General Election 2015

[CB Saint]

Well, the 45% rate is too low. I think healthcare should be free for those who can't afford private healthcare.

 

You have to earn £150k pa before you get to 45%. What you are in effect saying is that the 40% band is too low as well.

[saintbletch]

I always thought The thick of it took the **** out of both parties, I didn't realise it was just Tory bashing.

 

Quite right Lord Duckhunter. That one just popped up on Twitter, but I guess Iannucci's left-leaning bias was always going to surface at some point.

 

Feel free to supply one of your own for balance.

 

Here's another one that just popped up via a social network.

 

 

Even though I try to read a balanced (Left versus Right) set of views, I seem to get this sort of stuff in my timeline.

 

I think the problem with posting balanced, Left versus Right 'satire', is that the worst that is levelled at the Left is that they generally **** up the economy trying to help the many at the expense of the few, whilst the Right generally ****s up the economy trying to help a few at the expense of the many.

 

It's personal, obviously, but I'd just rather be incompetent than unfair.

[CB Saint]

In reality the left **** up the economy trying to help the many at the expense of the few, only to discover that the many are suddenly out of work whilst the few retain their jobs.

 

so they try to be lefties and end up at the torys outcome

[shurlock]

Thought the last Labour government f**ked up the economy by trying to outTory the Tories.

[saintbletch]

Thought the last Labour government f**ked up the economy by trying to outTory the Tories.

 

I'm pretty sure I said the Left, shurlock.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

You have to earn £150k pa before you get to 45%. What you are in effect saying is that the 40% band is too low as well.

 

No, I don't think it is. What I am saying is that this shouldn't be done by taxatio, hell I'm not even saying it's a legal thing, all I said was I think those that can afford should feel a moral obligation to pay for Private Healthcare to leave the NHS for those that need it.

 

The 45% tax rate should be returned to 50% though.

[pap]

No, I don't think it is. What I am saying is that this shouldn't be done by taxatio, hell I'm not even saying it's a legal thing, all I said was I think those that can afford should feel a moral obligation to pay for Private Healthcare to leave the NHS for those that need it.

 

The 45% tax rate should be returned to 50% though.

 

Why shouldn't those with money not spend it elsewhere in the economy?

 

It's not like those contributing to private healthcare are going to be supporting small businesses. Why should people feel morally obliged to give their money to big health when we have a public health service, which they are also paying for?

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Why shouldn't those with money not spend it elsewhere in the economy?

 

It's not like those contributing to private healthcare are going to be supporting small businesses. Why should people feel morally obliged to give their money to big health when we have a public health service, which they are also paying for?

 

Because the NHS is overworked and underfinanced as it is, and it's not something that's going to change anytime soon. Surely the best thing to do is to remove yourself from the pool so those that can't afford it have a better service. It's all about being unselfish and doing what's best for those that don't have the options that others have.

[trousers]

Surely the best thing to do is to remove yourself from the pool so those that can't afford it have a better service.

 

People already have the option to do that though. Or are you suggesting a cutoff where the opt-out should become mandatory?

[Patrick Bateman]

You have to earn £150k pa before you get to 45%. What you are in effect saying is that the 40% band is too low as well.

 

The 45% band is too low, the 40% band is too low, the personal allowance needs to be higher still.

 

The one thing that f**ks me right off at the moment, is that no one talks about the fact that when you reach £100k, your personal allowance gets eroded away, £1 for every £2 you earn over that. Utterly ridiculous.

[hutch]

It's personal, obviously, but I'd just rather be incompetent than unfair.

Wouldn't it be fantastic if it was just a straightforward either/or choice?

 

We usually end up with both.

[pap]

Because the NHS is overworked and underfinanced as it is, and it's not something that's going to change anytime soon. Surely the best thing to do is to remove yourself from the pool so those that can't afford it have a better service. It's all about being unselfish and doing what's best for those that don't have the options that others have.

I give the government 30K a year.

