I'm genuinely intrigued about this. Ever since the seat of Sheffield Hallam was created, it was Tory, right up until 1997 when tactical voting saw a large swing to the Lib Dems. Whilst I understand that Major wasn't the best PM and voters wanted a change, I don't understand why most voters in Hallam would STILL want to vote Lib Dem? Charles Kennedy's Liberal Democrats would bleed the middle classes dry with their taxes. Sheffield Hallam contains more higher earners than almost every other constituency in the whole UK, so are they so keen to spend thousands more in tax? Even relatively modest earners - e.g. 2 x 20k earners - would pay hundreds more a year under the Lib Dems as part of the "local income tax" than they would under the Conservative's council tax. So what is the big attraction?

Originally posted by t020
Charles Kennedy's Liberal Democrats would bleed the middle classes dry with their taxes.

Can we have a 'because I want to bleed the middle classes dry' option? :hihi:

Originally posted by Strix
Can we have a 'because I want to bleed the middle classes dry' option? :hihi:

You're not a Sheffield Hallam resident so you can only vote to just see the result. My point is that Sheffield Hallam is largely affluent and middle class so voting Lib Dem is like shooting yourself in the foot.

Some of us believe in socialism. The greater good. My grandfather was a councillor when the concept was in it's infancy.

How do you propose to police your poll then? :suspect:

It cannot be technically restricted to Sheffield Hallam residents :P

And I hate water metering for the same reason

Perhaps, t020, seeing as you are the minority party in Hallam, you should try to convince people why they should vote Tory?

Originally posted by Longcol
Perhaps, t020, seeing as you are the minority party in Hallam, you should try to convince people why they should vote Tory?

We're the second party, not the minority party. I'm just intrigued as to why people who voted Tory all their lives would switch to Lib Dem and then stick Lib Dem despite the fact they would tax the middle classes to death.

Originally posted by Strix
Some of us believe in socialism. The greater good. My grandfather was a councillor when the concept was in it's infancy.


I realise that but Hallam was a Tory constituency up until 1997 so it's not known for socialist idealism. Also, that option is dealt with in the poll.

Originally posted by t020
I don't understand why most voters in Hallam would STILL want to vote Lib Dem?

The Lib-Dems took 55% of the vote at the 2001 general election.

Hallam constituency is No.221 on the Conservative target list.

The general election is not just about taxes. There are other issues which affect voters.

The voters are not gullible. The Conservative party is untrustworthy. Their tax and spend policies simply don't add up.

The Conservative party is spending a disproportionate amount of time and energy focussing on asylum seekers, and failing to concentrate on issues such as education and the economy. They are being regarded as a one-issue party, with nothing to offer to the contry as a whole.

Maybe the voters of Hallam are thinking what an awful lot of other voters are thinking?

Primarily because Michael Howard is totally unelectable as a Prime Minister. The Tories have to realise that leaders acceptable to the members and MPs who choose them do not appeal most voters, they have a different agenda. It is extremely unlikely that I would I have voted Tory anyway in this election because their economic policies simply do not add up. However, I am true floating voter who judges the parties on their merits for each election, but I will never vote for a party lead by Howard. I'm no Blair lover, but unless something amazing happens he will continue as PM after the election and that is vastly preferable to Howard.

On the Lib-dems, even Charles Kennedy is campaigning, this time more than ever, as the tactical vote alternative to either Labour or Conservative. By their own admission, a good proportion of their voters are voting for them to keep another party out and in Sheffield Hallam that's the Conservatives.

Originally posted by t020
We're the second party, not the minority party. I'm just intrigued as to why people who voted Tory all their lives would switch to Lib Dem and then stick Lib Dem despite the fact they would tax the middle classes to death.

Well, they'd hardly "tax them to death" would they?

Most people, obviously, feel that in this incredibly rich country it is handy to chuck a bit in the pot, for the greater good.

t020, I think that the huge amount of students in the constituency probably make a significant difference. And students are known to be mostly in favour of the Lib Dem.
I voted view the results because I'm in the Heeley constituency

One factor - I think you'll probably find that an increasing number of Hallam constituents have jobs in, or dependent on, the public sector - NHS, local authority, education, civil service etc.

