Newcastle and the North East - Local Politics, Local Politicians, Local Political Activities, Protests & Demonstrations, etc

[bigchrisfgb]

Originally Posted by Newcastle Historian

Who was it who said, at the beginning of this thread, that political discussions like this 'never end well'.

That is true, and it is also true that they are a bit of a waste of time as no one ever changes their opinions at all, and in fact it sort of 'never ends' (well or otherwise) really, anyway!

I know, but I said my views perfectly, and I'm not judging or questioning anyone elses views, I hope people can do the same for me.

[anonymous1]

Originally Posted by Newcastle Historian

Who was it who said, at the beginning of this thread, that political discussions like this 'never end well'.

That is true, and it is also true that they are a bit of a waste of time as no one ever changes their opinions at all, and in fact it sort of 'never ends' (well or otherwise) really, anyway!

There's nothing wrong with political debate. Even if people don't change opinions. As long as its kept in popular discussion and doesn't lead to stupid insults being thrown at each other, I think it's fine.

That's what keeps democracy chugging along.

[Newcastle Historian]

Originally Posted by anonymous1

There's nothing wrong with political debate. Even if people don't change opinions. As long as its kept in popular discussion and doesn't lead to stupid insults being thrown at each other, I think it's fine.

That's what keeps democracy chugging along.

I think that is fine too.

[AngerOfTheNorth]

In response to Johnny's point, the Lib Dems have ruled out being part of a coalition government. So there's a reasonable chance we could see a minority Tory government, with the Lib Dems supporting them on some necessary votes (the first budget etc, if my memory is correct) in return for helping to pass some of the measures within their "shopping list" of four main areas:

• Investing extra funds in education through a pupil premium for disadvantaged children.

• Tax reform, taking 4 million out of tax and raising taxes on the rich by requiring capital gains and income to be taxed at the same rate.

• Rebalancing of the economy to put less emphasis on centralised banking and more on a new greener economy.

• Political reforms, including changes to the voting system and a democratically elected Lords, that go further than proposed by Labour.

(Bullet points lifted from The Guardian).

I'm strongly in favour of all four of these, but the main one for me has to be the reform of the voting system. First-past-the-post is totally out-dated and sees millions of votes wasted.

[AngerOfTheNorth]

By the way, I was talking to my Dad a couple of weeks ago and he came up with a pretty good suggestion regarding inheritance tax. He suggested that the level at which you are taxed should be raised, releasing many people who have suddenly found themselves within the taxable bracket due to house price rises etc over the past decade.

However in order to ensure that you continue to catch the very richest, who the tax is intended for (and often start to transfer their wealth to their children long before they die in order to side-step the tax), the length of time within which the tax applies (currently seven years I believe) should be lengthened to 25 years.

[bigchrisfgb]

Originally Posted by AngerOfTheNorth

By the way, I was talking to my Dad a couple of weeks ago and he came up with a pretty good suggestion regarding inheritance tax. He suggested that the level at which you are taxed should be raised, releasing many people who have suddenly found themselves within the taxable bracket due to house price rises etc over the past decade.

However in order to ensure that you continue to catch the very richest, who the tax is intended for (and often start to transfer their wealth to their children long before they die in order to side-step the tax), the length of time within which the tax applies (currently seven years I believe) should be lengthened to 25 years.

I have a better motion, scrap it. That money has already been taxed before (unless it's been raised by illegal circumstances in which case all of it should be siezed) and it is wrong to tax it again because the person who it orginally belonged to died. That money has been hard earned for most people and is intended to give loved ones a better footing in life after another loved one has gone. The fact is that it is wrong and immoral to to have a tax like this for both the rich and poor. This tax actually makes me sick.

[AngerOfTheNorth]

Chris, unless you're from a pretty well-off background, you shouldn't be subject to inheritance tax (only 6% of deaths see any inheritance tax taken). If I'm correct, anything left by that person under £325,000 isn't taxed. If you assume that most people are left an equal amount by both parents (not always the case of course), an old couple would need to have more than £650,000 of assets before the taxman took anything. At the point of death, not many people have that much (well, 94% of us as it happens).

On top of this, the main purpose of the tax is to ensure that the very richest do not get continually richer generation after generation. If they do, they continue to have greater and greater opportunities than the rest of the population (including, presumably, yourself) because of money that they have inherited, not earnt. That to me is wrong.

[bigchrisfgb]

Originally Posted by AngerOfTheNorth

Chris, unless you're from a pretty well-off background, you shouldn't be subject to inheritance tax (only 6% of deaths see any inheritance tax taken). If I'm correct, anything left by that person under £325,000 isn't taxed. If you assume that most people are left an equal amount by both parents (not always the case of course), and old couple would need to have more than £650,000 of assets before the taxman took anything. At the point of death, not many people have that much (well, 94% of us as it happens).