 

I don't use the health service much. Why should I have to pay more?

 

I don't think 30k a year is selfish.

[CB Saint]

The 45% band is too low, the 40% band is too low, the personal allowance needs to be higher still.

 

The one thing that f**ks me right off at the moment, is that no one talks about the fact that when you reach £100k, your personal allowance gets eroded away, £1 for every £2 you earn over that. Utterly ridiculous.

 

It has got to be phased out gradually otherwise if you got upto the threshold, earning £1 more would cost you £4k in tax. The question is I guess at what point does the phasing out begin

[CB Saint]

No, I don't think it is. What I am saying is that this shouldn't be done by taxatio, hell I'm not even saying it's a legal thing, all I said was I think those that can afford should feel a moral obligation to pay for Private Healthcare to leave the NHS for those that need it.

 

The 45% tax rate should be returned to 50% though.

 

What you are suggesting is a pipe dream if you are relying on peoples moral obligation.

[Whitey Grandad]

Why shouldn't those with money not spend it elsewhere in the economy?

 

It's not like those contributing to private healthcare are going to be supporting small businesses. Why should people feel morally obliged to give their money to big health when we have a public health service, which they are also paying for?

 

Flippin' 'eck. I agree with Pap

[Patrick Bateman]

It has got to be phased out gradually otherwise if you got upto the threshold, earning £1 more would cost you £4k in tax. The question is I guess at what point does the phasing out begin

 

No, it's more about why does it get taken away? Why should we pay 60% tax on everything from £100k to £120k in earnings, but earning over £150k you "only" pay 45% tax? It's ludicrous.

(See here for an example: http://www.bakertilly.co.uk/publications/Pages/The-60-percent-tax-trap.aspx)

[saint si]

The 45% band is too low, the 40% band is too low, the personal allowance needs to be higher still.

 

The one thing that f**ks me right off at the moment, is that no one talks about the fact that when you reach £100k, your personal allowance gets eroded away, £1 for every £2 you earn over that. Utterly ridiculous.

 

Yep - adds an effective 20% (or 22.5% for the highest rate payers) to the marginal tax rate between £100k and £120k. So that £20k of income is actually being taxed at 60%.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

I give the government 30K a year.

 

I don't use the health service much. Why should I have to pay more?

 

I don't think 30k a year is selfish.

 

Sounds like we're all not as left wing as we like to think!

[Unbelievable Jeff]

What you are suggesting is a pipe dream if you are relying on peoples moral obligation.

 

All I said was the below, it's a personal opinion!

 

 

As an aside, I also believe that those who can afford it should have a moral obligation to pay for private healthcare instead of using an already underfinanced and overworked NHS.

 

It's not that I think it should be enforced etc, just that to help the underfunding in the NHS and to keep taxes/benefits at a level that isn't killing people those with more could do this simple thing to help out. But I guess we're all not as generous as we like to think.

[pap]

Sounds like we're all not as left wing as we like to think!

 

Bollócks to that. I make my contribution. I more than pay for myself, and I've got no problem paying for others that aren't as lucky.

 

If I'm already paying way more than I cost, why should I then pay more for services I probably won't use, or give money to private healthcare when I could be giving it to the exchequer?

[pap]

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/04/wheres-letter-100-people-living-poverty

 

Despite George Osborne’s recent claims, poverty in Britain is growing. Driven by an increasingly fragile jobs market, the rise of insecure work and a more punitive benefits culture, poverty levels have been rising for a generation. Whatever measure is used, poverty levels are much higher than in the 1970s. They are also close to double the average of other rich countries.

 

 

Deprivation levels are higher today than in the late 1990s. Today more households live in a damp home while three times as many cannot afford to heat their home adequately. The numbers who skimp on meals is at a 30 year high. The poorest fifth in Britain are 40% poorer than their counterparts in Germany and 30% poorer than in France.

[pap]

Ed Miliband coming across as human.

 

Don't know why he hasn't done more of this, tbh.

