Election - Something About to Happen ?

[Mojo]

If you are unable to get to your other house, but still want to vote, then send off for a postal vote (they should send it to your second address). I'm going to vote for parliamentary and council elections in Bristol and council elections only in Birmingham.

 

[thefab444]

You and others of Left Wing persuausion assume that I am a hardened Conservative supporter, when in fact my actual convictions, as I have said many times before, do not align precisely with any specific Party, although having worked in the Former Soviet Union, and seem first hand the results of their form of Socialism, and the UKs form of Socilaism, I am firmly to the Right of Centre!

My point was that you can be a left winger without being a devoted follower of Stalin, Trotsky, Mao and their ilk (e.g. the 'so-called Socialist' Leaders). In the same way, not everyone on the right supports Hitler or Mussolini etc.

I do have enormous respect for a small number of Left Wing MPs, such as the late Gwynetth Dunwoody whom I have met, and Frank Field, to give you two examples.

Agreed, both examples of what you could call "proper" Labour MPs, not the more recent intake of career politicians who know nothing of the real world.

State spending can never achieve efficient or effective growth, and you just have to look at the Ukrainian Tractor statistics of old to realise that Government control and centralisation of production can never work.

I agree to the extent that the state should not attempt to run industry, banking or retail, only certain public services where private companies hold consumers to ransom due to poor regulation and effective monopolies. The basics, such as passenger rail transportation, electricity, water and gas (some of which feature absolutely no private sector competition so I hardly see the advantage of using the private sector other than to raise a one-off payment through the sale of infrastructure) should be run by the state, along with councils running local ammenities such as waste disposal, local bus transportation etc. Everything else should be dealt with by the private sector.

As for taxation, I'm in favour of raising or maintaining income and inheritance tax for high earners/diers, but as you've rightly said before, raising corporation tax is not such a good idea.

 

[Old Timer]

thefab444
With your last post the only thing I find to disagree with is the taxation of high earners.

In most cases these are people who run businesses and their success by virtue of that engenders opportunities of employment for others.

It is a sad face of Socialism that whilst it always penalises those who seek to do better and improve their lot, it does not penalise those who are happy to take from the State without any intention of contributing to either their Country or their Community.

I am sure we both know of such people.

 

[43034 The Black Horse]

Vote UKIP, just purely for the rants.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bypLwI5AQvY & http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vBqyG6qYXE&NR=1

 

[thefab444]

Farage cries about Freedom of Speech, but you don't have freedom to personally insult others, regardless of whether you agree with their political opinion. IMO he was totally out of line there. If he wants to make serious comments about the EU then fair enough, but if he's just going to insult other members he should be kicked out from his seat.

Besides, Nigel Farage has the "charisma of a damp rag" and he could definately be a "low-grade bank clerk"!

 

[devon_metro]

thefab444
With your last post the only thing I find to disagree with is the taxation of high earners.

In most cases these are people who run businesses and their success by virtue of that engenders opportunities of employment for others.

It is a sad face of Socialism that whilst it always penalises those who seek to do better and improve their lot, it does not penalise those who are happy to take from the State without any intention of contributing to either their Country or their Community.

I am sure we both know of such people.

Quite agreed. Where is the sense if discouraging those high earners, to pay for the bone idol scroungers on benefits.

 

[furryfeet]

what TRANSPORT policies do the parties say that they will pursue / implement in the next parliament ?

Or is this yet another election where transport is kept in the broom cupboard out of sight ?

 

[thefab444]

what TRANSPORT policies do the parties say that they will pursue / implement in the next parliament ?

I imagine cuts in any investment and even higher premiums for the new, longer franchises?

 

[Pumbaa]

It is a sad face of Socialism that whilst it always penalises those who seek to do better and improve their lot,

And on the other hand, the high earners usually do this at the expense of others. Some sort of balance is needed, and some might think tax will do the trick!

 

[Failed Unit]

And on the other hand, the high earners usually do this at the expense of others. Some sort of balance is needed, and some might think tax will do the trick!