On top of this, the main purpose of the tax is to ensure that the very richest do not get continually richer generation after generation. If they do, they continue to have greater and greater opportunities than the rest of the population (including, presumably, yourself) because of money that they have inherited, not earnt. That to me is wrong.

I do see a problem with people getting richer and richer after every generation, but thats in the end is going to happen to all of us, I still don't see why people should be taxed on it though. To be honest most people who will inherit that much money would of been lead a life with a silver spoon in their mouth and once anyone of a higher authority figure in life to them goes?the giver of the money, then I suspect they will often have no sense of money and end up losing a good proportion if not all of the money eventually, if not then surely it will be taxed during the course of their life. Unless ofcourse they take it to another country.

[Newcastle Historian]

I remember reading an article a few years ago, about the 'pros and cons' of Inheritance Tax. The arguments for and against were summarised as . .

ARGUMENTS FOR . .

1 - Without it, the government would have to find ways of replacing the annual sum of £4bn raised by inheritance tax.

2 - Only a small proportion of households have to worry about these 'death duties', as Treasury figures for 2006 indicated that a mere six per cent of estates are eligible.

3 - Children who inherit their parents' wealth have done nothing to earn it. Taxing them is one way of redistributing income and ensuring a fairer society.

4 - Any attempts at raising this money through alternate means, for instance green taxes, would be felt most by the poor.


ARGUMENTS AGAINST . .

1 - Inheritance tax no longer fulfils its original intention. Initially designed to raise money from the very wealthy, it now penalises more and more members of the middle classes. The very wealthy, however, can often afford financial guidance and find ways to avoid having to pay.

2 - The tax-free threshold of £325,000 has risen only marginally while house prices have rocketed. This means that many people who inherit property struggle to find the cash to pay the inheritance tax due on it.

3 - As well as accounting for less than one per cent of total tax revenues, inheritance tax is also relatively expensive to collect.

4 - Society needs a way to transfer wealth from generation to generation, especially as the young now struggle to get a foot on the property ladder.

5 - In taking a share of money from people who have already contributed income and capital gains taxes, inheritance tax is a form of double taxation.


On balance, I think it is a useful way of raising tax, that most of us (or our families) will never have to pay.

[gregstone]

There is an old argument that says that the best time to tax people is when they die, because they don't miss it..... personally I think that it would be "fairer" to do this to pay for the cost of care for the elderly, rather than penalise those who have savings or make them sell their home.

[gregstone]

There is an old argument that says that the best time to tax people is when they die, because they don't miss it..... personally I think that it would be "fairer" to do this to pay for the cost of care for the elderly, rather than penalise those who have savings or make them sell their home.

[Seamaster]

Originally Posted by Newcastle Historian

Who was it who said, at the beginning of this thread, that political discussions like this 'never end well'. That is true, and it is also true that they are a bit of a waste of time as no one ever changes their opinions at all, and in fact it sort of 'never ends' (well or otherwise) really, anyway!

Aye. The thread's barely begun and you can already see the same tired old tribal positions being taken: "Feckless Labour", "Evil Tories", etc. So what's the point?

[Chatton11]

Interesting point Anger brought up about a minority government. It's only recently that I've paid much attention to the subject, and the more I think about it, the more a majority government is a liability. It means that essentially they can bulldoze anything they want through parliament, assuming all of the party agree. I think I'm right in thinking that several governments (Scotland's included) are set up to specifically stop this situation happening. I suppose the argument against a minority government is that nothing ever happens because everyone only votes for the motions suggested by their own party, and votes against anything put forward by one of the others. But I'm sure if that happened all the time people would change their voting techniques and actually vote on individual issues as opposed to constantly towing the party line. In fact, nuts to it, lets ban parties, make evryone independent, and then they all vote for what they individually believe in. I'm sure it would be quite a test for most candidates to come up with some policies all on their own, but I'd like to see them try!!

On a politics aside, I hope everyone read about and heard the interview with Nicholas Winterton the other day? It's so ridiculous it's hilarious and horrifying at the same time!

[BigLebowski]

Originally Posted by Chatton11

Interesting point Anger brought up about a minority government. It's only recently that I've paid much attention to the subject, and the more I think about it, the more a majority government is a liability. It menas that essentially they can bulldoze anything they want through parliament, assuming all of the party agree. I think I'm right in thinking that several governments (Scotland's included) are set to specifically stop this situation happening. I suppose the argument against a minority government is that nothing ever happens because everyone only votes for the motions suggested by their own party, and votes against anything put forward by one of the others. But I'm sure if that happened all the time people would change their voting techniques and actually vote on individual issues as opposed to constantly towing the party line. In fact, nuts to it, lets ban parties, make evryone independent, and then they all vote for what they individually believe in. I'm sure it would be quite a test for most candidates to come up with some policies all on their own, but I'd like to see them try!!