Thus, when the tories talk about cutting public spending by £35 billion or whatever, that has to mean substantial job losses in the public sector.

cant understand why anybody, in any area, would vote Lb Dems! - Just look what they did for us when they took over Sheffield Council.

1) :confused:
2) :confused:

t020

A mistake you appear to be making is assuming the population of Hallam has remained static since 1997 - ie people switching from tories to Lib Dems.

Has it occurred to you that since 1997 a lot of former tories in Hallam might well have died / moved to Derbyshire etc and been replaced by younger people who don't see themselves as tories.

Bafflement over why Sheff Hallam doesn't vote tory just shows the kind of prejudices some folks hold about the people who live there. When people describe Fulwood / Crosspool types to me I sometimes wonder if they're confusedly crossing Wall Street with St Mary Mead.
Infact Sheffield Hallam has (or did have til recently) the highest proportion of academics for any constituency in England.
Add to that the fact that two out of three Sheffield Hallam school leavers go on to higher education and it should be clear why the tory and labour tinkerings with the university system aren't too popular with voters round there.
I grew up there and the parents of many of my friends worked at the university in one capacity or another, or were teachers or council workers. Just the sort of people who are turning to Lib Dem.

t020; I would possibly vote Lib Dem but not because of any of the reasons you included in your one-sided poll.

I wouldn't worry too much about taxes either, the working class pay the highest proportion of taxes in this country and that isn't going to change much under the Lib Dems.

The tax and spend policies of the Tories DO add up and they aren't talking about cutting public spending by £35billion at all. Public spending will still increase but at a slower rate than under labour, which I believe after one term would amount to £35billion, so it's not a CUT. Whilst the sums DO add up, they do however depend on significant savings in waste and bureaucracy which, despite all of the expert's opinions, would probably be fairly hard to achieve.

RE: students - the Tories plan to scrap tuition and top up fees and a lot of the students who stay in Sheffield Hallam during term time but live elsewhere aren't registered to vote in Sheffield Hallam and instead still vote in their own home constituencies.

RE: immigration - it's only one of 5 key Tory policies in the manifesto. It's only the disproportionate amount of time that the media focus and question about this issue that gives the impression that the Tories are campaigning too heavily on it.

All good ideas though.

Originally posted by t020
RE: students - the Tories plan to scrap tuition and top up fees and a lot of the students who stay in Sheffield Hallam during term time but live elsewhere aren't registered to vote in Sheffield Hallam and instead still vote in their own home constituencies.

I'm not sure that the students would be any better off financially if the tories scrapped tuition and top up fees and replaced it with massive accumulating interest on the loans instead.

Originally posted by Patchy
I'm not sure that the students would be any better off financially if the tories scrapped tuition and top up fees and replaced it with massive accumulating interest on the loans instead.

It would only be another few % interest on what it is already, and the fact that there would be no tuition fees would mean the loans were for living expenses as opposed to fees, top up fees AND living expenses, so the overall burden would be much smaller.

Also, a lot of students would simply borrow the money off parents at 0% instead, and those from poorer backgrounds would be entitled to grants.

Originally posted by t020
Also, a lot of students would simply borrow the money off parents at 0% instead, and those from poorer backgrounds would be entitled to grants.

Have they said how much these new student grants are going to be? I thought the last tory government had replaced them with loans.

Originally posted by Patchy
Have they said how much these new student grants are going to be? I thought the last tory government had replaced them with loans.

I'm not sure how much they would be.

I'm voting Labour, simply because I don't agree with the Tories policies, and I don't agree with the Lib Dem's policy of cutting Tuition fees. And generally I agree with Labour's policies.

I agree with Muddycoffee, the student population must have something to do with it

I'm a student but i don't pay any tuition fees as my local health authority pays them. I am going to be working in the NHS when i qualify (although the private sector looks tempting!) does anyone know if this would continue under a different government? Not sure who to vote for.

