Gordon Brown getting slaughtered over NI

[jambos are go!]

So the NHS is allowed an unfair advantage of every other employer in the country by that logic?

 

Does this apply across the public sector given that it now accounts for 52% of GDP? That's around ?3bn of this ?6bn gone!

 

The NHS does not get Tax breaks and may or may not get the money returned. I said can not will to avoid the assumption you made.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

The NHS does not get Tax breaks and may or may not get the money returned. I said can not will to avoid the assumption you made.

 

 

You said it to dodge the issue!

 

Nothing new there.

[Boris]

Of course at age 13 when he changed his name it was all about electability

 

I didn't know that. Obviously it was to save himself being completely abused as a fag at whichever prep-school he was at...

 

 

######.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Brown went through a similar process and only because there was no other candidate was there not a vote. Do you disagree?

 

 

There were no other candidates due to the frenetic games behind the scenes. I would say it is a stupid argument to complain he is an unelected PM in the first place.

[Boris]

There were no other candidates due to the frenetic games behind the scenes. I would say it is a stupid argument to complain he is an unelected PM in the first place.

 

 

Agreed!

[Tynie b]

This is irrelelevant Tory propaganda. Therapist came on here 2 Sundays ago and endorsed David Cameron on the basis of an Appearance on Nikki Campbells show 2 Sundays ago. He said he had expressed 'good ideas' but has consistently refused to say what these were. In fact it appears he logs out or goes to bed as soon as he asked for the info.

 

 

I think you'll find he's Off to save the World...Evil has no timetable, he'll answer the questions as SOON as logs back on!!

 

Either that his mothers shouted him that his Fishfingers and chips are ready once he's tided his bedroom.

[Glamorgan Jambo]

Agreed!

 

Also agreed. But it is a legitimate point to discuss why Gordon felt he needed to overthrow Tony only 12 months after an election where they both campaigned on a 'full term' for Blair. Did he do it for the good of the country or to satisfy his own vaulting ambition?

[Boris]

Also agreed. But it is a legitimate point to discuss why Gordon felt he needed to overthrow Tony only 12 months after an election where they both campaigned on a 'full term' for Blair. Did he do it for the good of the country or to satisfy his own vaulting ambition?

 

 

 

[Glamorgan Jambo]

I didn't know that. Obviously it was to save himself being completely abused as a fag at whichever prep-school he was at...

 

 

######.

 

Excellent picture

Incidentally by age 13 he'd be finished with prep school and likely moved on to something called a 'public school'. Care to guess how many members of the labour front bench went to public school??

[Boris]

Excellent picture

Incidentally by age 13 he'd be finished with prep school and likely moved on to something called a 'public school'. Care to guess how many members of the labour front bench went to public school??

 

 

Quite a few i would imagine! You seem to think that I think of New Labour as some sort of socialist organisation.

 

Far from it. Only slightly more palatable than David "Dave" Cameron's motley crew though.

[tcjambo]

Labour hates excellence and the worst offenders are the ex-public school pupils like Harriet Hardperson. More people from poorer backgrounds might have ended up at Eton and Oxford had NL not ended the assisted places scheme.

 

Excellent picture

Incidentally by age 13 he'd be finished with prep school and likely moved on to something called a 'public school'. Care to guess how many members of the labour front bench went to public school??

[Boris]

Labour hates excellence and the worst offenders are the ex-public school pupils like Harriet Hardperson. More people from poorer backgrounds might have ended up at Eton and Oxford had NL not ended the assisted places scheme.

 

 

 

 

I'm not sure it does. I would imagine that they strive to excellence in the state education sphere.

 

Why should the taxpayer spend money on sending people to be privately educated? Surely the taxpayer should be funding the state education system so that is excellent for all?

[blairdin]

I'm not sure it does. I would imagine that they strive to excellence in the state education sphere.

 

Why should the taxpayer spend money on sending people to be privately educated? Surely the taxpayer should be funding the state education system so that is excellent for all?

 

 

To be honest, I don't see why we're debating education here - like health, it is a devolved issue and doesn't affect the Scottish vote one iota. If the big parties campaign for votes up here based on health and education plans, they have zero credibility IMHO.

 

I feel dirty, but the more I listen and read into the NI debate the more I find myself agreeing with the Tories. Everyone other business in the country has had to make cuts, why shouldn't the government and civil service, as long as compulsory redundancies can be avoided.

 

I understand the damage a rise in NI could do. I'd actually be more in favour of a modest rise in VAT on non-food items. That means everyone pays.

[Glamorgan Jambo]

Quite a few i would imagine! You seem to think that I think of New Labour as some sort of socialist organisation.

 

Far from it. Only slightly more palatable than David "Dave" Cameron's motley crew though.

