1. Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!

Vote LIBERAL DEMOCRAT

Discussion in 'Swansea City' started by Terror ball, Apr 22, 2015.

  1. Terror ball

    Terror ball Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2011
    Messages:
    5,519
    Likes Received:
    826
    By the way, what would be the point of forming a political party who didn't want a share of power?
    Gaining some power is how you change things.

    Will the Labour party be a "whore party" when they finish second by a distance but do a deal with the SNP (a party who wishes to break up the UK and is the mortal enemy of the Labour Party in Scotland) in order to get their hands on some power?

    If power corrupts that might explain the state of the Labour party following 13 straight years of majority government. Blair was like an elected King. He didn't have to consult the British people or make compromises. That went so well that Milliband and co. are doing everything in their power to disassociate themselves.

    Blair was the son of Thatcher.
     
    #221
  2. Jager

    Jager Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2011
    Messages:
    7,353
    Likes Received:
    2,072
    Is this a party political broadcast by the whore party?
     
    #222
    DragonPhilljack likes this.
  3. Terror ball

    Terror ball Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2011
    Messages:
    5,519
    Likes Received:
    826
    Do you have any points to bring to the table or are you just going to slander the Lib Dems for doing exactly the same as the Labour Party will do at this election?
    You ****ing hypocrite.


    Jager in his own way represents the modern Labour party. Hollow. Devoid of principles or ideas. Lost.
     
    #223
  4. Terror ball

    Terror ball Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2011
    Messages:
    5,519
    Likes Received:
    826
    Would alternative vote have affected the election?
    By Tom Moseley Political reporter
    please log in to view this image

    In May 2011, voters said an overwhelming No to changing the way we elect our MPs. Four years on, with an uncertain general election looming, would the alternative vote system have made any difference to the outcome?
    The referendum pitted the Conservatives against their partners in government the Liberal Democrats, who had made it one of their demands in the coalition agreement.
    Although it was not their first choice, Nick Clegg's party saw Alternative Vote (AV), which allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference, as an improvement on the traditional first-past-the-post method.
    After an ill-tempered campaign, it was rejected by 67.9% to 32.1%, with 19.1 million people taking part.

    'Slight advantage'

    AV itself was an "uneasy compromise" between the coalition parties, says Prof Paul Whiteley of Essex University. His view is that the Greens and UKIP might have picked up some extra seats but that the overall effect would not have been dramatic.
    Another politics professor, Steven Fielding of Nottingham University, said the potential boost for smaller parties could have been "crucial", with recent polls suggesting a hung Parliament and talk focusing on potential post-election alliances.
    He pointed to research for the British Election Survey which suggested that had AV been used at the 2010 general election, the Conservatives would have had 22 fewer MPs, and Labour 10 fewer, while the Lib Dems would have gained 32.
    please log in to view this image

    Alternative vote
    please log in to view this image

    • Under AV, voters are able to rank the candidates in order of preference
    • A candidate getting more than 50% of first preferences is elected
    • If that doesn't happen, the lowest-placed candidate is eliminated and their second choices allocated to the remaining candidates
    • The votes are counted and if a candidate has over 50% this time they are elected. If not, the process is repeated
    please log in to view this image

    More recent figures come from pollster and former Conservative Party treasurer Lord Ashcroft, who looked at voters' second preferences in a poll carried out in December.
    Among his findings was that UKIP voters were almost twice as likely to name the Conservatives as they were Labour as their second preferences.
    Under AV, these second preferences are used to decide the outcome in places where no candidate wins more than 50% of votes cast.

    'Unfair and crazy'

    Lord Ashcroft said his findings suggested the Conservatives could have benefited from AV.
    This view that the system opposed so strongly by the Conservatives - David Cameron called it "undemocratic, obscure, unfair and crazy" - could have helped the party is backed by Peter Kellner, president of pollster YouGov.
    "In Tory-Labour marginals, second preferences of UKIP voters would have gone more to the Tories than to Labour - so if you've got seats where Labour takes them by 1,500 to 2,000 votes, the Tories might have taken them," he said.
    "If AV had gone through, we would now be looking at the clear possibility of an outright Tory victory."
    please log in to view this image

    please log in to view this image

    Mr Kellner also believes an indirect benefit to the Tories may have come in the form of boundary changes. He thinks the Lib Dems would have accepted redrawn Commons constituencies had AV been approved.
    As it panned out the changes, backed by the Conservatives, were eventually dropped in 2013 after Lib Dem opposition sparked by the demise of their reforms to the House of Lords.