The trouble with using tax as the tool is the higher earners just dodge the tax by channeling earnings offshore. It is the man in the middle that pays the most as they don't have the benefits or know about the tax loopholes.

It is a hard thing to balance but I would rather have 25% of 50k then 0% of 100k (although they try to tax it at 50%)

There are many loopholes such as contractors getting paid in divedends rather than a real salary THUS avoiding PAYE

 

[43034 The Black Horse]

My point was that you can be a left winger without being a devoted follower of Stalin, Trotsky, Mao and their ilk (e.g. the 'so-called Socialist' Leaders). In the same way, not everyone on the right supports Hitler or Mussolini etc.

That's a very good point, and not one many people understand. I say I am the left - mid right and people automatically think I am a racist and a follower of Hitler and the Nazi Regime! I most certainly am NOT. As you say, people can be on the right and the left and not be extremeists.

 

[Old Timer]

And on the other hand, the high earners usually do this at the expense of others. Some sort of balance is needed, and some might think tax will do the trick!

Which immediately proves that you have never run your own business.

I have and it was quite successful until Labour took power and started to make it more and more difficult.

You have never had the experience of supporting a business with a mortgage on your house, neither have you had the worry about how to pay staff and suppliers as you waited for the accounts to be paid.

The vast majority of small businesses are run by ordinary men and women who are not ogres, do not treat their staff like Victorian mill owners, and end up being used as a convenient wallet under Labour.

There comes a point where the risk outweighs the benefit, and one throws in the towel. The staff get made redundant and they go on the dole, and instead on contributing they become a burden on Society. So much for Socialism and people such as Primarolo who did so much to destroy small businesses and put people onto state benefits :roll:

Then again this is where their core voters come from isn't it ?

Because every true Socialist I ever met wanted to improve themselves and move up in life.

As the songs says, "......The working Class can kiss my arse, I've got the Foreman's job at last......"

 

[mrcheek]

How does that tally with the various hard left credentials of much of this and previous Cabinets then ? There were a fair number of former Marxists, Trotyskyists, Leninists and Communist supporters, in some cases card carrying members of the Communist Party.

You may have already mentioned this OT, but I skipped some posts as Ive been away.
But, its also worth adding that all those organisations like the Communist Party and CND were getting most of their funding from the Kremlin!

so, the Brown/Stalin comparison is pretty valid!

oh, and also, once Labour are voted out, does that mean we can start to tell the truth about the L******* G**** R*** C****?

 

[Pumbaa]

Which immediately proves that you have never run your own business.

Ah I knew I'd wasted the last five years of my life, all this time I thought I'd been running my own companies, but now - shucks!

You have never had the experience of supporting a business with a mortgage on your house, neither have you had the worry about how to pay staff and suppliers as you waited for the accounts to be paid.

Ah balls. I remember now - yes, laying off all but 5 of my 27 staff in 2008 was the hardest thing I have ever had to do.

Puffery and full-frontal assault doesn't get you nowt OT - you should know that being of respectable age.

 

[Nick W]

thefab444
With your last post the only thing I find to disagree with is the taxation of high earners.

In most cases these are people who run businesses and their success by virtue of that engenders opportunities of employment for others.

It is a sad face of Socialism that whilst it always penalises those who seek to do better and improve their lot, it does not penalise those who are happy to take from the State without any intention of contributing to either their Country or their Community.

I am sure we both know of such people.

The fact is, however, that the Government are in record debt. They need more tax, or to curtail spending. The advantages of Education, Health, Social Care, the Armed Forces and infrastructure are numerous and would suffer from extreme cuts, beyond efficiency savings. Feel free to state why you disagree with any of these assertions.

Having cleared that out the way, the only option we have then is to increase levels of tax. Now every tax has its problems: corporation tax penalises businesses, VAT reduces spending (not necessarily a bad thing if we were aiming for a less materialistic culture in the long term but disastrous if increased in the short-term), income tax, like you say, is a tax on increased earning and green tax is an unpopular tax on luxury, and for some, their livlihood or means of getting to work. I recognise that all of these taxes are needed, but also that, if we are to balance the books, we need an increase in taxes in general.