Originally posted by leddi
I'm a student but i don't pay any tuition fees as my local health authority pays them. I am going to be working in the NHS when i qualify (although the private sector looks tempting!) does anyone know if this would continue under a different government? Not sure who to vote for.

I'm not touting for votes but I'd look closely at the manifesto of a certain party which is alleged to have lined up £35 BILLION of public service cuts.

Make sure that there is an NHS when you qualify.

Originally posted by t020
The tax and spend policies of the Tories DO add up and they aren't talking about cutting public spending by £35billion at all. Public spending will still increase but at a slower rate than under labour, which I believe after one term would amount to £35billion, so it's not a CUT. Whilst the sums DO add up, they do however depend on significant savings in waste and bureaucracy which, despite all of the expert's opinions, would probably be fairly hard to achieve.
[QUOTE]

but how much would public spending have to increase to sustain what we already have (e.g. we would pay mroe each year just due top inflation; there may be other factors too)? Will the tories plans sustain what services we already have?

[QUOTE]

RE: students - the Tories plan to scrap tuition and top up fees and a lot of the students who stay in Sheffield Hallam during term time but live elsewhere aren't registered to vote in Sheffield Hallam and instead still vote in their own home constituencies.
[QUOTE]

and whos going to pay for their fees? The taxpayer, thats who. Why should I pay tax to people to spend 3 years dossing around? If they were just waiving the fees for non-mickey mouse degrees I might agree with this.

[QUOTE]
RE: immigration - it's only one of 5 key Tory policies in the manifesto. It's only the disproportionate amount of time that the media focus and question about this issue that gives the impression that the Tories are campaigning too heavily on it.

All good ideas though.

Well if they shut up about it the media wouldnt report on it, so they have to take some of the blame I think.

t020

You forgot to add to your options;

"I agree with Anne Widdecombe about Michael Howard".

Originally posted by max
I'm not touting for votes but I'd look closely at the manifesto of a certain party which is alleged to have lined up £35 BILLION of public service cuts.

Make sure that there is an NHS when you qualify.

You know full well that the Tories aren't planning £35billion of public spending CUTS. I've explained this point already.

Originally posted by t020
Charles Kennedy's Liberal Democrats would bleed the middle classes dry with their taxes.

Either prove that or withdraw it and replace it with "I believe that..."

Even relatively modest earners - e.g. 2 x 20k earners - would pay hundreds more a year under the Lib Dems as part of the "local income tax"

False. In Sheffield a household on 2x20k living in a Band D property pays £1271 council tax this year. That same couple would instead pay £1133 on a 3.75% local income tax.

But you miss the point. Local Income Tax isn't about some people paying less, it's about fair taxation. How on earth can anybody justify a tax that taxes poor people at 20% and rich people at 2%?

--
JGH

Originally posted by jgharston
But you miss the point. Local Income Tax isn't about some people paying less, it's about fair taxation. How on earth can anybody justify a tax that taxes poor people at 20% and rich people at 2%?
How do you work that out? :confused:

Originally posted by Tony
How do you work that out? :confused:

Presumably worked out on a fixed tax (ie council tax) compared to people of different income.

Of course we have a mixture of taxation in this country. You could argue that road tax is unfair because if you only earn 10k it's a far higher % of your income than if you earn 100k. I think that's probably clouding the issue though, not every tax should be proportional to income.

I don't live in the Hallam constituency, but i'm fairly sure that tax wise i'll be slightly better of if a local income tax is introduced. I'm quite happy to vote lib dem though as the current system is unfair IMO.

Originally posted by Tony
How do you work that out? :confused:
A household in Sheffield in a Band D property pays £1271 Council Tax. If that household's income is £6355pa, they are paying 20% taxation. If that household's income is £63550, they are paying 2% taxation.

--
JGH

Originally posted by jgharston
Either prove that or withdraw it and replace it with "I believe that..."


40 new stealth taxes promised, including a tax on owning dogs, higher tax on hotel rooms, 50% on 100k+ earners, etc.


