|
|
Post by grahammurray on Jun 19, 2023 9:30:33 GMT
This current seat doesn’t have much of a Labour vote, but after reorganisation the Labour wards in BaNES are included & it’s then a 4 way fight. A sitting LDem MP makes them clear favourites 🙁 in the new seat 8,354 Labour votes last time are not insignificant. How is that materially different to the 8,171 people voting Lib Dem in Mid Beds? |
|
|
|
Post by Strontium Dog on Jun 19, 2023 9:38:15 GMT
8,354 Labour votes last time are not insignificant. How is that materially different to the 8,171 people voting Lib Dem in Mid Beds? Those are Lib Dem votes, they don't count... |
|
haroldthepolitician
Labour
'You can be just what you want to be, Just as long as you don't try and compete with me' - Jarvis
Posts: 216 
|
Post by haroldthepolitician on Jun 19, 2023 9:56:29 GMT
Well assuming he actually applies for Northstead/Chiltern Hundreds... This constituency is proposed to be split in two in the current boundary proposals, with a new Frome seat taking in the Midsomer Norton area from North East Somerset and a Glastonbury & Somerton taking the Glastonbury/Street area from Wells. I imagine that a Lib Dem by-election winner would be likely to stand in Glastonbury & Somerton. I imagine Frome as being a contender for a Labour gain in a general tbh; Midsomer and Paulton being quite Labour leaning and I dont think Frome is foreign the idea either. I can see it being within 10 pts at the very least. |
|
graham
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,344
|
Post by graham on Jun 19, 2023 10:05:37 GMT
Because he wanted to be in government.
The national interest could have been served by another election, but Nick Clegg wanted government for him, without any Liberal Democrat policies in reality, just Tory ones. Nick Clegg sold the Liberal Democrats out for position. It's why I originally said progressive politics is a figment of the imagination, because politicians will put themeselves first. Nick Clegg was my MP, he was always about photo-ops more than substance, I have a very low opinion of the man, which may colour my views somewhat.
The British electorate would have punished the Liberal Democrats for forcing a second unnecessary election. Clegg did he right thing by for the first time in generations made Liberals relevant in government decision making . Lessons have been learnt from our time in government. Next time there is a hung parliament it will take weeks if not months of detailed negotiations with potential coalition partners before a government is formed. I don't accept the argument that a second election would have followed. Had Cameron threatened to do that, Clegg could have made the Palace aware that he was prepared to enter Coalition with Ed Milliband and other parties.As long as an alternative Government was possible a further Dissolution was unlikely to be granted. |
|
CatholicLeft
Labour
2032 posts until I was "accidentally" deleted.
Posts: 6,712
|
Post by CatholicLeft on Jun 19, 2023 10:13:10 GMT
How is that materially different to the 8,171 people voting Lib Dem in Mid Beds? Those are Lib Dem votes, they don't count... I didn't make that claim, they are equally significant. My response was to the suggestion there wasn't much of a Labour vote in Somerton and Frome |
|
CatholicLeft
Labour
2032 posts until I was "accidentally" deleted.