In line with the revelations that the divide between the richest and poorest earners is increasing unsustainably, it is clear that we can safely maintain the new increased income tax rate for high earners, and perhaps in the future consider an even higher raise without affecting the wealth of the rich in real terms. This means that in the song term we would not lose any incentive to work harder or take risks. The same logic is demonstrates that this is by fair the fairest way of taxing.

Old Timer, I can only assume you're in favour of maintaining the 50% tax rate, unless you can suggest a viable alternative tax increase or can suggest any spending cuts other than those already mentioned by the Tory or Liberal Democrat party, both of whom would, at least in the short-term, maintain the 50% tax rate even in spite of their suggested spending cuts.

 

[Techniquest]

If you are unable to get to your other house, but still want to vote, then send off for a postal vote (they should send it to your second address). I'm going to vote for parliamentary and council elections in Bristol and council elections only in Birmingham.

Well I didn't get out of the flat in the end today, got caught up in Bejewled Blitz fever Still, gotta go that way tomorrow so I'll do it then.

Who do I contact for a postal vote? Local council? Although admittedly I randomly enjoy going to the polling station to vote, the only time I get to feel at all important

 

[Nick W]

There comes a point where the risk outweighs the benefit, and one throws in the towel. The staff get made redundant and they go on the dole, and instead on contributing they become a burden on Society. So much for Socialism and people such as Primarolo who did so much to destroy small businesses and put people onto state benefits

This sounds like what happens under a free-market economy: during boom times, new companies form since start ups are economically viable, and prices drop, and during bust time, the weaker of these companies goes bust and prices rise. This occurs until the point at which wages fall due to the high supply of workers from unemployment, prices fall and the economy stablises and a boom begins again.

Isn't state intervention, if carried out in the right way to reduce the effects of boom-and-bust, a much better alternative?

Yes socialism, despite being wonderful in theory, has been shown not to work. Us so called lefties are simply arguing for social mobility and higher minimum standards of state provision. Do you have any problems with this?

 

[Old Timer]

......Puffery and full-frontal assault doesn't get you nowt OT - you should know that being of respectable age.

Nice to get you wound up again



Nick W
What worries me is that the current tax regime inroduces a marginal rate of 98% to those at the lower end of the scale, which is just plain wrong.

What is also very wrong, and indeed quite despicable is that Labour's promise in Opposition to close the "Offshore" tax avoidance schemes was quietly ditched when they gained power because many of their supporters, and in particular their donors have some very very efficient tax avoidance arrangements that reduce to an absolute minimum their exposure to UK taxation.

Thus whilst the rest of us are being taxed to make up shortfalls, those and their Companies who are making masive profits in the UK contribute practically nothing yet are, and have been, rewarded by Labour with honours and peerages.

Unfettered immigration introduced by Labour in a cynical ploy to increase their votes, as the documents now obtained under the FOI Act clearly demonstrate, have led to whole groups who exist on our welfare system, yet have little if any interest in contributing to the Country or to the wider community. As a result our welfare and social systems are placed under incredible pressure day in and day out to the disbenefit of the disadvantaged.

It should not be forgotten that under Labour the gap between the highest and the lowest earners has widened, and that social mobility has actually decreased. Meanwhile the many Labour supporters who donate have been allowed to run down Pension Funds and Companies to the disadvantage of the average working person without even a hint of criticism by Brown and company.

I am not sure how the South Yorkshire and North Lincolnshire steelworkers feel about their Pension Fund being raided in order to agrandish the owners and some of the money used to support Gordon Brown's leadership campaign.

 

[thefab444]

I fail to see what's funny about 22 staff being made redundant!

 

[Old Timer]

I fail to see what's funny about 22 staff being made redundant!

THAT was not the point. I will modify my post to remove that possible interpretation.