Originally posted by jgharston

False. In Sheffield a household on 2x20k living in a Band D property pays £1271 council tax this year. That same couple would instead pay £1133 on a 3.75% local income tax.

But you miss the point. Local Income Tax isn't about some people paying less, it's about fair taxation. How on earth can anybody justify a tax that taxes poor people at 20% and rich people at 2%?

--
JGH

I based the 2 x 20k figure on Charles Kennedy's own words and several news reports when their manifesto outlined the local income tax last week/ week before.

Other wonderful Lib Dem policies include scrapping prison for first time burglars and giving the vote to all prisoners, including convicted murderers and paedophiles.

Originally posted by t020
40 new stealth taxes promised, including a tax on owning dogs, higher tax on hotel rooms, 50% on 100k+ earners, etc.

Not sure how openly listed taxes can be classed as stealth taxes to be honest.

Originally posted by jgharston
A household in Sheffield in a Band D property pays £1271 Council Tax. If that household's income is £6355pa, they are paying 20% taxation. If that household's income is £63550, they are paying 2% taxation.

--
JGH

Wouldn't someone with an income of £6355pa (~£122/week) be receiving CTB anyway ?

Originally posted by Greybeard
Wouldn't someone with an income of £6355pa (~£122/week) be receiving CTB anyway ?

irrelevant, the same theory works for any two incomes you care to name, i'm sure it's possible for all other factors such as ctb to be equal, and thus one person to be paying more %wise.

doesnt take into account that most properties in sheffield are NOT band D.

something like 60 per cent of all properties in sheff are band A.

a decent sized three bedroomed house in crookes selling for £170k-ish is still only band B.

so most people will be paying more i imagine.

I've no problems with the lib dems and might even vote for them (in Hallam too) but IMO the local income tax thing is to encourage old folks who have no income, but live in big houses which they're finding hard to afford the running of, to vote for them.

Poorer pensioners who live in band a properties/council houses will be paying the same as ones living in mansions.

Surely that's just gonna accentuate the property problem for younger people

haven't you got the banding backwards (or it could be me).

This question is flawed in that it assumes all the voters will be voting liberal,clearly this is not the case.

Most students are voting them coz they say they'll will legalize da erb.

Just asked some and that was their reply.

band A is cheapest. band D is usually quoted by the media/politicians because, nationally, it is the price range of the average house (cos D is in the middle of the A-G)

but, like I said, most of sheff's houses ar band A. it is something in the region of 60 per cent or more - says so in the bumff that comes with council tax bills.

Originally posted by jgharston
A household in Sheffield in a Band D property pays £1271 Council Tax. If that household's income is £6355pa, they are paying 20% taxation. If that household's income is £63550, they are paying 2% taxation.

--
JGH

I am not sure I understand this? Little Johnny inherits this nice big house when his nan dies and moves in promptly. Now little johnny is a lazy git and really doesn't want to work. So in this scenario we would be rewarding him for this by letting him pay less council tax in his massive house.

In the current system he would be forced to work hard, or sell the property and downsize if he can't afford the council tax bill.

little johnny would be in a very good position indeed - or at least that's how i interpret the Lib Dem system.

Originally posted by jgharston
A household in Sheffield in a Band D property pays £1271 Council Tax. If that household's income is £6355pa, they are paying 20% taxation. If that household's income is £63550, they are paying 2% taxation.

--
JGH

Would they be paying Council tax at all with that income or would they be receiving benefits to cover costs?

Originally posted by J-Blaze
Most students are voting them coz they say they'll will legalize da erb.

Just asked some and that was their reply.

Thats what my mates are saying too!!!

Originally posted by jgharston
A household in Sheffield in a Band D property pays £1271 Council Tax. If that household's income is £6355pa, they are paying 20% taxation. If that household's income is £63550, they are paying 2% taxation.
Personally, I think that's pants, and a complete oversimplification of taxation issues. Either we have a global taxation system or we don't.

BUT... If you want to be really fair - lets pay for what we use.

Now I imagine that all those people that produce lots of rubbish, have kids in schools, and use all those council services that I pay towards and don't use would be delighted to pay a little more. As it is, I find that I pay twice for lots of things including my health care, education, transportation, etc, etc. I also pay more tax than lots of people in the first place.

