.

So the pain suffered by the wealthy is clearly and inevitably less. So are they "in it"? Well, financially, they ould lose an amount monetarily far higher, and not really feel any pain.

On the other hand, if you look at income tax receipts (note, receipts, not rates) then a VERY large proportion of total receipts comes from a very small proportion of the most wealthy, while at the bottom end of earners, you've seen income tax bills drop or even disappear, because of the rise in PAs.

All told, what we're left with is a very complex picture of different policies hitting different people in different ways, to different extents, making it a dog-whistle exercise to portray it in the simplistic terms that Labour do, to try to invoke the politics of envy.

For instance, Labour love harping on about non-doms, with VERY little actual factual information about the financials involved, not least because tax details are confidential and they don't have access to the account details of those with non-dom status.

Consider, someone who for whatever reasons may have historic access to non-dom status, under which income earned abroad isn't subject to UK tax unless that income returns to tbe UK. The inference of Labour pontificating on this is that these people are all clearly earning millions and not paying tax. In fact, they don't, and can't, know if any specific non-dom earns anything at all in such income, or would pay any extra tax at all if non-dom status applied.

Then again, there are non-doms that pay the flat-rate charge that clearly do have very substantial non-UK incomes. Figures suggest that of the 120,000 or so non-doms, about 5000 pay that. One non-dom pointed out that it'd be ludicrous to pay £30k flat rate charge to avoid tax on the less than £1000 of foreign income he has. Depending on what that income is from, and the rest of his tax affairs, it may well not generate any tax anyway. For instance, switch forign investments from income-generating assets to capital growth, which may be as simple as selling one block of shares and buying a different block, and suddenly you don't have that foreign income any more. For that matter, you can do that with UK shares too, and reduce ykur income tax bill as a UK resident, and only incur CGT if you exceed your annual allowance, in the year you dispose of, or otherwise crystalise the gain. So .... "crystalise" it a bit at a time, and within annual CGT limits.

And, of those 5000 that are paying the £30k, the next issue is if you remove non-dom status and leave them with a potential multi-million pound bill, do they pay tax, or do they move abroad? After all, the very wealthy with very large overseas incomes are exactly those most mobile, most able to leave at the drop of a hat. So would removing non-dom status raise tax income from non-doms, or perhaps even result in a drop in overall tax receipts? And, whatever it does in the immediate future, what about over 5, 10 or 20 years?

All the non-dom hoopla is primarily aimed at stirring emotions. It's dog-whistle
politics, with minimal if any grounding in truth, or pragmatic policy.

Next, when considering who's "in it", what about the effects of ever-increasing, and record, employment levels, and the lowest unemployment?

It's not only about bleeding the rich, is it?

So in answer to your question, hell yes, I believe that, because the Labour-driven attack is an appeal to the politics of envy, and way, WAY too simplistic a picture. It is deceitful by being emotionally based, on a subject that defies such simplistic characterisation.

[kalniel]

I'll be voting SNP. They've done a good job of running Scotland so I'd like them to continue to do so. Giving the SNP a strong presence at Westminster will set the cat amongst the pigeons especially given the completely dismal state of Westminster politics.

Well it would certainly accelerate legislation to prevent non-english MPs voting on certain issues

[opel80uk]

Well, it's going to go way off topic if we go into it in detail, but .... it depends quite what you mean........

This notion that every time Labour, or anyone for that matter, brings up inequality or at least what they perceive as inequality, that they are engaging in 'politics of envy' is nonsense. People who believe in a fairer distribution of the wealth aren't automatically envious; I'm 35, live in a nice house that I don't have a mortgage on, can afford nice holidays etc. I'm not naïve, I understand that any changes made in an attempt to redistribute wealth is not going to start with the super-rich, but with the likes of me and those changes will almost certainly decrease my my standard of living, but I would welcome them. I guess that means I'm a Champagne Socialist, doesn't it? And ever increasing employment levels presumably include those on zero hour contracts which given their very nature, make including them in employment figures a smokescreen, at best. And that the, frankly, laughable notion that Labour attempting to close what are quite clear loopholes of Non-Dom status that, whilst perhaps you are correct in saying that they do not have an actual figure as to how much it would bring in, are certainly open to abuse and simply not open to the average person, can be labelled dog whistle politics is, IMO, bizarre. But hey ho, that's the nature of the beast.

So let's leave the actual politics aside and to answer your question (with another question) as to what I meant, it's this; Do you, personally, after everything that you've read and studied and heard and seen, believe the burden has been equally shared from top to bottom throughout society, as was promised when we were told we're all in it together? Is what has transpired your idea of what 'in it together' meant as was said?