 

[142094]

I quite like the fact that everytime I return to this thread there is a Google advert for the Lib Dems. Must be getting a bit desperate.

 

[gordonthemoron]

Unfettered immigration introduced by Labour in a cynical ploy to increase their votes

only British citizens can vote in the general election, residents with other nationalities cannot

 

[Nick W]

Nick W
What worries me is that the current tax regime inroduces a marginal rate of 98% to those at the lower end of the scale, which is just plain wrong.

Any chance you could explain that please, I'm sure you didn't mean to say that someone who earns £10k a year salary walks away with £200 a year after taxes are taken away.

What is also very wrong, and indeed quite despicable is that Labour's promise in Opposition to close the "Offshore" tax avoidance schemes was quietly ditched when they gained power because many of their supporters, and in particular their donors have some very very efficient tax avoidance arrangements that reduce to an absolute minimum their exposure to UK taxation.

Thus whilst the rest of us are being taxed to make up shortfalls, those and their Companies who are making masive profits in the UK contribute practically nothing yet are, and have been, rewarded by Labour with honours and peerages.

Unfettered immigration introduced by Labour in a cynical ploy to increase their votes, as the documents now obtained under the FOI Act clearly demonstrate, have led to whole groups who exist on our welfare system, yet have little if any interest in contributing to the Country or to the wider community. As a result our welfare and social systems are placed under incredible pressure day in and day out to the disbenefit of the disadvantaged.

It should not be forgotten that under Labour the gap between the highest and the lowest earners has widened, and that social mobility has actually decreased. Meanwhile the many Labour supporters who donate have been allowed to run down Pension Funds and Companies to the disadvantage of the average working person without even a hint of criticism by Brown and company.

I am not sure how the South Yorkshire and North Lincolnshire steelworkers feel about their Pension Fund being raided in order to agrandish the owners and some of the money used to support Gordon Brown's leadership campaign.

I think you're right about Labour's lack of action closing up tax loopholes. I understand there is an oft-used argument that says that when one door closes, another opens. I do not believe that this is the case. In case you hadn't realised, I support the Liberal Democrat's tax reforms, which promise to close the tax-holes and reduce the burden on the lower earners. I would also support all action to reduce the situation in which, for some earners, people lose just as much as they gain from working longer hours. Even though we don't support the same parties, I'm gather you and I have consensus on these issues.

With regards to immigration, I think that all respectable parties share the same line that the current measures, which ensure immigration is beneficial to both the immigrants and Britain are effective enough, though William Hague and other Tories may disagree with the party line. Despite the impression the media might give, there is a lot of action to crack down on employers who employ illegal immigrants, which is the only way the state can effectively and economically reduce the presence of illegal immigrants. Though one might push for bigger fines, the intention should be to deter employers from utilising illgeal immigrants in the future without causing the business to collapse or for redundancies to legal workers to be necessary.

Once again, I would agree with you that Labour haven't done enough to reduce the divide between the rich and the poor. Though I see the Tories as responsible for starting the increase in the divide because of their economic reform, I see Labour as just as responsible for letting it continue. I think that the short-term corrective measure is a tax reform that redistributes wealth from the richer to the poorer to counter these effects and action to defend what's left of British manufacturing and stimulate regional economies further. In the long term, the maintenance or improvement of state provision throughout Britain, should eventually reverse the division.

Finally, I stand by your condemnation of the loss company pension funds, but would suggest this only demonstrates the need for better state pension provision and more regulation from the state.

I quite like the fact that everytime I return to this thread there is a Google advert for the Lib Dems. Must be getting a bit desperate.

I can't help but feel that my posts are slightly responsible for this. In any case, they have less to spend on advertism than other parties so I don't think they're particularly desperate. I think a great deal more people would vote for them if the media paid them more attention, and if we had a single transferable voting system that disfavoured tactical voting against voting for what you believe in.