 

[video=youtube;14Wy4Vh-4bM]

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Bollócks to that. I make my contribution. I more than pay for myself, and I've got no problem paying for others that aren't as lucky.

 

If I'm already paying way more than I cost, why should I then pay more for services I probably won't use, or give money to private healthcare when I could be giving it to the exchequer?

 

Fine, so you'd prefer to pay a higher rate of tax to make up for the shortfall?

[pap]

Fine, so you'd prefer to pay a higher rate of tax to make up for the shortfall?

 

You're talking about the shortfall as if it is an inevitability.

 

It's only inevitable if we HAVE to spend money on all the things we spend cash on (we don't) and we're collecting all the tax that we possibly could under the existing rules (we're not).

 

As I said before, I already pay far more tax into the system than I am ever going to get back out. That money, if properly managed and supplemented with actual f**king corporation tax rates, and actual taxable cost centres in the UK, ought to be enough.

[saint si]

You're talking about the shortfall as if it is an inevitability.

 

It's only inevitable if we HAVE to spend money on all the things we spend cash on (we don't) and we're collecting all the tax that we possibly could under the existing rules (we're not).

 

As I said before, I already pay far more tax into the system than I am ever going to get back out. That money, if properly managed and supplemented with actual f**king corporation tax rates, and actual taxable cost centres in the UK, ought to be enough.

 

So you're in favour of cutting overall public spending?

[Unbelievable Jeff]

You're talking about the shortfall as if it is an inevitability.

 

It's only inevitable if we HAVE to spend money on all the things we spend cash on (we don't) and we're collecting all the tax that we possibly could under the existing rules (we're not).

 

As I said before, I already pay far more tax into the system than I am ever going to get back out. That money, if properly managed and supplemented with actual f**king corporation tax rates, and actual taxable cost centres in the UK, ought to be enough.

 

Yes, I would say most of us are paying more than we'll ever take out, but that's life. I take it you're happy with the current income tax rates as it sits then, and the tories at least have done something right by reducing taxes to its current levels.

[pap]

So you're in favour of cutting overall public spending?

 

I know that you think you're probably doing a fine job of corralling people into a trap, but you're just not equipped for the task, mush.

 

My points stand on their own. You already have the answers you need.

[pap]

[saint si]

I know that you think you're probably doing a fine job of corralling people into a trap, but you're just not equipped for the task, mush.

 

My points stand on their own. You already have the answers you need.

 

Nice ad hominem.

 

No trap intended - but I am surprised to hear someone on "the left" say both that (1) higher rate tax payers are paying enough and (2) that it would be possible to reduce public spending in any significant/useful way. Actually quite refreshing and probably shows that the simplistic left vs right view is just skating over the surface of the more nuanced debate that is really required.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Nice ad hominem.

 

No trap intended - but I am surprised to hear someone on "the left" say both that (1) higher rate tax payers are paying enough and (2) that it would be possible to reduce public spending in any significant/useful way. Actually quite refreshing and probably shows that the simplistic left vs right view is just skating over the surface of the more nuanced debate that is really required.

 

Exactly this. Which also shows why politics is far more difficult than just saying "Them on the left are incompetent fools, and them on the right are selfish ****s".

[pap]

Nice ad hominem.

 

No trap intended - but I am surprised to hear someone on "the left" say both that (1) higher rate tax payers are paying enough and (2) that it would be possible to reduce public spending in any significant/useful way. Actually quite refreshing and probably shows that the simplistic left vs right view is just skating over the surface of the more nuanced debate that is really required.

 

It's a justifiable ad hominem when your opponent in a debate is deliberately trying to simplify and twist what has already been said. In your estimation, do you think that UJ was armed with the facts or even the justification to make some of the points he's made?

 

Let's review them, shall we?