Posts: 6,712
|
Post by CatholicLeft on Jun 19, 2023 10:15:08 GMT
8,354 Labour votes last time are not insignificant. How is that materially different to the 8,171 people voting Lib Dem in Mid Beds? It isn't. |
|
|
|
Post by No Offence Alan on Jun 19, 2023 10:24:49 GMT
Increasing the Income Tax personal allowance is one of those policies which mostly benefit high earners, but which are always described as though they benefit low earners. It's usually a deliberate deception. Rubbish. If the tax threshold goes up £1000, and the rate is 20%, everyone saves £200. Clearly £200 is of more importance to a low earner than a high earner. |
|
|
|
Post by LDCaerdydd on Jun 19, 2023 10:30:25 GMT
Increasing the Income Tax personal allowance is one of those policies which mostly benefit high earners, but which are always described as though they benefit low earners. It's usually a deliberate deception. Rubbish. If the tax threshold goes up £1000, and the rate is 20%, everyone saves £200. Clearly £200 is of more importance to a low earner than a high earner. I here what you're both saying. The threshold is currently £12,500 if it increases to £13,500 most people save/get an extra £200. However if you only earn £12,500 (or £10,000 etc) you don't benefit. This in my book doesn't make it a regressive policy as many in Labour insisted it was in 2010 and if the arithmetic were different back then and a Lab/LD coalition formed I'm sure Labour would have embraced this policy and trumpeted its benefits. But anyway... Anyway, back to Somerton in 2023 please… He's now resigned/been appointed to this arbitory position. Writ moved this afternoon (today is also the close of Tory nominations)? |
|
|
|
Post by lackeroftalent on Jun 19, 2023 10:35:03 GMT
Increasing the Income Tax personal allowance is one of those policies which mostly benefit high earners, but which are always described as though they benefit low earners. It's usually a deliberate deception. Rubbish. If the tax threshold goes up £1000, and the rate is 20%, everyone saves £200. Clearly £200 is of more importance to a low earner than a high earner. Everyone? 40% of the population earn less than £12,500 a year. An increase in the threshold gives them nothing. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jun 19, 2023 10:51:04 GMT
Rubbish. If the tax threshold goes up £1000, and the rate is 20%, everyone saves £200. Clearly £200 is of more importance to a low earner than a high earner. Everyone? 40% of the population earn less than £12,500 a year. An increase in the threshold gives them nothing. It doesn't 'give' anyone anything. It just stops taking so much money off people. If they aren't taking anything from you in the first place, you can hardly complain if they don't reduce the amount they're taking.. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jun 19, 2023 10:51:43 GMT
The British electorate would have punished the Liberal Democrats for forcing a second unnecessary election. Clegg did he right thing by for the first time in generations made Liberals relevant in government decision making . Lessons have been learnt from our time in government. Next time there is a hung parliament it will take weeks if not months of detailed negotiations with potential coalition partners before a government is formed. I don't accept the argument that a second election would have followed. Had Cameron threatened to do that, Clegg could have made the Palace aware that he was prepared to enter Coalition with Ed Milliband and other parties.As long as an alternative Government was possible a further Dissolution was unlikely to be granted. I think it's hard to see any alternative government lasting a full term, but that doesn't mean there weren't alternative options - the fundamental issue wasn't the coalition (which at least at first was actually quite popular as a concept,) it was the way the Lib Dems played a difficult hand extremely badly. |
|
|
|
Post by Defenestrated Fipplebox on Jun 19, 2023 10:58:09 GMT
Because he wanted to be in government.
The national interest could have been served by another election, but Nick Clegg wanted government for him, without any Liberal Democrat policies in reality, just Tory ones. Nick Clegg sold the Liberal Democrats out for position. It's why I originally said progressive politics is a figment of the imagination, because politicians will put themeselves first. Nick Clegg was my MP, he was always about photo-ops more than substance, I have a very low opinion of the man, which may colour my views somewhat.
The British electorate would have punished the Liberal Democrats for forcing a second unnecessary election. Clegg did he right thing by for the first time in generations made Liberals relevant in government decision making . Lessons have been learnt from our time in government. Next time there is a hung parliament it will take weeks if not months of detailed negotiations with potential coalition partners before a government is formed.
So it was for your party he went into government, not for the national interest, at least you admit that.
|
|
|
|
Post by markgoodair on Jun 19, 2023 11:06:03 GMT
The British electorate would have punished the Liberal Democrats for forcing a second unnecessary election. Clegg did he right thing by for the first time in generations made Liberals relevant in government decision making . Lessons have been learnt from our time in government. Next time there is a hung parliament it will take weeks if not months of detailed negotiations with potential coalition partners before a government is formed. So it was for your party he went into government, not for the national interest, at least you admit that.