 

I guess you'll be voting for the likes of Tommy 'the lawyer' Sheridan then. Much as I'd like to continue this joust I've a business to run. This afternoon I'll be thinking of new ways to exploit my employees

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

To be honest, I don't see why we're debating education here - like health, it is a devolved issue and doesn't affect the Scottish vote one iota. If the big parties campaign for votes up here based on health and education plans, they have zero credibility IMHO.

 

I feel dirty, but the more I listen and read into the NI debate the more I find myself agreeing with the Tories. Everyone other business in the country has had to make cuts, why shouldn't the government and civil service, as long as compulsory redundancies can be avoided.

 

I understand the damage a rise in NI could do. I'd actually be more in favour of a modest rise in VAT on non-food items. That means everyone pays.

 

 

There is an impact though via the Barnett Formula on the block grant to Holyrood.

[Boris]

I guess you'll be voting for the likes of Tommy 'the lawyer' Sheridan then. Much as I'd like to continue this joust I've a business to run. This afternoon I'll be thinking of new ways to exploit my employees

 

Hahaha

 

Good luck in your enterprise. Remember who it is that creates your profit!

[Boris]

To be honest, I don't see why we're debating education here - like health, it is a devolved issue and doesn't affect the Scottish vote one iota. If the big parties campaign for votes up here based on health and education plans, they have zero credibility IMHO.

 

I feel dirty, but the more I listen and read into the NI debate the more I find myself agreeing with the Tories. Everyone other business in the country has had to make cuts, why shouldn't the government and civil service, as long as compulsory redundancies can be avoided.

 

I understand the damage a rise in NI could do. I'd actually be more in favour of a modest rise in VAT on non-food items. That means everyone pays.

 

But the poor end up paying more as prices rise yet they have less disposable income. Also, how will wages keep up if prices go up due to VAT? End result is less goods sold and therefore less revenue from VAT. (perhaps)

 

As I've said before, there is nothing wrong in trying to make the public sector run and work efficiently and if efficiency savings can be made then they should be implemented. Efficiency though shouldn't mean a degredation of service.

 

People want/expect a high level of public services. What they don't seem to understand is that they need paid for somehow.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

But the poor end up paying more as prices rise yet they have less disposable income. Also, how will wages keep up if prices go up due to VAT? End result is less goods sold and therefore less revenue from VAT. (perhaps)

 

As I've said before, there is nothing wrong in trying to make the public sector run and work efficiently and if efficiency savings can be made then they should be implemented. Efficiency though shouldn't mean a degredation of service.

 

People want/expect a high level of public services. What they don't seem to understand is that they need paid for somehow.

 

Wages aren't keeping up already.

 

Stagflation has been ordered as part of the 'cure' to the economic woes.

[Boris]

Wages aren't keeping up already.

 

Stagflation has been ordered as part of the 'cure' to the economic woes.

 

 

So an increase in VAT would simply exacerbate the matter?

 

Bread riots anyone?

 

At least if there is a tax rise via NI or income tax then contributions are proprtional, whereas VAT is disproportional.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

So an increase in VAT would simply exacerbate the matter?

 

Bread riots anyone?

 

At least if there is a tax rise via NI or income tax then contributions are proprtional, whereas VAT is disproportional.

 

 

Out of all of these, income tax rises make the most sense.

 

However, the basic rate seems to have become some sort of sacred cow and the 50p rate, as I said above, isn't going to collect that much in revenue.

 

Employers NI, IMO, should be the last tax to raise.

[Boris]

Out of all of these, income tax rises make the most sense.

 

However, the basic rate seems to have become some sort of sacred cow and the 50p rate, as I said above, isn't going to collect that much in revenue.

 

Employers NI, IMO, should be the last tax to raise.

 

 

You are quite correct that income tax is taboo. Another of Thatcher's legacies!

[Miller Jambo 60]

You are quite correct that income tax is taboo. Another of Thatcher's legacies!

 

 

Aye like BROWNS petrol tax, oh dear forget about that Boris

Wot is it now 118 p for unleaded, not funny anymore.

[Boris]

Aye like BROWNS petrol tax, oh dear forget about that Boris

Wot is it now 118 p for unleaded, not funny anymore.

 

 

So very ?100 you spend on petrol the penny increase by the govt means you will actually spend ?101. Woo....

 

Have a look at the oil companies for the real reason the cost of petrol is so high.

 

The govt should tax it as well. Too many people on the roads causing congestion and pollution that don't have to be.

[jambos are go!]

You said it to dodge the issue!

 

Nothing new there.

 

Happy to take examples because I dont think I do that and you saying does not mean its true. On the NI costs in the NHS I gave an option. Other options are to fund it from the NI raised elsewhere or existing efficiency saving plans. And If we have a large public sector then as night follows day thats were a lot of taxation revenues will go. Simple arithemetic logic methinks.

