|
|
Post by andrewp on Jun 19, 2023 19:27:24 GMT
First Parliamentary by election in Somerset since 1970. A by election at which Trudy Sellick became the first eighteen year old to vote in a UK election. At North Newton. Her son was in the same form as me at secondary school. |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Jun 19, 2023 19:30:27 GMT
A by election at which Trudy Sellick became the first eighteen year old to vote in a UK election. At North Newton. Her son was in the same form as me at secondary school. shouldn't this go in the "Famous electorally related people who i didn't meet today, but used to eat dinner in the same school hall as her child" thread?  |
|
|
|
Post by Strontium Dog on Jun 19, 2023 20:02:42 GMT
First Parliamentary by election in Somerset since 1970. A by election at which Trudy Sellick became the first eighteen year old to vote in a UK election. A magnumental occasion. |
|
|
|
Post by uthacalthing on Jun 19, 2023 20:12:58 GMT
Junior Lib Dem denounces taxes as theft . They are taken by force, without consent. then they are robbery Now if the local mafioso offers you protection in return for money, its a racket. If King John did it, it was a racket. |
|
|
|
Post by uthacalthing on Jun 19, 2023 20:27:45 GMT
you ought to give trollery more respect. Trolls tell you what respectable people think of you but are too polite to say But for Trolls Kier would still be kneeling for George Floyd and agreeing that women can have penises. And the Red wall would stay blue. |
|
|
|
Post by manchesterman on Jun 19, 2023 20:30:15 GMT
well parties stand on a manifesto, including various taxation policies, and people vote based - to some degree -on the manifesto pledges, so its hardly 'without consent'. Also, some taxes are voluntary (eg VAT on certain non-essential products), air fuel duty (or whatever its called these days) etc etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by mattb on Jun 19, 2023 20:32:49 GMT
Junior Lib Dem denounces taxes as theft I think that technically they are. They are taken by force, without consent. With that said, I see no other way that a society can reasonably function, so I view them as a necessary evil. And that is why I am not an anarchist. well tbf consent is at least implied by democratic accountability |
|
|
|
Post by andrewp on Jun 19, 2023 21:05:01 GMT
At North Newton. Her son was in the same form as me at secondary school. shouldn't this go in the "Famous electorally related people who i didn't meet today, but used to eat dinner in the same school hall as her child" thread? I could also put her in the ‘famous electorally related people whose parents in law were close friends of my grandparents thread’ but that might be quite a short thread 😂 |
|
|
|
Post by uthacalthing on Jun 19, 2023 21:05:12 GMT
well parties stand on a manifesto, including various taxation policies, and people vote based - to some degree -on the manifesto pledges, so its hardly 'without consent'. Also, some taxes are voluntary (eg VAT on certain non-essential products), air fuel duty (or whatever its called these days) etc etc. Nine out of ten people enjoy gang rape, but that does not really make it consensual (Yep, I think that is a new low, but I shall press on) |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jun 19, 2023 23:08:36 GMT
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. And now you are resorting to outright Tory arguments that people below the tax threshold pay no tax. The poor pay a higher proportion of their income in council tax and indirect taxes (VAT, tobacco duty, green energy levies etc.) than the rich. See tables 8 and 9 of these files. www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/datasets/theeffectsoftaxesandbenefitsonhouseholdincomefinancialyearending2014[/quote] I'm saying they are perceived ("an impression goes round") as paying no tax, because we've wrongly elevated income tax as though it's the only real personal tax. There's a reason why Income Tax rates have not been raised for nearly half a century, while almost all other taxes have been increased several times. |
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,312 
|
Post by maxque on Jun 20, 2023 0:01:56 GMT
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. And now you are resorting to outright Tory arguments that people below the tax threshold pay no tax. The poor pay a higher proportion of their income in council tax and indirect taxes (VAT, tobacco duty, green energy levies etc.) than the rich. See tables 8 and 9 of these files. www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/datasets/theeffectsoftaxesandbenefitsonhouseholdincomefinancialyearending2014I'm saying they are perceived ("an impression goes round") as paying no tax, because we've wrongly elevated income tax as though it's the only real personal tax. There's a reason why Income Tax rates have not been raised for nearly half a century, while almost all other taxes have been increased several times.[/quote] The main reason is that it's a progressive tax, unlike all others, so the elites dominating the media are doing everything to pass their tax burden to people poorer than them. |
|
Toylyyev
Mebyon Kernow
CJ Fox avatar
Posts: 1,067
|
Post by Toylyyev on Jun 20, 2023 6:46:33 GMT
I think some of the comments on this thread embody exactly why I want Labour to campaign seriously here and would not be too disappointed to see the Tories win it as a result
Personally, I certainly wouldn't want to see the Tories win. But there are scenarios (my underscore) other than the ones already set out.