On a politics aside, I hope everyone read about and heard the interview with Nicholas Winterton the other day? It's so ridiculous it's hilarious and horrifying at the same time!

It was hilarious, but i don't think his views are in anyway unique in Whitehall....he was just stupid enough to voice them on a national radio station!

[Andrew]

Originally Posted by anonymous1

Now isn't the right time. And neither will May be the right time. We have 0.1% growth. Cutting government spending will only make that fall almost immediately. And that will only cause more unemployment, and more reliance on state help. But Dave wants to reduce state help also.

Hell, I'm emmigrating to China if I don't get a job soon! I'm serious.

[AngerOfTheNorth]

I think Winterton's retiring, so probably doesn't give a monkey's what anyone thinks of him. Good job, as he's an utter idiot.

I do have some sympathy for politicians though. No matter what you think of MPs (and I agree that several, but certainly not all, are pretty dishonest), they do an important job and we should be looking to attract the very best people to stand as MPs that you possibly can. However our MPs are actually amongst the worst paid in Europe. A lot of them are relatively intelligent, well educated people who could otherwise be in jobs paying easily twice what they earn as an MP, with perks like first class travel taken as a given. The problem is, even before all of this kick-off, which political party would be daft enough to give themselves a massive payrise to get in line with other European politicans?

Hatton has got a point though, what would be the obstacles/problems with simply banning parties and having every MP as an independently elected representative of their community? I guess there must be a reason we have parties, but do they have a modern relevance?

[anonymous1]

Originally Posted by Andrew

Hell, I'm emmigrating to China if I don't get a job soon! I'm serious.

I feel bad because a month ago I applied for a job. It was a complete one off application and would only have been my second ever job. But I got it and started 2 weeks ago.

I actually feel bad for people who can't find work.

[anonymous1]

I think we should reduce the number of MPs. I can't understand why there are numerous for Newcastle. I only know Nick Brown as he's chief whip and MP for where I live, but there should only be one for all of Newcastle.

An MP shouldn't represent the size of an area that an MEP does, but they should represent a bigger area than they already do.

[TownPlanningNE]

Alistair Darling’s pledge to help North grow
ALISTAIR Darling has promised his upcoming budget will be designed to prevent a sudden shock to the North East’s public sector-led economy.

As the dust settles on the historic cabinet visit to the North East some of the region’s biggest employers have taken comfort in the Chancellor’s promise not to cut drastically in his next, and possibly last, budget.

Expected within weeks, the spending plans will set out how Labour intends to maintain investment commitments while reducing the UK deficit.

The North East is home to thousands of employees paid from the public purse, from council staff to large Government departments such as the Revenue & Customs offices at Longbenton.

Experts have predicted various job loss estimates likely to hit the region when spending is cut, with figures varying from 6,500 to more than 10,000.

Mr Darling will be aware of claims that the region is likely to come out of recession at a slower speed than the South East, and as such will be vulnerable to the cuts set to start in the next financial year.

But the Chancellor said he is keenly aware of those worries.

He said: “What we do now will be critical to the future of the North East for the next 20 years. The choices we make will have a huge impact.

“If spending is cut it will make a difference but I do think we can manage it, this is not the first time we have had to cut state spending. My fear is if we go for more we will make a huge and wrong difference and it will take years to recover from.”

Mr Darling said he had seen a turn around in the region since he last spoke before business leaders 12 months ago.

He added: “We last meet when there is understandable concern in the North East but also a time when we can be more confident than we were 12 months ago. I’m confident that because of the skills you have here we can go forward. You have made the change form traditional industries to new industries which are well placed going forward. The emphasis in my budget in a few weeks’ time will be to ensure we support measures which help growth.”

The chance to hear those views did not stop some critics from questioning the £200,000 believed to have been spent on security and organising the event.

What we do now will be critical to the future of the North East for the next 20years

http://www.journallive.co.uk/north-e...1634-25874910/

[AngerOfTheNorth]

Congratulations on the job Anonymous1. Not sure why you'd feel guilty - you were the best candidate, so got it. It isn't your fault the economy's in such a mess. Which brings us neatly round to...

Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling seem to be talking about the North East a lot. I can only assume that they know that this one area they might be able to hold or even gain seats. Newcastle East and Wallsend could go to the Lib Dems and I'm guessing that Nick Brown will be keen to ensure people here see their future as being better with a Labour MP/government.