FAO David Cameron (oh and Johnny Bognor)

[View From The Top]

There was a quote on the BBC radio this morning that went along the lines "The Tories have implied that by cutting waste and making 'efficiency' savings, the net amount to be saved works out to £1700 per household. Surely if that amount was available to be pruned, it would already have happened ?"

 

The RCN alone is talking of thousands of nursing posts being at risk. The idea that you can make the required levels of savings whilst 'protecting' front-line services is hogwash.

 

Nope.

 

I could save £100,000 within one small public organisation with which I work and it would have no impact at all.

[CB Fry]

Nope.

 

I could save £100,000 within one small public organisation with which I work and it would have no impact at all.

 

 

Are you resigning, or are you someone whose departure would have an impact?

 

Only asking because it's pretty easy to be fantasy axeman in any company. Easier in the public sector, granted.

[Thorpe-le-Saint]

I've managed to stop laughing after yesterdays comedy gold and was only talking about this issue with the missus this morning.

 

I agree that with the worst prime minister in history

 

I think that title belongs to Chamberlain to be fair...

[Joensuu]

Having seen inside plenty of government departments I know there is plenty of fat which should be trimmed. One central government department I have contracted in is filled with wastage:

• it has far too many low grade staff who are paid minimum wage and by and large achieve very little. I guess the government employs them to keep the unemployed numbers down, and hey if they achieve anything it's a bonus right?
  
• the department six months ago signed a new 5 year contract with its main IT supplier for 1/2 a billion. I would estimate that if they had the skills in house it would cost at most £30M pa to run the network.
  
• the department even has one employee who has a medical sleeping disorder, with a doctors note allowing him to sleep at his desk. He doesn't need to make up for the time asleep, and seems to spend 3-4 hours a day snoring at his desk.
  
• I was brought in to identify under utilised computers. The department were being charged per desktop, and only realised they might have a problem when someone pointed out that they were being invoiced for 10,000 more PCs than they had staff. My project easily recouped over £4 million of savings.
  

Having worked in various central and local government departments, it is fairly obvious that some are far more efficient than others. But it is equally obvious that there are massive inefficiencies. Problem is, sacking large numbers of employees might make certain departments work better, but would society be able to cope with even greater unemployment? Is it worse to have large benefit queues with people taking home £12,000 pa in 'housing' and 'child' or to have those same people inefficently paid £14,000 pa to push a bit of paper about and sharpen pencils?

[buctootim]

Having seen inside plenty of government departments I know there is plenty of fat which should be trimmed. One central government department I have contracted in is filled with wastage:

• it has far too many low grade staff who are paid minimum wage and by and large achieve very little. I guess the government employs them to keep the unemployed numbers down, and hey if they achieve anything it's a bonus right?
  
• the department six months ago signed a new 5 year contract with its main IT supplier for 1/2 a billion. I would estimate that if they had the skills in house it would cost at most £30M pa to run the network.
  
• the department even has one employee who has a medical sleeping disorder, with a doctors note allowing him to sleep at his desk. He doesn't need to make up for the time asleep, and seems to spend 3-4 hours a day snoring at his desk.
  
• I was brought in to identify under utilised computers. The department were being charged per desktop, and only realised they might have a problem when someone pointed out that they were being invoiced for 10,000 more PCs than they had staff. My project easily recouped over £4 million of savings.
  

Having worked in various central and local government departments, it is fairly obvious that some are far more efficient than others. But it is equally obvious that there are massive inefficiencies. Problem is, sacking large numbers of employees might make certain departments work better, but would society be able to cope with even greater unemployment? Is it worse to have large benefit queues with people taking home £12,000 pa in 'housing' and 'child' or to have those same people inefficently paid £14,000 pa to push a bit of paper about and sharpen pencils?