 

Accusations of hypocrisy toward the left, because the rich ones aren't paying their money into private healthcare or giving every disposable bit of it away to the poor. Concluding that I'm in favour of spending cuts, when I've already qualified my position. Get the proper rate of corporation tax from companies that are domiciled here, force those that aren't domiciled here to review their tax arrangements.

 

As for spending cuts, I'm all for them in certain areas. Unfortunately, what UJ means is the sort of stuff that we're being told is necessary, which is to squeeze the poor and public services more. How about we stop f**king invading other countries, and save all the cash we're spending to expand the US' economic empire? How about we legislate for out-of-control markets, like housing and banking?

 

If we're talking cuts, let's make sure that people know we're talking about.

 

And that's really been the problem with UJ's input throughout this thread. It's the internal conflict of someone who doesn't know what he's talking about and someone who wants to look like he knows what he's talking about.

 

The uninformed idiot is winning.

 

Exactly this. Which also shows why politics is far more difficult than just saying "Them on the left are incompetent fools, and them on the right are selfish ****s".

 

Example right here.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

It's a justifiable ad hominem when your opponent in a debate is deliberately trying to simplify and twist what has already been said. In your estimation, do you think that UJ was armed with the facts or even the justification to make some of the points he's made?

 

Let's review them, shall we?

 

Accusations of hypocrisy toward the left, because the rich ones aren't paying their money into private healthcare or giving every disposable bit of it away to the poor. Concluding that I'm in favour of spending cuts, when I've already qualified my position. Get the proper rate of corporation tax from companies that are domiciled here, force those that aren't domiciled here to review their tax arrangements.

 

As for spending cuts, I'm all for them in certain areas. Unfortunately, what UJ means is the sort of stuff that we're being told is necessary, which is to squeeze the poor and public services more. How about we stop f**king invading other countries, and save all the cash we're spending to expand the US' economic empire? How about we legislate for out-of-control markets, like housing and banking?

 

If we're talking cuts, let's make sure that people know we're talking about.

 

And that's really been the problem with UJ's input throughout this thread. It's the internal conflict of someone who doesn't know what he's talking about and someone who wants to look like he knows what he's talking about.

 

The uninformed idiot is winning.

 

 

 

Example right here.

 

You've got very wound up based on the fact that I said I find it hypocritical that those who preach against the right to make them feel small for not paying more tax, being selfish and not caring etc, say in the next breath say they are paying more than enough tax as they aren't taking anything out of the state. Surely you can see the hypocrisy here? It just smacks of nimbyism. I can imagine that if you paid 45% tax you'd be happy with that tax rate (although maybe a little high, as you pay enough tax as it is), but would want a new higher rate of tax input for those on £200k upwards. Repeat ad infinitum.

 

Throughout this whole thread I am pretty sure that my input has been based on my own opinions and my own views. I'm not trying to catch anybody out, I'm just trying to spark debate on different issues. Not sure where I said we should squeeze public services and the poor more - in actual fact the point I was making with getting those who could afford to pay for their own private healthcare was that by taking extra people from using the NHS then that budget could go much further, quite the opposite to what you allude to above. Also not sure where I said that you were in favour of spending cuts, but perhaps you can point this out to me.

 

Perhaps I don't know what I am talking about, but I can certainly say that the confusing, contradictory position that you take on anything that doesn't agree with your position or personal circumstances, interspersed with the extremely tedious, and not particularly clever pictures you post, certainly does not reflect well on those that veer to the left.

 

Anyway, it seems you've taken this all to heart a little too much, perhaps a case of feeling you're not doing enough in your life to justify the views you have, I don't know, but perhaps we should leave it there.

Edited 2 April, 2015 by Unbelievable Jeff

[Verbal]

I can't for the life of me see what's wrong with UJ's comment. How does saying that politics has complexity make him an "uninformed idiot"?

 

And talking of which, you own contributions on this have swung wildly between faux-Marxist poseur and indignant over-taxed small businessman.

 

Want cuts exactly would you make, since you make it all sound so easy?