Of course I am being rhetorical, but you see why local income tax is such a bad idea?

That villa in spain might start seeming like a really good idea to lots of people if they are taxed too highly.

Originally posted by royjames
This question is flawed in that it assumes all the voters will be voting liberal,clearly this is not the case.

See options 4, 5 and 6. :rolleyes:

A household in Sheffield in a Band D property pays £1271 Council Tax. If that household's income is £6355pa, they are paying 20% taxation.
Originally posted by Greybeard
Wouldn't someone with an income of £6355pa (~£122/week) be receiving CTB anyway ?

Ok, so assume a household on £6355 before benefits, and assume they get paid 100% CT benefit, ignoring the fact that CTB is one of the least claimed benefits, that means they're paying £1271 tax on a £7626 income; that's 16.6% taxation.

--
JGH

Originally posted by t020
giving the vote to all prisoners, including convicted murderers and paedophiles.
That's not a LibDem policy, it's the policy of a cross-party pressure group that includes Simon Hughes (LD), Douglas Hurd (Con) and David Winnick (Lab).

--
JGH

Who on EARTH would vote Tory these days?
This election will be their death knell, I have no doubt about that. Their core support are dying year on year, thats why.
The Lid Dems ARE the real alternative. And I am a Labour voter.

Mod:

Please can we try to keep this thread about the election and how it applies to Hallam.

Vote Lib-Dem

You must be joking!

Originally posted by gruff
doesn't take into account that most properties in sheffield are NOT band D. Something like 60 per cent of all properties in sheff are band A.


Correct, the figures are at www.libdems.f9.co.uk/public/ctax/levels.htm.
However, this thread is disussing Hallam, and the majority of properties in Hallam are Band D or higher. I've got the figures on paper somewhere.

--
JGH

what this country is missing is a great leader who can govern properly. in short we should bring back maggie!!

Originally posted by Skatiechik
In the current system he would be forced to work hard, or sell the property and downsize if he can't afford the council tax bill.

And why should we use the tax system to perform social engineering? If somebody doesn't leech off somebody else (or everybody else in the form of society), why should we tell them what to do with their time?

--
JGH

Originally posted by jgharston
And why should we use the tax system to perform social engineering? If somebody doesn't leech of somebody else (or everybody else in the form of society), why should we tell them what to do with their time?

--
JGH

Conversely, why on earth should we (the collective taxpayer) be paying them to be able to do what they want with their time? If everyone thought like that, society would collapse.

Originally posted by Tony
BUT... If you want to be really fair - lets pay for what we use.

Ah, the old tax vs service charge argument. That argument was comprehensively won more than 150 years ago, that the State should be funded through general taxation, not by service charges. That was confirmed and re-enforced in 1945.

--
JGH

Originally posted by t020
Conversely, why on earth should we (the collective taxpayer) be paying them to be able to do what they want with their time? If everyone thought like that, society would collapse.
I've just stated in the example you quoted that we (the collective taxpayer) were *not* paying them. Maybe you missed it in the way I put it as "leech(ing) off ... everybody else in the form of society".
--
JGH

Originally posted by jgharston
I've just stated in the example you quoted that we (the collective taxpayer) were *not* paying them. Maybe you missed it in the way I put it as "leech(ing) off ... everybody else in the form of society".
--
JGH

I'm not sure I follow. Skatiechik's point was basically why should the taxpayer subsidise non-working, non-taxpaying individuals who will benefit under your party's proposed system. So why should they?

Originally posted by t020
I'm not sure I follow. Skatiechik's point was basically why should the taxpayer subsidise non-working, non-taxpaying individuals who will benefit under your party's proposed system. So why should they?
Because I believe that a civilised society does subsidise non-working, non-taxpaying individuals - pensioners, the sick and disabled, full-time parents, children, unemployed people - the very people that socialists have fought to protect for two hundred years.