 

 

One of the main problems is that it is so damn difficult and time consuming to sack anyone. I used to manage a medical department with 120 staff in a London Teaching Hospital. Sacking one woman who has been off sick for 185 days with 53 different instances of 'sickness' (one including taking a whole day off because she fell into a puddle) over three years - took nigh on 30% of my time for five months. Often its easier to try and improve performance, even though you know they wont. The worst part is the demoralising effect it has on the vast majority of hard working dedicated and low paid staff.

Edited 29 April, 2010 by buctootim

[View From The Top]

Are you resigning, or are you someone whose departure would have an impact?

 

Only asking because it's pretty easy to be fantasy axeman in any company. Easier in the public sector, granted.

 

You could say that.

 

No need to be a fantasy axeman as it's widely accepted within the organisation that there are too many people with many of them doing nowt.

[benjii]

Benji, like it or not, if there isn't a massive majority for the Tories it's not a good result. Everyone keeps banging on about the failings of Labour, but the Tories cannot capitilise on them, that's a poor campaign in my eyes.

 

Personally I lived through the 80's, schools in choas due to striking teachers, lack of resources, front line services cut. I don't want the schools or NHS to return to those bad old days under the Tories.

 

I'm sure there will be cost cutting in both areas by all parties, I really don't believe everything will be ring fenced, but cuts in moderation not a fecking great axe being taken to the departmental budgets.

 

I don't deny that the Tory campaign has been disappointing but I find the childish glee of indoctrinated political weirdos pathetic and demoralising.

[Wes Tender]

Behold Thatcher's true legacy, a generation of people who would rather die than vote Tory. And its a beautiful thing.

 

This election could still swing either way (apart from towards Labour of course), but anything other than a massive Tory victory is a monumental slap in the face for posh boy Cameron.

 

 

Says he, ignoring the privileged upbringing and extremely expensive private education that Blair had. One has to laugh at the pure hypocrisy and cant spouted by the class warriors of the left. Mind you, Blair only became electable because he seemed to be a sea change from old Labour. That lot had some of the biggest hypocrites of all time, spouting on about their working class credentials at the same time that their children were privately educated and they enjoyed private health care.

[Wes Tender]

So that is one of the reasons I support Labour as they are attempting try to stimulate the economy so as to produce higher growth and more Tax Revenues as well as tax increases and public sector cuts whilst the other two parties want cuts only.

 

The emergency budget the Tories want to have fills me with dread

 

It comes as no surprise that this sort of woolly thinking comes from you.

 

So you honestly believe that the two current opposition parties don't want to stimulate growth? That neither realise that tax increases will be required to pay off the massive deficit run up by the Government?

 

Labour stimulating the economy pretty much comes down to them increasing the NI rates, aptly identified as a tax on jobs. As for public sector cuts, they have seldom had the stomach for those in the past, so I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you. For some reason, you seem to believe that the party who got us into this mess is the one best placed to get us out of it too.

 

Have you received some leaked document about what might be contained in the Conservative emergency budget? Please do share it with us.

[OldNick]

Nope.

 

I could save £100,000 within one small public organisation with which I work and it would have no impact at all.

We all have stories of waste but I will put this one up again.

A year ago Jan my cousin died of cancer. The week before she died a stannh lift was fitted. Sadly it was used just the once to take her to a hospice. A week after her death the lift was taken out and thrown on the lawn.Her husband said @be careful that has only been used once' They replied 'It doesnt matter it is going on a skip'

He said 'she died of cancer not leprosy'

I recall one of our labour leaning posters responded by saying . well the rails dont fit all houses.

The motor and chair could still be saved and reused and as the house is an estate one in Lordshill I odubt that the staircase varies to many others there. Another £3900 wasted let alone the fitters costs.

[OldNick]

Prominent economist David Hale has repeated some stark words from the Bank of England's governor Mervyn King, reports the BBC's chief economics correspondent Hugh Pym. Apparently, Mr King suggested that whoever wins the election will be "out of power for a whole generation" because of the scale of cuts they will be required to make. Those views have not been confirmed by the Bank.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/10091952.stm

and you are worried if the Tories come to power Lol.

