88 replies to this topic

[Wizard]

AJ, on 14 Apr 2010, 1:05, said:

Wizard, on 14 Apr 2010, 0:49, said:

AJ, on 13 Apr 2010, 23:57, said:

http://robinhoodtax.org.uk/

All I have to say about how we should be earning the cash. Tax the banks, about time we got money back from them.

Wizard, on 13 Apr 2010, 20:15, said:

I can tell you right here, right now, the worker consumer will foot 100% of the bill for NI increase this tax ...... as there is not one sane businessman banker out there that would take a hit on profit over their employees salaries clients.

I don't disagree that the chances of it happening are practically nil, but of all the ways in which to bolster the economy, this seems like as good a direction to go in. Would be great to see something like this happen, and come into force in law.

It already costs far too much for businesses to send money electronically. It is fine for a large bank or a corporation that does so hundreds to thousands of times a day as their turnovers are sufficient to deal with it, however, small to medium businesses will be hurt by the RH tax. IIRC it's approximately £26 per transaction for a standard 5 day transfer and it goes up quite dramatically if you want it done quicker, which doesn't make much sense as it's all electronic anyway . I would support this tax if the tax was imposed as a static fee imposed on the banks only, that means that they could in no way charge more for it, however they'd still find a way to pass this onto their customers. That is the problem with taxing business, you don't tax business you tax the consumers.

[Ion Cannon!]

Wizard, on 14 Apr 2010, 9:40, said:

AJ, on 14 Apr 2010, 1:05, said:

Wizard, on 14 Apr 2010, 0:49, said:

AJ, on 13 Apr 2010, 23:57, said:

http://robinhoodtax.org.uk/

All I have to say about how we should be earning the cash. Tax the banks, about time we got money back from them.

Wizard, on 13 Apr 2010, 20:15, said:

I can tell you right here, right now, the worker consumer will foot 100% of the bill for NI increase this tax ...... as there is not one sane businessman banker out there that would take a hit on profit over their employees salaries clients.

I don't disagree that the chances of it happening are practically nil, but of all the ways in which to bolster the economy, this seems like as good a direction to go in. Would be great to see something like this happen, and come into force in law.

It already costs far too much for businesses to send money electronically. It is fine for a large bank or a corporation that does so hundreds to thousands of times a day as their turnovers are sufficient to deal with it, however, small to medium businesses will be hurt by the RH tax. IIRC it's approximately £26 per transaction for a standard 5 day transfer and it goes up quite dramatically if you want it done quicker, which doesn't make much sense as it's all electronic anyway . I would support this tax if the tax was imposed as a static fee imposed on the banks only, that means that they could in no way charge more for it, however they'd still find a way to pass this onto their customers. That is the problem with taxing business, you don't tax business you tax the consumers.

There must be some way to force greedy banks / buisinesses to take the hit, instead of passing it onto clients / employees. Otherwise they seem to be rather invulnerable?

[Warbz]

Just out of curiosity why isn't BNP in the list?

[Rich19]

W!, on 16 Apr 2010, 0:19, said:

Just out of curiosity why isn't BNP in the list?

Two reasons - I lumped them in with the other minor parties in the "other" catagory, and I didn't think anyone would want to freely admit to voting for them.

[Ion Cannon!]

Just got back from a weekend in birmingham with a few friends, took a look at the polls and dear god - http://www.ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/

If this continues its going to be a 3 horse race.

[Wizard]

Far too many people have been influenced by Cleggs showing in the first debate. What they are forgetting is that the Liberal Democrats are still all for higher taxes, and it doesn't matter what people say, are never going to vote for. These new polls are just based on the face value, shallow appraisal of Clegg following his performance on TV. They don't take into account the fact that no one would honestly would trust the Libs with any sort of power, even in a coalition government. This is all because of the low expectation level everyone had of him, which he quite easily surpassed.

[Wizard]

So today is the day. Get out there and use your vote people!

[Libains]

Pah, did it a week ago you lazy lump

Every extremity on my body is crossed for a Conservative win - we need this, badly. Unfortunately, I am forseeing a hung parliament, which could then, probably, become a Labour/Lib Dem coalition. Which would be the absolute in hell and sheer disaster.

[Wizard]

AJ, on 6 May 2010, 11:29, said:

Pah, did it a week ago you lazy lump

For those of us that actually live in our constituency today is the day. Unlike you displaced students who have to use a stamp to make your mark.