[pap]

You've got very wound up based on the fact that I said I find it hypocritical that those who preach against the right to make them feel small for not paying more tax, being selfish and not caring etc, say in the next breath say they are paying more than enough tax as they aren't taking anything out of the state. Surely you can see the hypocrisy here? It just smacks of nimbyism. I can imagine that if you paid 45% tax you'd be happy with that tax rate (although maybe a little high, as you pay enough tax as it is), but would want a new higher rate of tax input for those on £200k upwards. Repeat ad infinitum.

 

Throughout this whole thread I am pretty sure that my input has been based on my own opinions and my own views. I'm not trying to catch anybody out, I'm just trying to spark debate on different issues. Not sure where I said we should squeeze public services and the poor more - in actual fact the point I was making with getting those who could afford to pay for their own private healthcare was that by taking extra people from using the NHS then that budget could go much further, quite the opposite to what you allude to above. Also not sure where I said that you were in favour of spending cuts, but perhaps you can point this out to me. Perhaps I don't know what I am talking about, but I can certainly say that the confusing, contradictory position that you take on anything that doesn't agree with your position or personal circumstances, interspersed with the extremely tedious, and not particularly clever pictures you post, certainly does not reflect well on those that veer to the left.

 

Anyway, it seems you've taken this all to heart a little too much, perhaps a case of feeling you're not doing enough in your life to justify the views you have, I don't know, but perhaps we should leave it there.

 

Yeah, right. The innocent "so you're in favour of spending cuts" business.

 

As for my oh-so-clever pictures, I can see you tried to have a go yourself, but spectacularly failed to either be funny, relevant or even technically proficient. You don't get to decry my technique when you've tried yourself and fallen flat on your arse.

 

Your stunning effort is really your input on this thread in microcosm.

 

 

Look at the time spent, the thought, the attention to detail and the elegance.

 

Oh yeah, there is none.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Yeah, right. The innocent "so you're in favour of spending cuts" business.

 

As for my oh-so-clever pictures, I can see you tried to have a go yourself, but spectacularly failed to either be funny, relevant or even technically proficient. You don't get to decry my technique when you've tried yourself and fallen flat on your arse.

 

Your stunning effort is really your input on this thread in microcosm.

 

 

Look at the time spent, the thought, the attention to detail and the elegance.

 

Oh yeah, there is none.

 

I assume you missed the nuance that it was a ****take at you, hence why I used a stupid phrase, and a scouser. But that's fine.

 

Can you please show me where I said 'So you're in favour of spending cuts' please? Are you not getting me mixed up with Saintsi above? If not I apologise but I just can't find where I said it.

[TheCholulaKid]

Perhaps I don't know what I am talking about......certainly does not reflect well on those that veer to the left.

 

1st part = correct

2nd part = doesn't reflect well on Pap. You can hardly judge the entire 'left' based on his posts.

 

If I judged this forum based on a handful of posters' ill-thought out, deliberately provocative, look-at-me ideas (all in the name of 'sparking debate' obviously) then I wouldn't bother coming on here at all.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

1st part = correct

2nd part = doesn't reflect well on Pap. You can hardly judge the entire 'left' based on his posts.

 

If I judged this forum based on a handful of posters' ill-thought out, deliberately provocative, look-at-me ideas (all in the name of 'sparking debate' obviously) then I wouldn't bother coming on here at all.

 

Fair point on the second part, although it doesn't help that he is the most vocal.

 

I am still yet to see why me saying that those who can afford private healthcare should get it to take the strain off the NHS is such a provocative idea. Perhaps you can explain that to me?

[pap]

Can you please show me where I said 'So you're in favour of spending cuts' please? Are you not getting me mixed up with Saintsi above? If not I apologise but I just can't find where I said it.

 

Sorry UJ. On that last point, you are correct and I duly concede the point.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Sorry UJ. On that last point, you are correct and I duly concede the point.

 

At least we can agree on that one.