    Voter experience

    Political commentator John Rentoul, of the Independent on Sunday, said evidence of a major boost to the Conservatives under AV was "a bit mixed".
    "A lot of the experience of AV in Australia is that it does change people's behaviour," he said.
    "You can't just assume people will vote as they do under one system, under a different system."
    Mr Rentoul believes the Conservatives and Lib Dems would have done "slightly better", while Labour might have recovered some votes from the Green Party.
    Those who led the Yes campaign back in 2011 were reluctant to speculate on where it might have left the parties' prospects four years on.
    Alexandra Runswick, of Unlock Democracy, said it would "not massively" have affected the eventual outcome.
    But she added: "Where I think it would make a difference is in the experience of the voters.
    "If you support a smaller party you could vote for that party. I think it would change the election for voters and I think it would be fairer for voters."
     
    #224
  5. swantastic

    swantastic Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2011
    Messages:
    21,786
    Likes Received:
    36,831
    The whole thing is a complicated mess with common sense policies and promises sacrificed time and again when they win elections !
     
    #225
    Last edited: May 15, 2015
    DragonPhilljack likes this.
  6. Terror ball

    Terror ball Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2011
    Messages:
    5,519
    Likes Received:
    826
    1) The Labour Party had 13 years of majority government and did nothing to reform the House of Lords.

    The Lib Dems attempted to do something about it the first time they had an opportunity but were thwarted by the Tories (as one would expect).

    Yet Labour supporters regularly claim to be republicans and constantly attack Tory toffs and privilledge.


    2) The Labour Party did nothing to reform the electoral system to ensure that everybody's vote stood a chance of counting. They had 13 years to do this.

    Why? Well, because the present system suits them very well. It is possible for the Labour Party to win a majority of seats with far less votes than the Tories under the present system. Also, they want a 2 party system. They want there to be no alternative to the Tories other than Labour. They don't want to share power. They don't want single issue parties such as UKIP to rise, forcing referendum on issues they are uncomfortable with.
    They, like the Tories, couldn't give a **** about you the voter.


    3) The Labour Party had 13 years to amend the Barnett formula.

    During that time they introduced a Welsh Assembly and patronised us by giving it zero tax raising powers. The Labour Party have held the Assembly ever since it's creation. They have chosen how to spend the Welsh budget in the devolved areas of policy yet take no responsibility for the outcomes.
    Tune in if you don't believe me. You'll find Carwyn blaming the Tories every week whenever anyone asks him an awkward question about his administration's failure in areas they have responsibility for.
    In effect, Carwyn is putting the case for independence. Except that those Labour Party members who blame the coalition in Westminster don't actually want independence (is this because that would mean taking some responsibility for their actions? The gravy train would be well and truly over for Labour if they were left to govern an independent Wales. They'd actually have to come up with some ideas for growing the tax base and take some difficult decisions!).
    They didn't argue for amending the Barnett formula until the *** end of New Labour's time in government and even then didn't make it policy. Even now it's not policy....correct me if I'm wrong?

    So despite unyielding support for the Labour Party in Wales. Welsh Labour has not been able to secure parity of funding with Scotland.
     
    #226

  7. Terror ball

    Terror ball Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2011
    Messages:
    5,519
    Likes Received:
    826
    From a blog by Dylan Jones-Evans (of the Western Mail)






    PETER HAIN, THE BARNETT FORMULA AND THE LABOUR PARTY
    please log in to view this image

    Why does the Welsh press bother reporting anything that Peter Hain says any more?

    I know he really can’t help himself but surely it is time for reporters in Wales to start questioning the constant stream of distortion that emerges from the mouth of the former Secretary of State for Wales.

    Yesterday, he outdid himself when he stated that the issue of under-funding for Wales had only recently become an issue.

    To quote,

    “By acknowledging that the Barnett Formula is only now beginning to disadvantage Wales for the first time, it shows we were right to stick with it up until last year. The under-funding we are now seeing is due to the broken promises and inaction of the Tory-led Government.”

    So, according to Peter Hain, there has been no disadvantage from the Barnett formula or underfunding in Wales until the current UK Coalition Government came to power.

    I know the MP for Neath will never let the facts get in the way of his loathing of any other political party save Labour, but he really should read the findings of the Holtham Commission first before making such crass statements if he to salvage what is left of his political credibility.