 

[Old Timer]

Any chance you could explain that please, I'm sure you didn't mean to say that someone who earns £10k a year salary walks away with £200 a year after taxes are taken away.

Anyone who is on benefits and then gets a job will pay tax on their earnings. When you compare their take home pay with that of the rate of state benefits, during a certain level it is the equvalent of paying 98% of your earnings in tax.

It is all down to the way that there is no correlation between state benefits and the tax system. As a result many people are unable to go into employment and work their way out of the state sytem, because of the way that benefits are means tested. For many people therefore there is no incentive to look for work, indeed is it right to expect someone to lose money simply to take employment ?

only British citizens can vote in the general election, residents with other nationalities cannot

Non UK citizens only have a limited period of time that they may stay in the UK as is the case all over the world.

These people were allowed in with the full intention of giving them British citizenship in the belief that they would help to boost Labour's vote. This also expalins why asylum seekers were sent away into the Shires, and predominently into strong Conservative supporting constituencies.

It also explains why Lincoln for example now has such a major problem with Eastern Europeans who beg aggressively and have brought such an upsurge in violent crime locally. Cambridge suffers from similar problems.

The UK has a major problem with the availability of utility services and their ability to support a rapidly growing population. There is also enormous pressure on our Greenbelts, and increasing demands on local Council services which are now having to provide for people who are exempt from paying Council Tax, yet pose disproportionate needs.

None of these issues have been allowed to be aired and discussed rationally because Labour and its acolytes immediately threw down the "race card", and accused those who pointed out such things of various "ism" offences.

 

[Nick W]

Anyone who is on benefits and then gets a job will pay tax on their earnings. When you compare their take home pay with that of the rate of state benefits, during a certain level it is the equvalent of paying 98% of your earnings in tax.

It is all down to the way that there is no correlation between state benefits and the tax system. As a result many people are unable to go into employment and work their way out of the state sytem, because of the way that benefits are means tested. For many people therefore there is no incentive to look for work, indeed is it right to expect someone to lose money simply to take employment ?

Non UK citizens only have a limited period of time that they may stay in the UK as is the case all over the world.

These people were allowed in with the full intention of giving them British citizenship in the belief that they would help to boost Labour's vote. This also expalins why asylum seekers were sent away into the Shires, and predominently into strong Conservative supporting constituencies.

It also explains why Lincoln for example now has such a major problem with Eastern Europeans who beg aggressively and have brought such an upsurge in violent crime locally. Cambridge suffers from similar problems.

The UK has a major problem with the availability of utility services and their ability to support a rapidly growing population. There is also enormous pressure on our Greenbelts, and increasing demands on local Council services which are now having to provide for people who are exempt from paying Council Tax, yet pose disproportionate needs.

None of these issues have been allowed to be aired and discussed rationally because Labour and its acolytes immediately threw down the "race card", and accused those who pointed out such things of various "ism" offences.

You may be right about there being cases where there is little incentive to work, but the 98% claim is outright ludicrous. Do you seriously believe there is anyone who keeps 2p for every £1 they earn? No one loses money by working either if they work more than 2 days a week full time even if on the minimum wage.

Only Assylum Seekers from the commonwealth can vote for a start, which seriously reduces the numbers we're talking about, and they're housed wherever there is spare-housing as determined by an independent organisation. Besides, as they are in such small numbers, they should have no effect on the outcome of the voting of strong constituencies. I presume you meant marginal constituencies, or did you just not think?

Cambridge has a problem with Eastern European beggars and violent crime? I live in the very centre of Cambridge, and go outside everyday and I can inform you that I meet at most one beggar a day, and none of them Eastern European in appearance. Nor have I heard any news of an upsurge of violent crime?

With regards to the lack of support of our infrastructure for growing population, the very fact that housing development has reclined recently suggests that the increasing supply exceeds the increasing demand. But even if, even if there was a limited supply of housing and pressure on our industries, that fact is that immigration is already limited, and indeed there is no evidence to suggest the level of immigration needs reduction. Moreover, immigrants on average contribute more to than they take from society than British citizens, and therefore actually improve conditions for us. Your straw man argument is totally unfounded.