[pap]

I can't for the life of me see what's wrong with UJ's comment. How does saying that politics has complexity make him an "uninformed idiot"?

 

And talking of which, you own contributions on this have swung wildly between faux-Marxist poseur and indignant over-taxed small businessman.

 

Want cuts exactly would you make, since you make it all sound so easy?

 

I'm happy enough with my tax burden, at least the level. It's the distribution of funds and the waste that irks me. Did we really need to spend the billions we did on going into Iraq, or more recent, bombing Libya back to a state of civilisation the Numidians would have sneered at? Should we be spending the billions we do on housing benefit, working families tax credits, or any other subsidy to corporations, banks, the rich or any combination of the above?

 

I'd argue not. There are huge economic or legislative levers that could be pulled to improve the state of the economy and/or reduce public spending. A very easy way to do both would be to follow the example of the green states in the US and go for regulation and legalisation of certain narcotics. We wouldn't have to spend as much money on enforcement, justice system or incarceration, and we'd have an entirely new revenue stream for the exchequer (6.6% of England and Wales population would be paying in for weed alone, on 2010 estimates).

 

But hey, that's me making things sound easy.

Edited 2 April, 2015 by pap

[Bearsy]

It would be cheaper & environmentally better to bomb more local countries like i.e. Wales or i.e. Jersey

[pap]

1st part = correct

2nd part = doesn't reflect well on Pap. You can hardly judge the entire 'left' based on his posts.

 

If I judged this forum based on a handful of posters' ill-thought out, deliberately provocative, look-at-me ideas (all in the name of 'sparking debate' obviously) then I wouldn't bother coming on here at all.

 

I'm not trying to be representative of the "left", even though I would consider my politics on that side.

 

I'd agree that the images are deliberately provocative, but in fairness, that's kind of the point and also, I'm not really sure how you can say that Thatcher repeatedly called for a paedo to be knighted against advice in a non-provocative way.

[pap]

It would be cheaper & environmentally better to bomb more local countries like i.e. Wales or i.e. Jersey

 

I'm going to take you up on your offer of temporary frivolity and offer this.

 

One of my mates reckons that Lara Croft practiced on small animals, such as hamsters and gerbils, before going on to tackle big cats, etc. Your idea reminded me of his.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

I'm happy enough with my tax burden, at least the level. It's the distribution of funds and the that irks me. Did we really need to spend the billions we did on going into Iraq, or more recent, bombing Libya back to a state of civilisation the Numidians would have sneered at? Should we be spending the billions we do on housing benefit, working families tax credits, or any other subsidy to corporations, banks, the rich or any combination of the above?

 

I'd argue not. There are huge economic or legislative levers that could be pulled to improve the state of the economy and/or reduce public spending. A very easy way to do both would be to follow the example of the green states in the US and go for regulation and legalisation of certain narcotics. We wouldn't have to spend as much money on enforcement, justice system or incarceration, and we'd have an entirely new revenue stream for the exchequer (6.6% of England and Wales population would be paying in for weed alone, on 2010 estimates).

 

But hey, that's me making things sound easy.

 

To be fair, we only offered air support in Libya, didn't we, and haven't gone into Syria. Surely most of your gripes are with the last two Labour governments, in Iraq and Afghanistan, not the current Conservative one.

Edited 2 April, 2015 by Unbelievable Jeff

[Verbal]

I'm happy enough with my tax burden, at least the level. It's the distribution of funds and the that irks me. Did we really need to spend the billions we did on going into Iraq, or more recent, bombing Libya back to a state of civilisation the Numidians would have sneered at? Should we be spending the billions we do on housing benefit, working families tax credits, or any other subsidy to corporations, banks, the rich or any combination of the above?

 

I'd argue not. There are huge economic or legislative levers that could be pulled to improve the state of the economy and/or reduce public spending. A very easy way to do both would be to follow the example of the green states in the US and go for regulation and legalisation of certain narcotics. We wouldn't have to spend as much money on enforcement, justice system or incarceration, and we'd have an entirely new revenue stream for the exchequer (6.6% of England and Wales population would be paying in for weed alone, on 2010 estimates).