Labour have swept all the problems under the carpet and it is a timebomb. No-one will come out of this unscathed whoever you are (except MP's pensions of course )

[Wade Garrett]

Dear Dave,

 

The funniest thing in this election, for all Browns faults highlighted by various people on Saintsweb, you still can't seem to walk away with this election. A hung parliment is a disasterous result for you personally and the Tory party if it does occur.

 

Worst recession since 1940's, unpopular war, unpopular PM, high inbound migration, bigotgate and still the public are **** scared about voting Tory.

 

It would seem that people really do have long memories and can see past the PR and are wondering have the Tories really changed. What happens when we remove the veneer, will we expose the same old Tory party?

 

Their inheritance tax plans for the multi-millionaires, while cutting spending elsewhere answers that one.

[Wilko]

http://www.fridgemagnet.org.uk/toys/dave-met.php

 

Dave has been talking to a lot of people recently.

[benjii]

Their inheritance tax plans for the multi-millionaires, while cutting spending elsewhere answers that one.

 

So are you saying that anything which means rich people might benefit is inherently wrong?

 

I happen to think inheritance tax is wrong. I see no link between abolishing it completely (the right thing to do) and taking measures elsewhere that are economically necessary.

[OldNick]

Their inheritance tax plans for the multi-millionaires, while cutting spending elsewhere answers that one.

Wade the other night Brown kept saying that the inheritence tax is going to give 3000 of the countries richest 200k a year. You only die once and so I cant see how he is giving it to those famillies every year.

The 3000 families probably have estates are of 50m or more, the saving from 600k to 1m would not make a difference to their lives. They have to try nd sort out how not to give in excess of 20m to the tax man on their death not gaining 200k

[buctootim]

So are you saying that anything which means rich people might benefit is inherently wrong?

 

I happen to think inheritance tax is wrong. I see no link between abolishing it completely (the right thing to do) and taking measures elsewhere that are economically necessary.

 

 

If you want a meritocracy, ie a society which encourages and rewards hard work, achievement and entrpreneurship you should have sky high inheritance tax. Inherited wealth and priviledge is counter to a fair society and productive economy.

[Lord Duckhunter]

If you want a meritocracy, ie a society which encourages and rewards hard work, achievement and entrpreneurship you should have sky high inheritance tax. Inherited wealth and priviledge is counter to a fair society and productive economy.

 

In the interests of fairness perhaps the Queen should stnad for election.

[Wilko]

If you want a meritocracy, ie a society which encourages and rewards hard work, achievement and entrpreneurship you should have sky high inheritance tax. Inherited wealth and priviledge is counter to a fair society and productive economy.

 

Indeed. An inheritance of £600k should be enough for anybody. The fact that the Tories are proposing this at a time when they are planning immediate and damaging cuts to public services adds further weight to the argument that they are exactly the same as they always have been. All Cameron's talk of compassion and society is just a facade.

 

In the interests of fairness perhaps the Queen should stnad for election.

 

In the interests of fairness, the Queen should give back the wealth her ancestors took by force hundreds of years ago.

[OldNick]

 

 

In the interests of fairness, the Queen should give back the wealth her ancestors took by force hundreds of years ago.

You ought to put that to Wedgewood Benn about his wealth, add all the others who wave the same flag.

[Wade Garrett]

So are you saying that anything which means rich people might benefit is inherently wrong?

 

I happen to think inheritance tax is wrong. I see no link between abolishing it completely (the right thing to do) and taking measures elsewhere that are economically necessary.

 

If we have to make cuts, that everyone pays for, then why are the rich getting some back in inheritance tax? Why should I pay and not them?

[Wes Tender]

If we have to make cuts, that everyone pays for, then why are the rich getting some back in inheritance tax? Why should I pay and not them?

Stop for a minute and consider what you have written.