[Libains]

It's Freepost

[Alias]

To be honest, as crazy as it sounds, a Lib Dem/Conservative coalition is more probable. Labour has completely lost it, I don't think Clegg will want to be anywhere near them.

[Libains]

I'd agree that common sense would dictate that, but at the moment Lib Dem/Conservative policies are so far apart I just think it's highly improbably they'd do a coalition. Take Europe as an example - Lib Dems are pro Europe and are even considering the Euro, while the Tories are quite anti-Europe and certainly anti-Euro. Labour and Lib Dem share more policies than the Lib Dems and the Conservatives...

Edited by AJ, 06 May 2010 - 11:03.

[Alias]

If I remember right Clegg said he was considering a coalition provided that the Conservatives agree to pass through electoral reform.
Although it is still far more likely he will just retain the balance of power and give up on a coalition altogether, in the case of a hung parliament.

Edited by Alias, 06 May 2010 - 11:07.

[Dauth]

Clegg would work with labour if they got rid of Gordon, said so already

[Rich19]

Wizard, on 6 May 2010, 11:57, said:

AJ, on 6 May 2010, 11:29, said:

Pah, did it a week ago you lazy lump

For those of us that actually live in our constituency today is the day. Unlike you displaced students who have to use a stamp to make your mark.

Home constituency is too safe for me to make a difference, so I'm voting here today instead.

[Jinzor]

The Libs would never side with the Tories, there would be nothing in it for them (Libs) and both the parties have VERY different policies and ideas. Both the Lab and the Lib parties do not want the Tories in power, so they would have to make a coalition government if they don't want to see them get in. Clegg may not like having to make a coalition government with Brown, but it would be the only way. If Clegg doesn't form a coalition government, that would be really stupid of him.

Oh and I voted for the Liberals (for this thread poll I mean, lol. I would have registered weeks ago to vote for the Libs today if I were old enough (I'm 16, not allowed to vote yet *RAGE*)). Not going to make a tl:dr post, but we definately need to reform parliament, make our country fairer and have closer ties with Europe. I don't know about adopting the Euro, but if people do not want it, just vote "No" if theres a referendum on adopting the Euro.

Well, the number of seats so far are currently:

Labour: 3
Conservatives: 0
Liberal Democrats: 0

The 3 seats that were won by Labour were from constituencies that were pro-Labour anyway, so those don't count to me. Its very early to say who will the number of seats anyway.

I'm going to sleep, I'll see in the morning what the results are then...

Edited by Jinzor, 06 May 2010 - 22:57.

[Libains]

Well it's now 4:45 UK time, and I am very cautiously optimistic that the Tories may just about squeeze out a majority government, we seem to be getting some very good gains in areas that are unexpected, Redditch (Jacqui Smith territory) being one. Hopefully results will be in for my constituency soon, and early indications are that the Conservatives have taken the seat from the Lib Dem heartland - this could be very good for Cornwall as this was one of the hardest seats to gain in the country - it required a 12% swing. Bring it on is all I can say

EDIT: CORNWALL SOUTH EAST GOES TORY. HELL TO THE YES.

Edited by AJ, 07 May 2010 - 03:53.

[Wizard]

The UK seems to be pretty well hung atm

*sorry couldn't resist *

[Jinzor]

Yep, its a hung parliament.

[Wizard]

Quote

Associate editor of the Times, Daniel Finkelstein, adds that while Harold Wilson was the only prime minister to have been elected four times, Mr Brown would be first to be unelected twice.

Just about sums the whole situation up for me.

[Pav:3d]

Yeah christ we can't get rid of him

Edited by Pav3d, 07 May 2010 - 21:49.

[CodeCat]

What exactly is a hung parliament?

[Pav:3d]

Where neither party has a clear majority in the parliament which means some parties need to set up a coalition. In this case the lib dems are much sought after by both cons n labs

[BeefJeRKy]

CodeCat, on 8 May 2010, 12:16, said:

What exactly is a hung parliament?

It means a minority government is formed (or a coalition), so the ruling party can't pass its proposals too easily.

[Dauth]

CodeCat, on 8 May 2010, 10:16, said:

What exactly is a hung parliament?

Something, when mentioned at first got us all excited about rebuilding gallows and using them.