 

But hey, that's me making things sound easy.

 

The coalition has already cut housing benefit extensively. One of the consequences of that in London is the social cleansing of large swathes of the city. Housing benefit and tax credits for people in work - and, you might want to add, extensive government financing of apprenticeships, which was once paid for entirely by employers - wouldn't be picked up by companies. So the immediate effect of your proposals would be the clobbering of the working poor.....again.

 

But this is fiddling around the edges. The biggest ticket item by some distance is pensions, followed by the NHS, social security and state school education. Those four alone account around two-thirds of all public spending. So to make the kind of difference you're expecting, you're going to have to cut substantially into one of those three, not just tinker.

 

As you say, easy.

[pap]

The coalition has already cut housing benefit extensively. One of the consequences of that in London is the social cleansing of large swathes of the city. Housing benefit and tax credits for people in work - and, you might want to add, extensive government financing of apprenticeships, which was once paid for entirely by employers - wouldn't be picked up by companies. So the immediate effect of your proposals would be the clobbering of the working poor.....again.

 

But this is fiddling around the edges. The biggest ticket item by some distance is pensions, followed by the NHS, social security and state school education. Those four alone account around two-thirds of all public spending. So to make the kind of difference you're expecting, you're going to have to cut substantially into one of those three, not just tinker.

 

As you say, easy.

 

Indeed the coalition have cut housing benefit, but they did it in the wrong way. The rights of the sitting tenants were not considered at all (apart from "can Stoke and Hastings take them all?").

 

A more radical idea which might not have involved London becoming the Capitol of f**king Panem (look it up) would have been legislation that placed controls on spiralling rents. Set at an appropriate level, it'd push the cost of housing down to manageable levels, stop a lot of the harmful speculation, and allow more people to have the sort of disposable income that drives the economy.

 

Easy.

[pap]

To be fair, we only offered air support in Libya, didn't we, and haven't gone into Syria. Surely most of your gripes are with the last two Labour governments, in Iraq and Afghanistan, not the current Conservative one.

 

I mentioned both Iraq and Libya.

 

What have you added here?

[Bearsy]

The biggest ticket item by some distance is pensions, followed by the NHS, social security and state school education. Those four alone account around two-thirds of all public spending.

 

We could reduce pensions by re-introducing more dangerous animals such as i.e. bears and i.e piranhas into certain situations such as i.e. libraries and i.e. garden centres. We could similarly reduce social security by re-introducing i.e. poisonous snakes and i.e. velociraptors into situations such as i.e. betting shop and i.e cash converters. I would probably hold off on your state school recommendation tho, and only introduce i.e. Aids into state schools if proven completely necessary. Admittedly, there would be some knock-on to the NHS with all this, but I think overall the savings could be v.great indeed

 

Edit: Or as pap suggested bring back The Hunger Games

Edited 2 April, 2015 by Bearsy

[Unbelievable Jeff]

I mentioned both Iraq and Libya.

 

What have you added here?

 

That it is the Labour government that spent an excessive amount on conflicts, whereas this government has only supported Libyan air strikes? I think the Tories are trying to follow your plan to not spend money on conflicts that doesn't directly impact them...

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Indeed the coalition have cut housing benefit, but they did it in the wrong way. The rights of the sitting tenants were not considered at all (apart from "can Stoke and Hastings take them all?").

 

A more radical idea which might not have involved London becoming the Capitol of f**king Panem (look it up) would have been legislation that placed controls on spiralling rents. Set at an appropriate level, it'd push the cost of housing down to manageable levels, stop a lot of the harmful speculation, and allow more people to have the sort of disposable income that drives the economy.

 

Easy.

 

I don't think anyone disagrees with the cost of rents, but how do you limit that? Say you can only increase rents by a certain percentage per year?