 

Cuts are the reductions in public spending, yes? I presume that is what you are talking about. So you are not talking about taxes there, although it is a certainty that general taxation, either direct or indirect, or both, will have to increase, no matter which party wins the election.

 

But in the next breath, you are talking about inheritance tax, which is levied in the event of somebody's death. So when somebody dies, do they get some tax back if the inheritance tax is reduced or abolished? No. Their estate simply does not pay it. And when you say that everybody pays for the cuts, then you really mean everybody working, including those who are very wealthy and still alive. They then have to pay all over again when they shuttle off this mortal coil.

 

So when you ask why you should pay and not them, what you really mean, is why should you pay once and why shouldn't they pay twice, just because they are wealthier than you. Isn't that really what you are saying?

[OldNick]

Stop for a minute and consider what you have written.

 

Cuts are the reductions in public spending, yes? I presume that is what you are talking about. So you are not talking about taxes there, although it is a certainty that general taxation, either direct or indirect, or both, will have to increase, no matter which party wins the election.

 

But in the next breath, you are talking about inheritance tax, which is levied in the event of somebody's death. So when somebody dies, do they get some tax back if the inheritance tax is reduced or abolished? No. Their estate simply does not pay it. And when you say that everybody pays for the cuts, then you really mean everybody working, including those who are very wealthy and still alive. They then have to pay all over again when they shuttle off this mortal coil.

 

So when you ask why you should pay and not them, what you really mean, is why should you pay once and why shouldn't they pay twice, just because they are wealthier than you. Isn't that really what you are saying?

No i think they are saying is 'Im not getting any of that so why should they' (I would point out that I am not in line for a big inheritence payout)

[dune]

Scrapping inherittance tax for millionaires is wrong end of. I might want a Conservative government but this proposal stinks in the current economic climate.

[Fuengirola Saint]

You ought to put that to Wedgewood Benn about his wealth, add all the others who wave the same flag.

 

Oh thats the one who salted all his ill gotten gains away in The USA wasn´t it? ;-)

[Fuengirola Saint]

Scrapping inherittance tax for millionaires is wrong end of. I might want a Conservative government but this proposal stinks in the current economic climate.

 

Well said! At least you´re not defending the indefensible like some of your mates on here.

[OldNick]

Scrapping inherittance tax for millionaires is wrong end of. I might want a Conservative government but this proposal stinks in the current economic climate.

Dune do not fall for the rich getting wealthier regarding this. If your estate is worth 20 m the inheritance tax would be in the region of 6-7m, so a saving of 200k will not get them uncorking the champers. It is the usual envy politics by saying the super wealthy are the gainers, just a vote winning exercise. Sir Alex Ferguson, the Dragon and any other Labour supporting multi millionaire will make sure their heirs are well protected. If you are worht more than 5m there are lots of schemes to get round inheritence tax.

Forget not a large proportion of normal Londoners have homes worht a million as the prices as so high up there. Tough on middle earning people IMO

[OldNick]

Oh thats the one who salted all his ill gotten gains away in The USA wasn´t it? ;-)

That's the one

[Wes Tender]

Well said! At least you´re not defending the indefensible like some of your mates on here.

 

I just defended it. At the very least a clear distinction could be made between those idle rich who do not have to work because they inherited a fortune and those who become wealthy because they are brilliant entrepreneurs.

 

The first category is a small number of individuals and most would probably spend a large part of the year abroad anyway to avoid taxation and death duties.

 

The second category has probably also created wealth and jobs along the way and been taxed at the highest rates to boot. Why should they have to pay tax during their working lives and then again when they die? That is what is indefensible IMO. It is purely and simply the politics of envy writ large.

[Fuengirola Saint]

I just defended it. At the very least a clear distinction could be made between those idle rich who do not have to work because they inherited a fortune and those who become wealthy because they are brilliant entrepreneurs.

 

The first category is a small number of individuals and most would probably spend a large part of the year abroad anyway to avoid taxation and death duties.