[Saracen]

This notion that every time Labour, or anyone for that matter, brings up inequality or at least what they perceive as inequality, that they are engaging in 'politics of envy' is nonsense. People who believe in a fairer distribution of the wealth aren't automatically envious; I'm 35, live in a nice house that I don't have a mortgage on, can afford nice holidays etc. I'm not naïve, I understand that any changes made in an attempt to redistribute wealth is not going to start with the super-rich, but with the likes of me and those changes will almost certainly decrease my my standard of living, but I would welcome them. I guess that means I'm a Champagne Socialist, doesn't it? And ever increasing employment levels presumably include those on zero hour contracts which given their very nature, make including them in employment figures a smokescreen, at best. And that the, frankly, laughable notion that Labour attempting to close what are quite clear loopholes of Non-Dom status that, whilst perhaps you are correct in saying that they do not have an actual figure as to how much it would bring in, are certainly open to abuse and simply not open to the average person, can be labelled dog whistle politics is, IMO, bizarre. But hey ho, that's the nature of the beast.

So let's leave the actual politics aside and to answer your question (with another question) as to what I meant, it's this; Do you, personally, after everything that you've read and studied and heard and seen, believe the burden has been equally shared from top to bottom throughout society, as was promised when we were told we're all in it together? Is what has transpired your idea of what 'in it together' meant as was said?

What I, personally, think, is beside the point I was naking. The point was that the way the parties present their case, on both sides of that, is at best, deliberarely misleading and at worst, outright deceitful.

To be clear, wanting all segments of society to be "in it", to want more equal distribution, is not "politics of envy". But the way Labour has, this time and pretty always, presented case case, IS.

To out that another way, it's not the (apparent) objectives of Labour that is politics of envy. It's their methodology. Or to use a word rather underused these days, the spin. And of course, the glaring inconsistencies between what they say they stand for, and their record during 13 years in power, when they had a thumping great majority for most, bordering on all of it, and could have done so much of it .... like eliminating non-dom status.

What I, personally, think, is that most politicians primary, if nit sole, objective is to get elected and that seems to justify saying pretty much anything to do that, and worrying about doing it later.

For Labour, that's unashamedly playing on the emotional side of inequality. And how the Tories would "privatise" the NHS, never mind that the coalition aren't doing anything, privatisation wise, that Labour weren't doing.

For the Tories, it's claiming that their wonderful economic management has rescued the country, created millions of jobs, etc. Oh, really? And it had nothing to do with the blood, sweat and tears of BOTH millions of hard-workng employees, often taking pay cuts to jeep jobs, AND businesses, large and especially small, also working damn hard.

Yet, off the back of that, the Tories try to pretend it's all their doing. Shoemakers.

As for reducing inequality, it's hard to define. A millionaire could, and generally has,
paid FAR more towards our recovery than the poor, for the simple reason that they can. Yet, they'll have felt it far less, for the same reason. If a millionaire flies transatlantic, three times, in business class rather than their convention first, they'll save enough to pay £30k extra in taxes, yet the "pain" involved is flying business, not first. And that saving is, last time I looked, more than the average income.

Which is what I meant by "depends what you mean".

If you meant "pay more money", they already do, big-time. If you meant suffer in the way someone barely surviving on welfare does from a small cut, then the nature of the world is ... it cannot be done. Short of wholesale confiscation and redistribution, that inequality in pain is, sadly, inevitable. And if you try that sort of punitive taxation, we KNOW what happens because it's been tried. Labour tried it with their "'til the pips squeak" attitude to taxation in the 60's to eatly 70's, with 83% marginal rate of income tax and 15% investment inckme surcharge, resulting in mass exodus, capital flight and hugely damaging drops in investment. We've also seen it recently in France, with socialist tax rates under Hollande, and large numbers of wealthy Frenxh, and/or Parisian residents, promptly relocating to London.

The world is VERY small, these days, for the wealthy.

Besides, consider VAT. Labour are forever moaning about the Tories increasing it, yet, who exactly pays most of it, and on what? Answer .... consumers, and vastly, on non-essentials. No VAT on rent, rates, council tax, mortages, most foodstuffs and many clothes. Even on utilities they weren't hit by the standard rate rise because they aren't standard rate items.

I tracked the impact on my spending, and for the 12 months after it went to 20%, just under 1.6% of my non-discretionary spending (food, clothes, etc) even had VAT on them, so the impact was 2.5% of 1.6% of such spending. Yet, I'm well off enough to be doing most of my food shopping, by choice, in Waitrose. Even so, that rate rise barely mattered.

But .... the more you spend on cars, cameras, TVs, computer stuff, etc, the more you pay in VAT. That rate rise was targetted, in by far it's largest effect, precisely at the wealthiest, because by virtue of wealth, they can and do spend far more than the average person, presumably including you and I, ever could. Yet, Labour actually criticised that, trying to make out it targetted the poor. Utter shoemakers. It targetted the wealthy far, FAR more.

And even for the average person, it's voluntary. Want to save the VAT on a new TV? Do without a new TV. Life won't end. Want taxation that's progressive? Bump VAT up to 25%, AND increase both basic welfare levels and income tax personal allowances to compensate for the modest effect on both non-working and poorest-paid working.

Oh, problem. One place VAT does hit the poorer end of the population is on essential mileage, via VAT on petrol. So, drop petrol duty by an amount necessary to compensate for the VAT rise, and then the VAT hike is neutral on VAT, woukd raise large sums in tax, and layer it so that the more you spend on non-essentials, the more you contribute. And if you buy a new £100k kitchen, or top-end Beemer, or £10k sound system, £15kwatch, etc, the more you contribute .... except that the rich will buy much of that abroad, because they can.