 

Right or wrong the Labour plan to raise taxes is not based on sand unlike the increased efficiences gains promised by a Tory leader who has said that efficiency savings are a con(freudian slip?).

[jambos are go!]

But the poor end up paying more as prices rise yet they have less disposable income. Also, how will wages keep up if prices go up due to VAT? End result is less goods sold and therefore less revenue from VAT. (perhaps)

 

As I've said before, there is nothing wrong in trying to make the public sector run and work efficiently and if efficiency savings can be made then they should be implemented. Efficiency though shouldn't mean a degredation of service.

 

People want/expect a high level of public services. What they don't seem to understand is that they need paid for somehow.

 

Agree with all of this. VAT is a tax that is unfair on the poor and pensioners. When Thatcher came to power it was doubled.

[tcjambo]

Privately-educated children subsidise all the taxpayers not the other way round.If the faciliy created by these people is used by the state to obtain an education for gifted children we all benefit.

 

I'm not sure it does. I would imagine that they strive to excellence in the state education sphere.

 

Why should the taxpayer spend money on sending people to be privately educated? Surely the taxpayer should be funding the state education system so that is excellent for all?

[Boris]

Privately-educated children subsidise all the taxpayers not the other way round.If the faciliy created by these people is used by the state to obtain an education for gifted children we all benefit.

 

 

 

 

I'm not sure I follow you on that.

 

My point was why should the tax payer fund someone to go to a private school?

[rossthejambo]

Aye like BROWNS petrol tax, oh dear forget about that Boris

Wot is it now 118 p for unleaded, not funny anymore.

 

Take the bus more Douglas...that way you won't need to pay as much of "Brown's Tax" as you call it

[tcjambo]

Private schools are funded by fee-paying parents and foundations. The institutions themselves therefiore cost the taxpayer nothing. If a child, who would have cost the taxpayer money to fund at a state school, takes advantage of these facilities to obtain an excellent education, at what is minimal cost to the taxpayer then we all benefit from having a child from a poor background reach their potential. Social mobility and all that....

 

I'm not sure I follow you on that.

 

My point was why should the tax payer fund someone to go to a private school?

[Boris]

Private schools are funded by fee-paying parents and foundations. The institutions themselves therefiore cost the taxpayer nothing. If a child, who would have cost the taxpayer money to fund at a state school, takes advantage of these facilities to obtain an excellent education, at what is minimal cost to the taxpayer then we all benefit from having a child from a poor background reach their potential. Social mobility and all that....

 

 

 

 

I understand your point there, and I'd disagree with a couple of your points, but what I didn't understand was your comment that "Privately-educated children subsidise all the taxpayers."

[Frankenstein Jambo.]

Labour and the Torries are both right wing pricks and voting for either or will ruin the country for a further 5 years. Business leaders love them because it increases their power and decreases individual power. How Labour can still claim to be be the peoples party is beyond me. At least the torries have always been right wing.

 

Vote Liberal democrates. The best party out a bad bunch IMO.

[jambos are go!]

Private schools are funded by fee-paying parents and foundations. The institutions themselves therefiore cost the taxpayer nothing. If a child, who would have cost the taxpayer money to fund at a state school, takes advantage of these facilities to obtain an excellent education, at what is minimal cost to the taxpayer then we all benefit from having a child from a poor background reach their potential. Social mobility and all that....

Private schools are funded by parents to buy an advantage for their kids in a supposedly society of equal opportunity but is still class ridden. It deprives state schools of good teachers. At the very least pupils from fee paying schools should also pay the full economic cost of university or other higher education. Parents are quits in when they drop from 10k + per annum to a fraction of that at University.

[Therapist]

has consistently refused to say what these were. In fact it appears he logs out or goes to bed as soon as he asked for the info.

 

Nonsense. The Conservatives ideas are out in the open and make perfect sense.

 

Bye bye Brown.

[davemclaren]

Private schools are funded by fee-paying parents and foundations. The institutions themselves therefiore cost the taxpayer nothing. If a child, who would have cost the taxpayer money to fund at a state school, takes advantage of these facilities to obtain an excellent education, at what is minimal cost to the taxpayer then we all benefit from having a child from a poor background reach their potential. Social mobility and all that....

 

What is the minimal cost that is charged by these schools to the state? Personally, I don't think the state should be funding private schools at all either by tax concessions or the buying of places for 'bright' pupils.

[Therapist]

Private schools are funded by parents to buy an advantage for their kids in a supposedly society of equal opportunity

 

Even if that were true - which it's not - what's wrong with it*? People can choose to spend their money however they choose.

 

 

 

 

 

* Unless one is a bitter lefty who is extremely sad about their boring little life.