 

The second category has probably also created wealth and jobs along the way and been taxed at the highest rates to boot. Why should they have to pay tax during their working lives and then again when they die? That is what is indefensible IMO. It is purely and simply the politics of envy writ large.

 

Thats what i meant,forget whether you agree with the tax or not, do you think it right that during an economic crisis such as this one,the Conservatives should raise the ceiling of this tax,taking into account that other taxes will have to rise?

[Thedelldays]

Thats what i meant,forget whether you agree with the tax or not, do you think it right that during an economic crisis such as this one,the Conservatives should raise the ceiling of this tax,taking into account that other taxes will have to rise?

life isnt fair..I hate it when idle baby machines do f-all and get given free laptops, bus passes, nice houses and enough money...for doing what exactly..????

 

one way to look at life...NO ONE dips out, just some dip in more than others

[OldNick]

Thats what i meant,forget whether you agree with the tax or not, do you think it right that during an economic crisis such as this one,the Conservatives should raise the ceiling of this tax,taking into account that other taxes will have to rise?

Now that is a fairer point and I can see your position.Short term it may be that the rates stay as they are and when things pick up the levels coulkd rise.

I agree we all have to take some medicine, but in principle inheritence tax is a tax of envy and hits a lot of people not just the super rich.

[Guided Missile]

The state we're in at the moment is purely down to the electorate who voted Tony Blair and Labour into power and kept them there. The medicine we will have to take is going to be the same as that which Thatcher had to prescribe when she got into power. Labour, at the time she was voted in, had made it's normal mess of the economy, allowing public spending to get out of control, cowtowing to the unions and had to go to the IMF, a la Greece, for a handout.

 

Fast forward a few years and Labour managed to, yet again, screw up the economy, by a runaway increase in public spending, increasing the total outlay from 40.6% of to 53.4% of national income, an increase that was the largest in the world. Coupled with Gordon's genius in selling our gold at $250/oz and completely deregulating the banks, we are again at the door of going to the IMF again. Don't rule it out, because, like junkies, this country is addicted to a soft, large and flabby public sector, much of which is impossible to get rid of. With the majority of the electorate, now employed by the state, an organisation with a higher percentage of the population thus employed, than Stalin ever dreamed of, the best we can hope for is a watered down bunch of zeroes in a ruling coalition, all with less balls than Thatcher had and certainly not with enough to sort the mess out that Labour landed us with.

 

So, my approach is to assume that we are doomed and make enough money over the next few years to avoid the need to rely on the Government for anything, because, thanks to the general public and the complete lack of stomach most of them have for public sector cuts, we are f***ed...

[Wes Tender]

The state we're in at the moment is purely down to the electorate who voted Tony Blair and Labour into power and kept them there. The medicine we will have to take is going to be the same as that which Thatcher had to prescribe when she got into power. Labour, at the time she was voted in, had made it's normal mess of the economy, allowing public spending to get out of control, cowtowing to the unions and had to go to the IMF, a la Greece, for a handout.

 

Fast forward a few years and Labour managed to, yet again, screw up the economy, by a runaway increase in public spending, increasing the total outlay from 40.6% of to 53.4% of national income, an increase that was the largest in the world. Coupled with Gordon's genius in selling our gold at $250/oz and completely deregulating the banks, we are again at the door of going to the IMF again. Don't rule it out, because, like junkies, this country is addicted to a soft, large and flabby public sector, much of which is impossible to get rid of. With the majority of the electorate, now employed by the state, an organisation with a higher percentage of the population thus employed, than Stalin ever dreamed of, the best we can hope for is a watered down bunch of zeroes in a ruling coalition, all with less balls than Thatcher had and certainly not with enough to sort the mess out that Labour landed us with.

 

So, my approach is to assume that we are doomed and make enough money over the next few years to avoid the need to rely on the Government for anything, because, thanks to the general public and the complete lack of stomach most of them have for public sector cuts, we are f***ed...