Why does any political party contest elections? |
|
graham
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,344
|
Post by graham on Jun 19, 2023 11:16:51 GMT
I don't accept the argument that a second election would have followed. Had Cameron threatened to do that, Clegg could have made the Palace aware that he was prepared to enter Coalition with Ed Milliband and other parties.As long as an alternative Government was possible a further Dissolution was unlikely to be granted. I think it's hard to see any alternative government lasting a full term, but that doesn't mean there weren't alternative options - the fundamental issue wasn't the coalition (which at least at first was actually quite popular as a concept,) it was the way the Lib Dems played a difficult hand extremely badly. I don't disagree with that. My point is that if Cameron had formed a Minority Government relying on a Confidence & Supply arrangement with LDs, the latter could have blocked an attempt by Cameron 6 - 12 months later to call another election. Clegg could have said ' If Cameron feels unable to carry on , I am prepared to enter an arrangement with Milliband et al.' |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jun 19, 2023 11:44:06 GMT
Increasing the Income Tax personal allowance is one of those policies which mostly benefit high earners, but which are always described as though they benefit low earners. It's usually a deliberate deception. Rubbish. If the tax threshold goes up £1000, and the rate is 20%, everyone saves £200. Clearly £200 is of more importance to a low earner than a high earner. As several others have pointed out, if you're already below the threshold you get £nothing. And if you're only just above it, you benefit to the tune of pennies. However if you're a higher rate taxpayer you get the full whack. For that reason the distributional effect of increasing the personal allowance is strongly biased towards higher earners; if it's something intended to help lower earners, it has a massive deadweight cost. If you really want to do something using the Income Tax system to help lower earners then you should put up dividend tax credits (the Coalition announced cuts to them). The other and more insidious problem with increasing the personal allowance is that ensuring more people "get taken out of income tax altogether" means an impression goes round that lower earners are not contributing for the cost of government services, and that can influence spending decisions. There have also been some who argue that a modest income tax charge on lower incomes is healthy for society because being included in paying for government services contributes to the sense of being part of a community. |
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Jun 19, 2023 11:56:46 GMT
Rubbish. If the tax threshold goes up £1000, and the rate is 20%, everyone saves £200. Clearly £200 is of more importance to a low earner than a high earner. As several others have pointed out, if you're already below the threshold you get £nothing. And if you're only just above it, you benefit to the tune of pennies. However if you're a higher rate taxpayer you get the full whack. For that reason the distributional effect of increasing the personal allowance is strongly biased towards higher earners; if it's something intended to help lower earners, it has a massive deadweight cost. If you really want to do something using the Income Tax system to help lower earners then you should put up dividend tax credits (the Coalition announced cuts to them). The other and more insidious problem with increasing the personal allowance is that ensuring more people "get taken out of income tax altogether" means an impression goes round that lower earners are not contributing for the cost of government services, and that can influence spending decisions. There have also been some who argue that a modest income tax charge on lower incomes is healthy for society because being included in paying for government services contributes to the sense of being part of a community. Senior Labour councillor calls for increasing taxes on the poor. |
|
|
|
Post by uthacalthing on Jun 19, 2023 12:27:14 GMT
There have also been some who argue that a modest income tax charge on lower incomes is healthy for society because being included in paying for government services contributes to the sense of being part of a community. where do you stand on that? And are you still of the view that expecting people to pay rent on a bedroom they have but don't need is in some way a tax? |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jun 19, 2023 12:32:55 GMT
And are you still of the view that expecting people to pay rent on a bedroom they have but don't need is in some way a tax? I remind you that the bedroom tax doesn't involve rent at all (the tenant was paying full rent for their entire home including all the bedrooms). It involves arbitrary reductions of housing benefit. |
|
r34t
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,173
|
Post by r34t on Jun 19, 2023 12:35:59 GMT
Well assuming he actually applies for Northstead/Chiltern Hundreds... This constituency is proposed to be split in two in the current boundary proposals, with a new Frome seat taking in the Midsomer Norton area from North East Somerset and a Glastonbury & Somerton taking the Glastonbury/Street area from Wells. I imagine that a Lib Dem by-election winner would be likely to stand in Glastonbury & Somerton. I imagine Frome as being a contender for a Labour gain in a general tbh; Midsomer and Paulton being quite Labour leaning and I dont think Frome is foreign the idea either. I can see it being within 10 pts at the very least. Unfortunately Paulton doesn’t come into the new seat & MSN hasn’t been Labour leaning for a generation. Radstock & Westfield will bring a chunk of votes though. |
|
|
|
Post by LDCaerdydd on Jun 19, 2023 12:48:54 GMT
And are you still of the view that expecting people to pay rent on a bedroom they have but don't need is in some way a tax? I remind you that the bedroom tax doesn't involve rent at all (the tenant was paying full rent for their entire home including all the bedrooms). It involves arbitrary reductions of housing benefit. It's also not a tax, not that stops Labour referring to it as one. |
|