--
JGH

Originally posted by jgharston
Because I believe that a civilised society does subsidise non-working, non-taxpaying individuals - pensioners, the sick and disabled, full-time parents, children, unemployed people - the very people that socialists have fought to protect for two hundred years.

--
JGH

So my post:

"Conversely, why on earth should we (the collective taxpayer) be paying them to be able to do what they want with their time? If everyone thought like that, society would collapse."

was actually a valid response.

There's a vast difference between pensioners, disabled people etc, compared to benefit scroungers who contribute nothing to society yet expect everything in return. As I say, if everyone wanted to just "chill out" all day (afterall, by your past postings, what business it is of anyone else?) then society would collapse - there'd be no money in the kitty to fund those in genuine need, let alone a state health service and education system.

Originally posted by t020
[B]There's a vast difference between pensioners, disabled people etc, compared to benefit scroungers who contribute nothing to society yet expect everything in return.

And as I said, if somebody wishes to not work *and* *not* *make* *any* *demands* *on* *the* *state*, I see no reason why the state should tell that person how to live their life.

If somebody does not work and expects the state to support them, I expect the state to require something from them in return.

--
JGH

Originally posted by jgharston
And as I said, if somebody wishes to not work *and* *not* *make* *any* *demands* *on* *the* *state*, I see no reason why the state should tell that person how to live their life.

If somebody does not work and expects the state to support them, I expect the state to require something from them in return.

--
JGH


But under the Lib Dems if someone wishes not to work, they'd not pay any local income tax, correct? They'd still be consuming local services though. Why should they get them free?

PS. Did you watch your leader's GRILLING on Dimbleby earlier? Especially over the local income tax issue!

And additionally...

I*want*to*work*and*make*no*demands*on*the*state*

Therefore, by your reasoning, what right has the state got to tell me how to live my life?

Originally posted by jgharston
Because I believe that a civilised society does subsidise non-working, non-taxpaying individuals - pensioners, the sick and disabled, full-time parents, children, unemployed people - the very people that socialists have fought to protect for two hundred years.

--
JGH

I am a full time mum and I take sweet fanny adams from the state, so not all full time mums/dads get benefits.

Interesting thread. And as a Hallam resident I can have my say :-)

Reasons I voted Lib Dem last two general elections-

-first time I voted was '92 I voted Tory cos I thought Labour would ruin the economy.
-in '97 I thought it was time for a change though and decided to vote for Richard Allan who stopped by to canvass my house. He seemed a very decent genuine bloke and the Lib Dems under Paddy Ashdown seemed to better represent the kind of soft tory I considered myself to be. I hated the incumbent Tory Irvine Patnick too, he was an arrogant so and so.
- in 2001 I thought Richard Allan had been a great MP and so voted for him again. The Tory candidate John Harthman just didn't work ard and seemed resigned to the fact he'd lose. No one likes voting for a looser lets face it.

Reasons for switching back this time

-Richard Allan who was a big part of my reason for voting Lib Dem has gone. Nick Clegg is now their candidate he isn't alocal man being as he lives in spain with his wife. I think he's already taken his win for granted and I hate being a taken for granted. I think the Lib dems made a complete mess of running the council- never thought Labour could run it better than the Lib dems but apparently they can.

-I'll pay more tax under the Lib dems local income tax (I worked it out on their website axethetax.org- and thats not fair as I already pay too much in council tax in my view!

-they've moved to the left since Paddy Ashdown was leader I don't really agree with paying more and more tax or their views on giving prisoners the vote, legalising drugs and joining the euro.

-Spencer Pitfield- the tory candidate has canvassed me he seemed a really decent bloke, he's a local school teacher having been educated at sheffield university and he seems like a soft liberal Ken clarke tory just like me. He disagreed with the iraq war like me and the conservatives are against tuition and top up fees too.

So this time I'm voting Conservative

Originally posted by Daffodils05
I'll pay more tax under the Lib dems local income tax (I worked it out on their website axethetax.org- and thats not fair as I already pay too much in council tax in my view!