 

Don't pull any punches GM. Tell it as it is.

 

I must say that I agree with you though. This election is a poisoned chalice. Even if the Conservatives eventually manage to get back some order into the economy, the pill will have been so bitter, that when the next election comes around, they will probably be booted out. I'm a bit disappointed that Cameron didn't come out harder about what a mess we're in and how hard the medicine would be to take. He could have laid it on with a trowel and have the electorate praising his openess, his frank honesty. If elected, he would have the perfect comeback if people started howling at the pain, as he could remind them that he had warned them of what a great mess it was at the start.

[Fuengirola Saint]

Dune do not fall for the rich getting wealthier regarding this. If your estate is worth 20 m the inheritance tax would be in the region of 6-7m, so a saving of 200k will not get them uncorking the champers. It is the usual envy politics by saying the super wealthy are the gainers, just a vote winning exercise. Sir Alex Ferguson, the Dragon and any other Labour supporting multi millionaire will make sure their heirs are well protected. If you are worht more than 5m there are lots of schemes to get round inheritence tax.

Forget not a large proportion of normal Londoners have homes worht a million as the prices as so high up there. Tough on middle earning people IMO

 

I understand what you are saying but why do the very rich need this extra help, i just cannot correlate this. They don´t need it!

[Wes Tender]

I understand what you are saying but why do the very rich need this extra help, i just cannot correlate this. They don´t need it!

 

The definition of rich needs defining and while we're about it, how about defining poor.

 

As Nick points out, many people living in London are property rich compared to other parts of the country and would come into the grasp of Inheritance Tax as a result. Of course, that tax was never designed to include them.

 

Turning to the definition of poor, that has been redefined over and over again. As far as I'm aware, if your household doesn't have a range of electronic items and white goods it is deemed now to be poor. My, how things have changed since the definition meant that a family couldn't afford shoes for the children and were hard pressed to feed them.

 

Whilst we're about it, why do the so-called rich need child benefit and winter heating allowances? Brown went spare about the suggestion that it should not be universally applied in the TV debates. Some consistency is required here.

[OldNick]

I understand what you are saying but why do the very rich need this extra help, i just cannot correlate this. They don´t need it!

It is not about the rich, £1m is not rich anymore. You could not retire on £1m, so if an estate is worth 1m and is split by 2 the may get 500k each. Very nice of course but inflation and time sooon erodes that money after a holidays and giving some away etc.

Any property owned has normally been bought long term on a mortgage, that has been paid by with tax paid income. Therefore the government has aleady had its cut, add the fact that (?) they also get vat on the funeral services even in death they are getting another slice to waste.

I have never resented paying a fair share, I know that I am one of the victims that whoever is in power will be a target, but it is how they take it and how they waste it is important to me.

The ony Liberal policy i would like is the 10k threshold for tax, that would then get to those hardworking people who would gain for actually getting off their a##### and working instead of sitting on them waiting for the state handouts.

[dune]

The ony Liberal policy i would like is the 10k threshold for tax, that would then get to those hardworking people who would gain for actually getting off their a##### and working instead of sitting on them waiting for the state handouts.

 

Agree. I would also go further with the re-introduction of work houses. Those who are content to sit on their arses and have their rent and council tax paid should be sent to the workhouse. In my nans day (she was born in 1912) they still had workhouses and ending up there was the one thing everyone wanted to avoid. They worked as a detterent to the idle and their re-introduction would be a sure fire way to motivate the slobs of society.

[Wade Garrett]

Agree. I would also go further with the re-introduction of work houses. Those who are content to sit on their arses and have their rent and council tax paid should be sent to the workhouse. In my nans day (she was born in 1912) they still had workhouses and ending up there was the one thing everyone wanted to avoid. They worked as a detterent to the idle and their re-introduction would be a sure fire way to motivate the slobs of society.

 

Don't worry dune, every worker will have the same rights as workhouse workers under a Tory government anyway.