 

[thefab444]

Cambridge has a problem with Eastern European beggars and violent crime? I live in the very centre of Cambridge, and go outside everyday and I can inform you that I meet at most one beggar a day, and none of them Eastern European in appearance. Nor have I heard any news of an upsurge of violent crime?

But... but... it was in The Daily Mail!

 

[Old Timer]

NickW
The 98% is accepted even by Labour and is well know amongst those who follow the wider economic and taxation affairs of the UK. Obviously it is not accepted by you, but this does not make it wrong, it simply suggests you need to do some research before making such comments.

As for Eastern Europeans, and othes from outside, your comments are in contradiction with your own Chief Constable's public statements. You may wish to read what she said at some point.

The "Immigration is good for the Country" argument that you propound comes straight from the Labour "On Message" briefing booklet. It is totally wrong as even the Home Affairs (I believe it was) Select Committee shot that argument into the long grass some time back. There was also a House of Lords Inquiry which reached the same conclusion. Simply put this were clearly stated that Immigration was actually COSTING the UK and that it was a myth that all Immigrants introduced economic benefits.

You and others are tending towards the old Leftist argument that seeks to stigmatise anyone who objects to unfettered Immigration.

Controlled Immigration is perfectly acceptable, what is not is allowing people to enter the Country when they will ultimately represent a drain on the Country's economy.

No other Country in the World allows this, indeed most Countries will only allow people to enter long term if they can prove that they have adequate means of supporting themselves.

Many advanced Countries will not give any form of support to illegal immigrants, but immediately remove them. Meanwhile in the UK we send them away and ask them to come back later and apply for leave to enter !

Is it any wonder so many don't bother, especially when we cannot even send them out of the UK once here through a lack the Political will (and of course now we know why) of strong application of what are Internatiionally accepted rules and protocols.

The French have long been critical of the Labour Governments position on Immigration, arguing that this is why they have masses of people setting up camp near to the Channel Tunnel seeking to enter the UK.

But... but... it was in The Daily Mail!

Ahh, in which case as it was not reported in the Leftist media, it must be wrong then :roll::roll::roll:

Obviously on the Leftist media can be trusted to report the truth then ?

 

[Mojo]

Nick, it's not about the income tax rate, but the marginal tax rate. The actual rate David Cameron quoted was 96% and not 98%. As their salary increases they pay more tax and also lose benefits, which gives the 96% rate.

From The Times, the 96% marginal rate would apply to "a working single mother with two children under the age of eleven who earns exactly £150 a week, lives in local Authority housing, claims tax credits, housing and council tax benefit, and pays for childcare at a cost of £50 a week." A small group of people admittedly, but it could be over 70% for huge numbers of single parents and wouldn't fall down until they earn over £500 a week.

 

[Nick W]

Thank you for clearing that up Mojo. Not having studied economics, marginal tax rate wasn't a term I had come across before. I apologise for my ignorance previously, and will deal with the issue now that I'm in the light.

So from my understanding, Old Timer is referring to the issue that, as Mojo pointed out for a very small number of people, there is a point at which the combination of the slight reduction in both working tax credits and child tax credits and the increase national insurance, means that by earning an extra £1, the state takes over 70p back. I will assume this affects only single mothers with young children whose weekly earnings range from £150 - £500, which as far as I'm aware, appears to be the case.

As Old Timer said, in the extreme there is a case at which the extra £1 earned results in 96p or 98p being taxed back by the state, an extreme that probably effects no one since I don't think anyone would choose between working and not working 1 hour extra a week.

So how do I address this issue? Well firstly, as has been pointed out, this only affects a small number of people. Secondly, what Old Timer (or The Daily Mail) failed to point out is why this is necesarily a bad thing. A low income in an unregulated economy is a sign that either a) the work doesn't contribute much to the economy/Britain or b) there are plenty of other people who are willing to take on the job, who may not have the burden of young children to look after. Therefore, is it too bad for the state to be taking actions to discourage a single mother of two young children to work and instead to nurture her children and give them the very head-start that might be key to allowing them to escape from a life of low weath?