Fair enough, although i too would lose out under local income tax (its worth noting that a rough breakdown of winners and losers is 50% better off, 25% unchanged and 25% worse off), i believe in social justice so i dont mind paying a bit more so that pensioners dont have too. Tax based on income seems sensible to me.

However, the 'Local Income Tax Vs Council Tax' issue aside. Isnt it refreshing to have a political party who are upfront and honest about their policies, creating a website that lets people find out if they would be better/worse off.

This honesty is in contrast to the Tories, take the scrap tuition fees issue. Unfortunetly they dont talk much about raising the interest rates on studnt debts which would actually penalise poorer students who don't have access to 0% loans off family/friends (reffered to by t020 earlier).

I'm in a similar position to you Daffodils05.

I've only once NOT voted Tory locally and that was to get Labour out. It worked and, as you say, I was surprised that they could run (ruin?) Sheffield worse than their predecessors. A mistake I shan't repeat.

If my memory serves me correctly, I actually abstained from voting in 1997 because I felt the Tories were losing the plot (which they were). Alas, I couldn't bring myself to put an X elsewhere and we all know what the result was. We STILL know what the result was!

So, even though I doubt they've quite got what it takes - I live in hope - I think the Conservative Party is in the best condition it has been for about 13 years. Michael Howard has IMO made the Tories electable, something they haven't been for far too long.

Originally posted by Mo
I am a full time mum and I take sweet fanny adams from the state, so not all full time mums/dads get benefits.

You should be entitled to a number of things, a limited amount of free childcare for example. One of the big problems with this Government is that they make 'benefits' so hard to understand and claim!

Originally posted by goose
You should be entitled to a number of things, a limited amount of free childcare for example. One of the big problems with this Government is that they make 'benefits' so hard to understand and claim!

Give over! "this" Government are no different to any previous Govs they all make good noises until the minute they get into power and then conveniently forget those who got them elected.

Tony Blair is no different to any previous PM's, and is far from perfect, however at the present time there are no real alternatives to him and the Labour Party.

Originally posted by owdlad
Tony Blair is no different to any previous PM's, and is far from perfect, however at the present time there are no real alternatives to him and the Labour Party.

I think you will find that there are a number of alternatives. The voting electorate in Hallam certainly seem to think so.

Originally posted by goose
i believe in social justice so i dont mind paying a bit more so that pensioners dont have too. Tax based on income seems sensible to me.

However, the 'Local Income Tax Vs Council Tax' issue aside. Isnt it refreshing to have a political party who are upfront and honest about their policies, creating a website that lets people find out if they would be better/worse off.

This honesty is in contrast to the Tories, take the scrap tuition fees issue. Unfortunetly they dont talk much about raising the interest rates on studnt debts which would actually penalise poorer students who don't have access to 0% loans off family/friends (reffered to by t020 earlier).

I can see where you're coming from but I feel that we all pay too much tax already you only have to browse the guardian jobs section to see how many more public sector jobs there are these days for things like "equality and diversity officers", there are 800 000 new public sector workers since 1997. The country is in too much debt and so is the government public borrowing is currently massive. I think there's enough money in the pot to sort the public services out now- what we need is some reform so we get value for our money.

The Tory policy on student fees seems sensible to me I work at the University and I think its better to charge people on their loans (they're saying they'll cap rate charges at 8% so its not like 18% or anything!) after they leave university and do away with upfront charges. Endowments to make universities more independent is also a great idea. The Lib Dems are being slightly cheeky saying they'll abolish fees altogether when actually they make students pay a graduate tax when they leave.

Social Justice yes but paying more and more and more tax- no! Lets get value for money on what we pay before giving the politicians of any party any more to waste/ spend/ invest !

And I think we have to trust the Institute of Fiscal studies who said the tory plans do add up. My neighbour usually votes Lib Dem like me but she's voting green this time. Wonder how taht will affect the Lib dem vote?

Originally posted by goose
You should be entitled to a number of things, a limited amount of free childcare for example. One of the big problems with this Government is that they make 'benefits' so hard to understand and claim!

funny how those who left school at 16, so are supposedly not as educated as some of the rest of us understand the sytem perfectly well :hihi:

Originally posted by Daffodils05
I can see where you're coming from but I feel that we all pay too much tax already you only have to browse the guardian jobs section to see how many more public sector jobs there are these days for things like "equality and diversity officers", there are 800 000 new public sector workers since 1997.