[tcjambo]

Parents of fee-paying pupils also pay their taxes for all state-educated children ergo provide an indirect subsidy to the state sector

 

I understand your point there, and I'd disagree with a couple of your points, but what I didn't understand was your comment that "Privately-educated children subsidise all the taxpayers."

[davemclaren]

Nonsense. The Conservatives ideas are out in the open and make perfect sense.

 

Bye bye Brown.

 

 

I'm not convinced he'll be gone.

[Boris]

Parents of fee-paying pupils also pay their taxes for all state-educated children ergo provide an indirect subsidy to the state sector

 

 

 

 

No, it's not a subsidy, it's their tax money being spent. You can't say "I should pay less tax as I send my kid to a private school therefore why should I contribute to education". That's just daft.

 

Still waiting to see how you can explain that the "Privately-educated children subsidise all the taxpayers."

[Boris]

Even if that were true - which it's not - what's wrong with it*? People can choose to spend their money however they choose.

 

 

 

 

 

* Unless one is a bitter lefty who is extremely sad about their boring little life.

 

If people want to send their kids to fee paying schools then they should be allowed to. The Govt should in no way fund these institutions or provide money to people to send their kids to these schools either.

 

The Govt should make education so important that there would be no need for anyone to send their child to one of these schools as the education they would receive at a state school would be as good as if not better than at a private school.

[tcjambo]

Well, it was your lot that started the process of doing away with selection that allowed pupils in Edinburgh to go to the best schools based at least to some degree on academic merit. This meant that the only escape route from a state allocated place (based on where you live no less- what's fair about that!) was the assisted places scheme, thus my earlier point.

 

Private schools are funded by parents to buy an advantage for their kids in a supposedly society of equal opportunity but is still class ridden. It deprives state schools of good teachers. At the very least pupils from fee paying schools should also pay the full economic cost of university or other higher education. Parents are quits in when they drop from 10k + per annum to a fraction of that at University.

[tcjambo]

If these people sent there kids to state schools everybody would have to pay . Therefore they are subsidising others.

 

No, it's not a subsidy, it's their tax money being spent. You can't say "I should pay less tax as I send my kid to a private school therefore why should I contribute to education". That's just daft.

 

Still waiting to see how you can explain that the "Privately-educated children subsidise all the taxpayers."

[davemclaren]

If these people sent there kids to state schools everybody would have to pay . Therefore they are subsidising others.

 

 

There's no hypothecation of tax. Schools are a service available to all. If some choose not to use them that's their look out.

[jambos are go!]

Nonsense. The Conservatives ideas are out in the open and make perfect sense.

 

Bye bye Brown.

 

That is still not answering the question I repeat what good ideas did you heard David Cameron come up with on the Nikki Campbell programme. Who knows they might peruade some on here to vote Tory.

[Therapist]

If some choose not to use them that's their look out.

 

In which case they're subsidising others. I do not have a dependant in the state education system therefore my taxes are subsidising others who have. Fact.

[Boris]

If these people sent there kids to state schools everybody would have to pay . Therefore they are subsidising others.

 

 

 

 

State education is free as it's paid for by the public purse.

 

What you are saying is that because they don't send their kids to state schools, those taxpayers are subsidising the education budget.

 

Unbelievable.

 

What a load of cobblers.

[Boris]

In which case they're subsidising others. I do not have a dependant in the state education system therefore my taxes are subsidising others who have. Fact.

 

That's not exactly true is it?

 

You can't pick and choose what you spend your tax monies on.

 

I've not been to hospital for anything for about 5 years. Does this mean I am subsidising the NHS? Of course it doesn't.

[Therapist]

I've not been to hospital for anything for about 5 years. Does this mean I am subsidising the NHS? Of course it doesn't.

 

It's blindingly obvious that you are.

[Therapist]

State education is free

 

No it's not. It's paid for by every tax payer.

[jambos are go!]

Well, it was your lot that started the process of doing away with selection that allowed pupils in Edinburgh to go to the best schools based at least to some degree on academic merit. This meant that the only escape route from a state allocated place (based on where you live no less- what's fair about that!) was the assisted places scheme, thus my earlier point.

Yes the fee paying schools have expanded alongside the expanding middle classs. But their pupil base is still dominated by the same class. How many of these foundations you mention enjoy tax advantages of onekind or another. That's state support is it not. As others have touched on we need great education for all not just the academically or financially advantaged.

 

What about my point about fee payers enjoying state subsidies in university/higher education. We could charge them over the full economic costs and the parents would still pay because it buys unequal opportunity.

[Therapist]

we need great education for all not just the academically or financially advantaged.

 

I couldn't give a toss about "great education for all". I'm being forced to pay for a service I don't use.