But even if Old Timer does establish why this is a bad thing, the issue is not one of of principle but one of implementation. This issue simply demonstrates that the tax system needs reforming, not that any benefits need to be removed. Removing the benefits would be wrong for two reasons: 1. it would push people, including young children into poverty. 2. We recognise that by keeping adults and young children alike away from poverty, we keep them in a fit and healthy state that allows them to contribute more to the economy in the long term. Clearly this is good for society and good for Britain.

I believe I have that I have read the statements from Julie Bence that you are referring to. The Mail distorts the truth by talking about the result of "mass immigration" which for a start is not something we see. Her sentements were simply that different cultures bring in different prevalences of crime, not neccesserily worse than that rife among British people, and that police forces should act acording to that.

The "controlled immigration is good" argument is one that is held by all three of the main political parties, and by many of the world leading economists. I don't think you've established a good argument against this. I don't hold that all immigrants yield economic benefits but if on average it can be demonstrated that, on average, controlled immigration yields net economic benefit. This of course neglects the benefits obtained in terms of assisting international trade, international development and research, international co-operation, international awareness and international peace. I'm most interested in why you think our policy on dealing with illegal immigrants differs that much other Western countries, and I think an intelligent person probably wouldn't believe that home office workers encourage illegal immigrants to re-enter the country illegally. I don't think there is a lack of political will - just that we shouldn't pump so much into the act of removing them such the removal costs more than their detriment.

 

[Old Timer]

NickW
Your comment on taxation only affecting "a very small number of people" does you no credit. You appear to consider that acceptalbe by that dismisssal. I don't and I think it is iniquitous. It also demonstartes a lack of appreciation of the fact that at some point everyone has to pass through this barrier if they wish to move from benefits.

In the time available to me I can only find commentary from 2006 however whilst the taxation figure will be slightly out, the figures as to the number of people affected will inevitably have increased as the gap between low and high earners has continued to widen under Labour. The very wealthy, especially those who are supporters and donors to Labour Party funds have continued to enjoy the advantages of paying tax "Offshore" whilst the ordinary Labour voter has been crucified by all manner of stealth taxes.

It is also interesting that the article relates the figure back to the last Conservative Government and demonstrate quite clearly that Labour's approach to taxation and their creation of a "benefits society" has damaged the ordinary Labour voter. What a shame that the Labour supporting media have failed to highlight this, however social justice is not something on their agenda. Had it been then, the situation should not have been allowed to develop. The silence from the Guardian and the Mirror on this is quite deafening when compared to the noise made about even the slightest opportunity to score Political points against the Conservatives.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/economics/article664171.ece

Socialist and Liberal hypocricy at its best don't you think ?

I am pleased to read that you support my comments on controlled immigration, however I would take issue with you that Labour has the same opinion as others. As has already been demonstrated by the release of official papers under the FOI Act they encouraged immigration for social and Political engineering purposes. At the time they denigrated those who pointed this out and have continued to lie and distort the facts through disingenuous statements both inside and outside Parliament. Whilst of course lies and distortions of the truth are now a matter of course for Labour, and covert character assassination of opponents the norm, I wonder what Labour and its supportive media would have made of this had this been done by a Conservative Government ?

Controlled immigration includes establishing the need for immigrants in the first place. Australia and New Zealand have long operated immigration policies which only permit this when there is a need for the skills that such people bring. Your post is verging on playing the race card by selecting only reference to the Daily Mail, thus suggesting this is some sort of Right Wing stance. You fail to accept that even backbench LABOUR MPS are concerned over the levels of immigration that has occurred, as well as the lack of Political will to remove failed applicants and illegals.

People who enter this Country and do not contribute to its wealth, but simply exist as a drain on resources damage the very people whom Labour claim to represent in public but actually detest in private.