[buctootim]

I dont see why the inheritance tax limit isnt attached to the beneficiary rather than the giver. That way, for example, if £2m is left to a mans 10 children then no tax would be due, but £2m left to one child would attract tax.

[Fuengirola Saint]

The definition of rich needs defining and while we're about it, how about defining poor.

 

As Nick points out, many people living in London are property rich compared to other parts of the country and would come into the grasp of Inheritance Tax as a result. Of course, that tax was never designed to include them.

 

Turning to the definition of poor, that has been redefined over and over again. As far as I'm aware, if your household doesn't have a range of electronic items and white goods it is deemed now to be poor. My, how things have changed since the definition meant that a family couldn't afford shoes for the children and were hard pressed to feed them.

 

Whilst we're about it, why do the so-called rich need child benefit and winter heating allowances? Brown went spare about the suggestion that it should not be universally applied in the TV debates. Some consistency is required here.

 

 

Surely its better that people aren´t defined as poor because they can´t feed their kids anymore, no?

I agree with you,the rich don´t need child benefit or heating allowances and the expats over here shouldn´t get it either, thats just plain stupid!

You could change the rules of the tax to only include your first home at the higher rate then the people in the South East who have homes worth more than the national average wouldn´t be hit, it´s quite simple. Why didn´t the Tories just put this forward? I am sure there wouldn´t have been the same amount of disquiet about it.

[benjii]

I just defended it. At the very least a clear distinction could be made between those idle rich who do not have to work because they inherited a fortune and those who become wealthy because they are brilliant entrepreneurs.

 

The first category is a small number of individuals and most would probably spend a large part of the year abroad anyway to avoid taxation and death duties.

 

The second category has probably also created wealth and jobs along the way and been taxed at the highest rates to boot. Why should they have to pay tax during their working lives and then again when they die? That is what is indefensible IMO. It is purely and simply the politics of envy writ large.

 

Yes, indeed.

[benjii]

 

Whilst we're about it, why do the so-called rich need child benefit and winter heating allowances? Brown went spare about the suggestion that it should not be universally applied in the TV debates. Some consistency is required here.

 

Exactly, again.

[Lord Duckhunter]

It was The Tory's announcement of an inheritance tax cut at the 2007 conference that frightened Brown, and led to him not calling a snap general election (good move Gordon) when Labour were ahead in the polls.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/labour/1565348/Gordon-Brown-Why-I-put-off-an-early-election.html

 

"Senior Labour sources said that the main factor in the decision not to call an election was the "flakiness" of the party's vote in more than 100 marginal constituencies that would decide an election."

 

"They said that Tory proposals to increase to £1 million the threshold above which a household is liable for inheritance tax, announced last week by George Osborne, the shadow chancellor, had proved popular with "Middle Britain" voters."

 

Nowadays you dont need to be super rich (especially in London) to have an estate worth more than £1mil. Inheritance tax is grossly unfair, it is a death tax on money that you've already paid tax on. My Father in Law started life in the 1930's from a very poor background. He had little education, but became quite sucsessful. He is by no means super rich, but will leave an estate of over £1mil when you include his property. He is just an ordinary working man, whose paid his taxes all his life, never claimed any benefit apart from a state pension, and wants his kids to benefit from his hard work, whats wrong with that?

[Shandy_Top_89]

I think that title belongs to Chamberlain to be fair...

 

Chamberlain wasnt terrible domestically, he also had the misfortune of being Prime Minister in possibly the most difficult and confusing eras of international relations. He wanted peace and he stuck to his guns, unfortunetly a slimey little German/Austrian conned him. However it is true that Chamberlain screwed over Czechoslovakia against the advice of a number of government MPs and world figures, but war was a total non option for Britain at the time we just were not prepared.

 

Come to think of it I cant think of someone who stands out as the 'worst' Prime Minister, despite a few that certainly could be labelled weak.