There is no simplistic answer to 'all in it together', and both the claim itself, and the attacks on it, are political opportunism on emotions, and nothing more.

[Domestic_Ginger]

Saracen; raising vat is fine on paper. Unfortunately the poorer spend as much on goods like tvs. if they don't have the money they borrow it. Waitrose is a little more expensive but the less well off both financially and hence culinaringly will buy ready meals or are packed.


Back on track; No idea yet. They all look bad.

My solution wrt trident is to pretend we have them; seriously no one will know. How to use that as a campaign tool without letting the cat out of the bag I have no idea.

[Saracen]

Saracen; raising vat is fine on paper. Unfortunately the poorer spend as much on goods like tvs.


....

Then, like everyobe else, they can pay a little more in tax. But I dispute that assertion anyway. Unless they're outright stupid, they worry about food, kids clothes, electricity etc first, and new, large TVs are a long way down the list. Even then, there's smaller sets, non-premium brands or, shock horror, used sets (on which the VAT impact is truly minimal, and NOT 20% on cost of item.)

Either way, it's entirely in the control of the consumer, to buy and pay it, or not.

But without all that, I know someone that recently spent nearly £50k redoing the AV system in their pool room. You have to be wealthy to indulge in the kind of conspicuous cobsumption that generates that sort of marginal VAT receipt.

It's progressive. The more you have, the more you spend. The more you spend (on non-essentials) the more you pay in VAT.

[scaryjim]

... It's progressive. The more you have, the more you spend. The more you spend (on non-essentials) the more you pay in VAT.

That'd be true if VAT classifications were at all logical or defensible. As it is, they're really not. The whole system needs a significant overhaul. Just increasing VAT is not particularly progressive, and if a party turned round tomorrow and promised a proper review and restructure of VAT, they'd seriously catch my attention.

Of course, whether or not I'd believe them to keep the promise is another matter entirely

[opel80uk]

What I, personally, think, is beside the point I was making..

Perhaps, but it is what I asked you. And in fact this actually stemmed from me saying that the Tories have ensured the richest have got richer whilst telling us that that we're all in it together, to which you said it wasn't true. Presumably that is what you, personally, think.

I understand that the broader point you are making is that both (or all) the parties lie, although I think it not unfair of me to say that your posts also betray a certain preference and certainly looking objectively at them, if statements made were true, would make ones party's lies worse than the others, but that is by the by, and I agree with that broader point. All I really wanted to know was whether you believed that, over the course of the last 5 Years, the burden had been shared equally.

[DanceswithUnix]

All I really wanted to know was whether you believed that, over the course of the last 5 Years, the burden had been shared equally.

Is it not true that Quantitative Easing means the per capita debt hanging over us is massive and we don't yet know who that burden is going to be taken up by, so any answer isn't really valid as the real pain hasn't been experienced yet?

[opel80uk]

Is it not true that Quantitative Easing means the per capita debt hanging over us is massive and we don't yet know who that burden is going to be taken up by, so any answer isn't really valid as the real pain hasn't been experienced yet?

I think it fair to say that Cameron was talking about the burden during the lifetime of that particular Government, I.e the cuts, tax rises etc that he had control of.

[peterb]

In a simple answer, probably the burden has been distributed fairly equally, but the Impact of the burden has not. But to make the impact equal would require a taxation regime so punitive that the wealth creators wouldn't bother because there own rewards would be minimal.

And, as was pointed out on A radio programme a few days ago, Governments are spenders, they do not generate wealth. They can create the conditions for generating wealth, and they can influence that wealth, but they can't generate it.

You could counter that by mentioning nationalised industries, but generally nationalised industries perform badly and suffer from under-investment as Governments siphon off excessive dividends. And while 'public' ownership might appeal, the shareholders (ie, everyone) have no say in the running of the business.

[TheAnimus]

I dunno, when it came to the 'suffering', most of that was based on the increase of government spending in 2001, from there the trend changed, dangerously, from prudent fiscal, to an idea of stimulus, now you could try and plot the first derivs of spending lagged, against GDP, but even then it's not good, an increase in spending, doesn't result in a proportionate increase in GDP the next year.

During the credit crunch, many who were wealthy suffered quickly, some found they lost almost everything.

After, when government spending was taken under control, lots of people on the lower income bracket found the quality of life reduced, including people on benefits or state employees. Meanwhile, many private industries suffered greatly and had to cut down the staff bill. Not good.

Some people want to blame this on 'banks' because it suits their political narrative.

[peterb]

Well, the banks didn't exactly cover themselves in glory, just thinking of the fixing of the LIBOR rates. And they were reckless in lending without due diligence on the ability of the recipient to repay the loan.

But that was partly a result of a relaxation of the banking rules by successive governments, so a plague on both their houses.

[neonplanet40]

I am voting for the SNP as their policies suit me the best. My local Councillor has also been great when needed.