I totally agree with you on this point. But Local Income Tax isn't about rasing more tax, its about collecting local tax in a fairer way.

Under Labour the public sector has been guilty of putting too much emphasis on breaucracy, a ponit which both Lib Dems and Tories recognise.

I heard a good example of this kind of waste on Radio Sheffield the other week. Our Labour Council are spending £600K on employing some new officers to work tackling anti-social behaviour. It turned out that the new staff would be counting and analysing crime rather than being out on the street solving it. The local Lib Dems were arguing that the money should be spent on front line officers, rather than more for office based staff.

Lib Dems are saying they'll deliver more police- but if you read the small print a large proportion of these are "community support officers" or to put it another way glorified traffic wardens with few powers. I think we need more high-priofile policing in Britain not ID cards. I was astonished to find out most UK cities have more police per head on average than New York, yet crime in New york is far lower. I've been to NY quite afew times and I'd agree you never see graffitti or anti-social behaviour and there are cops on practically every corner. We actually probably have enough police in this country we just need to get them policing not form filling! Another case of needing to get value for money.

Originally posted by Daffodils05
Lib Dems are saying they'll deliver more police- but if you read the small print a large proportion of these are "community support officers" or to put it another way glorified traffic wardens with few powers. I think we need more high-priofile policing in Britain not ID cards. I was astonished to find out most UK cities have more police per head on average than New York, yet crime in New york is far lower. I've been to NY quite afew times and I'd agree you never see graffitti or anti-social behaviour and there are cops on practically every corner. We actually probably have enough police in this country we just need to get them policing not form filling! Another case of needing to get value for money.

Just to clarify, Lib Dems propose 10,000 more police backed up by 20,000 community support officers and are the only 'big' party who oppose the concept of ID cards!

Originally posted by goose
Just to clarify, Lib Dems propose 10,000 more police backed up by 20,000 community support officers and are the only 'big' party who oppose the concept of ID cards!

I know the Lib dems are the only ones opposing ID cards- they're defo right on that one. The Conservatives are promsing 40 000 extra police. The point I was making though is that we probably don't need more police we just need a criminal justice system that lets police do there job without having to fill in a form every minute. :-)

Originally posted by t020
We're the second party, not the minority party.

not for long mate not for long.....tories will be dead in 10 years - and thank the lord for that....can the daily mail really supply your party with its ideologies forever? i think not. good luck being a "protest vote party"....

hahahahahahahahahahaha :clap:[FONT=arial][FONT=arial][FONT=arial][FONT=arial][FONT=arial][FONT=arial][FONT=arial]

Originally posted by delrond
not for long mate not for long.....tories will be dead in 10 years - and thank the lord for that....can the daily mail really supply your party with its ideologies forever? i think not. good luck being a "protest vote party"....

hahahahahahahahahahaha :clap:[FONT=arial][FONT=arial][FONT=arial][FONT=arial][FONT=arial][FONT=arial][FONT=arial]

Meanwhile back in the real world .......................

Originally posted by jgharston


Ok, so assume a household on £6355 before benefits, and assume they get paid 100% CT benefit, ignoring the fact that CTB is one of the least claimed benefits, that means they're paying £1271 tax on a £7626 income; that's 16.6% taxation.

--
JGH [/QUOTE]

Sorry,- you've lost me there, but perhaps I misunderstand how the system works.

Are you saying the Benefits Agency pays the council tax liability to the claimant as cash and the claimant then pays the council this amount as council tax ? I've always understood this 'benefit' was a simple exemption proportional to income (or the lack of it).

As for CTB not being claimed I'm sure a lot of older people resent it as yet another means tested benefit, but politicians in general seem blithely unaware of the horror people of my generation feel for their intrusive schemes. It makes them feel like beggars, although I doubt many any of the pensioners in Hallam constituency have this problem.