The 1994 Eastleigh by election has things to teach us here. Marilyn Birks, the Labour candidate wrote an article after it, entitled "How we won by coming second". My miserable ham sandwich scenario. - polling to shift from the June 13 average as from early November 2013 (i.e. Con:32.5, Lab:38, K:12, LD:10 & G:2.5) to GE15 (i.e. Con:34, Lab:33, K:13,
LD:9, G:5)
- the 2015 polling error (i.e. Lab:-2.1, Con:+3.8, K:-0.1, LD:-0.9, G:-1.2) reducing to (Lab:0, Con:+2.5, LD:0, R:0, G:-1.5) per current gut feel
- LibDems maintaining their polling from September 2019 with the current head (yields Lab:-2.5, Con:-0.5, LD:+11, R:-2, G:-4 vs. 2015)
Seat cardinals for current constituencies according to the Electoral Calculus prediction tool: Con:239, Lab:325, LD:28, G:1, SNP:32, PC:5, Other:2, NI:18. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2023 6:54:32 GMT
I think some of the comments on this thread embody exactly why I want Labour to campaign seriously here and would not be too disappointed to see the Tories win it as a result A feeling probably shared by more than a few Labour supporters. Many of whom probably would be enraged when Lib Dem supporters would advocate a strong Lib Dem campaign in Uxbridge in the hope that Labour would lose. |
|
|
|
Post by batman on Jun 20, 2023 7:19:27 GMT
There is, dare I say it, a bit of a difference between the two situations. Many proponents of a "progressive alliance" fail to understand that Labour is by far (in England & Wales anyway) the largest of the anti-Tory parties, and that therefore there could not be total equality in any withdrawal or non-aggression situations. When I vote Labour in my borough, I'm voting for a party which can reasonably aspire to form a majority government (and also am no longer very likely to let a Tory in by so doing, as for now I think they're finished here); those who vote for the LDs, Greens or Plaid (or the SNP in Westminster elections) are not. I don't think that a Tory hold in this constituency, however, would be in Labour's interests more generally and I certainly wouldn't want to fail in Selby & Ainsty, let alone Uxbridge & South Ruislip, because resources had not been allotted correctly by my party. Good targetting is a very important tool in winning elections.
|
|
|
|
Post by uthacalthing on Jun 20, 2023 10:26:46 GMT
Furthermore, those who want to remove the Tories at any cost can vote Labour with the certainty that they will not support a Tory government. You cannot support the Lib Dems and be sure that if the numbers fall awkwardly they might not be bribed/cajoled/negotiated into Confidence and Supply or worse
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,948
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Jun 20, 2023 11:11:33 GMT
I think some of the comments on this thread embody exactly why I want Labour to campaign seriously here and would not be too disappointed to see the Tories win it as a result A feeling probably shared by more than a few Labour supporters. Many of whom probably would be enraged when Lib Dem supporters would advocate a strong Lib Dem campaign in Uxbridge in the hope that Labour would lose. There are some LibDems - and Greens - that feel similarly about Labour (the latter more so after their influx of embittered Corbynistas) In the real world, Labour aren't going to run a major campaign in this byelection - they *may* try a bit harder in the parts going into the new Frome seat. |
|
|
|
Post by woollyliberal on Jun 20, 2023 11:13:43 GMT
There is, dare I say it, a bit of a difference between the two situations. Many proponents of a "progressive alliance" fail to understand that Labour is by far (in England & Wales anyway) the largest of the anti-Tory parties, and that therefore there could not be total equality in any withdrawal or non-aggression situations. When I vote Labour in my borough, I'm voting for a party which can reasonably aspire to form a majority government (and also am no longer very likely to let a Tory in by so doing, as for now I think they're finished here); those who vote for the LDs, Greens or Plaid (or the SNP in Westminster elections) are not. I don't think that a Tory hold in this constituency, however, would be in Labour's interests more generally and I certainly wouldn't want to fail in Selby & Ainsty, let alone Uxbridge & South Ruislip, because resources had not been allotted correctly by my party. Good targetting is a very important tool in winning elections. No proponent of a progressive alliance has ever failed to understand that Labour is the Largest non-Tory party. You'd be a fool to think that. Most understand that Labour don't have to join such an alliance, it is wholly Labour's choice. What they object to is Labour telling other parties to stand down in Labour's favour while never standing down for any other party in any constituency in any election. It's the hypocrisy they object to. |
|
iang
Lib Dem
Posts: 1,817
|
Post by iang on Jun 20, 2023 11:17:23 GMT
FWIW, I'm getting emails appealing for help / cash for S&F and mid-Beds. I'm not getting emails saying "Naturally, we aren't making an effort in Selby or in Uxbridge" of course, but you can draw your own conclusions about where our priorities are
|
|
|
|
Post by london(ex)tory on Jun 20, 2023 13:59:07 GMT
Triple the fun in just over four weeks Is this definitely confirmed? I'm struggling to find a Notice of Election but that just be me struggling with Somerset Council's website. |
|
|
|
Post by AdminSTB on Jun 20, 2023 14:26:30 GMT
well parties stand on a manifesto, including various taxation policies, and people vote based - to some degree -on the manifesto pledges, so its hardly 'without consent'. Also, some taxes are voluntary (eg VAT on certain non-essential products), air fuel duty (or whatever its called these days) etc etc. Nine out of ten people enjoy gang rape, but that does not really make it consensual (Yep, I think that is a new low, but I shall press on) You're right, this is a new low. In future, all posters should avoid jokes about rape. This isn't the public bar at the Hare and Hounds (or indeed the Eager Poet where I first hid this joke). If you do you're cruising for a ban. |
|