    For example, the Commission’s first report stated that

    “Despite being applied to Wales since 1980, there is not much evidence of a Barnett-driven squeeze in spending prior to the establishment of the National Assembly for Wales in 1999 but there is clear evidence of convergence in recent years. In 1999-00, spending per head in Wales on Barnett-funded programmes was 25 per cent higher than spending per head on comparable programmes in England, or 125 in index notation, where England is set at 100. At present (in 2009-10), Barnett funded expenditure per head in Wales is 113, and is expected to decline to 112 in 2010-11. In other words, the gap in spending per head between Wales and England will have roughly halved since the introduction of devolved government.”

    please log in to view this image


    The graph above (which shows Wales’s relative expenditure per head on programmes covered by the Barnett Formula (England = 100) 1994-2011) is a timely reminder that in the period of office between 1997 and 2010, Labour did nothing to change the current funding system. In fact, and despite Gerry Holtham’s review, the evidence suggests that it is highly doubtful that a thorough review of Barnett would have been prioritised by Labour in Westminster if they had won the election.

    For example, Liam Byrne, then Chief Secretary to the Treasury went on record in February 2010 to state that Labour had no plans to reform the Barnett formula: “Wales is well funded. Identifiable public spending per head in Wales is 14% above England and in the 2007 Comprehensive Spending Review, the Welsh Assembly Government received an annual average real terms increase of 2.4% compared to the UK average of 2.1%... The Government has no plans to change the Barnett formula."

    Carwyn Jones himself admitted that, back in April 2010, that “The (Labour) manifesto doesn’t include a commitment to scrap Barnett.” This is not surprising as the current Shadow Chancellor, Ed Balls, went on record last July ruled out backing a change to the way Wales is funded, stating that the controversial Barnett Formula was not unfair despite experts saying it robs Wales of £300m a year.

    In fact, if the Labour Party is so committed to Barnett reform as a key policy priority, then why was it not mentioned once by Ed Miliband in his speech to the Labour Party conference? In fact, Labour's new leader showed his commitment to Wales by using the platform in Llandudno to attack NHS reform in England and demonstrating little understanding of devolution.

    It may be easy political points scoring to attack the UK Coalition Government after only nine months in power but Peter Hain and the Labour Party had thirteen years in which to change the Barnett formula and did nothing.

    Perhaps it is time for the Welsh media to start reminding him of that simple fact.
     
    #227
  8. swantastic

    swantastic Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2011
    Messages:
    21,786
    Likes Received:
    36,831
    this ! jgg.JPG
     
    #228
    Terror ball likes this.
  9. swantastic

    swantastic Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2011
    Messages:
    21,786
    Likes Received:
    36,831
    Out of the labour lot Skinner is`nt to bad ? gbgkkjg.JPG
     
    #229
    ValleyGraduate12 likes this.
  10. Terror ball

    Terror ball Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2011
    Messages:
    5,519
    Likes Received:
    826
    Tackling tax avoidance

    Liberal Democrats will raise an extra £6 billion a year by tackling tax avoidance, and use it to balance the books by 2017-18.
    In Coalition Government, we have made huge progress in clamping down on tax avoidance and evasion already, but there is still a minority of wealthy individuals and companies who actively seek to avoid paying their fair share. This cannot be right. We will take tough action against corporate tax evasion and abusive avoidance strategies.
    please log in to view this image

    please log in to view this image

    please log in to view this image

    please log in to view this image


    Q&A: Tackling tax avoidance


    What is tax avoidance and evasion?

    Tax avoidance is the legal usage of the tax system to reduce the amount of tax that is payable, and gaining a tax advantage that Parliament did not intend. Tax evasion is the general term for efforts by individuals, corporations, trust and other entities to evade tax by illegal means.

    How much is lost by tax avoidance and evasion?
    Tax avoidance cost the taxpayer £4 billion a year and tax evasion costs £5.1 billion a year, according to figures from HMRC. Together, they account for about a quarter of the £35 billion that is lost to the Treasury every year.

    Why is it necessary to tackle tax avoidance?
    In recent years there has been an increasingly widespread view that some wealthy individuals and some large and apparently successful multinational businesses have quite simply not contributed their fair share of tax. Businesses play a vital role in promoting prosperity, and Britain must certainly remain a good place to do business, where success is rewarded. But this cannot justify making no or almost no financial contribution when so many others with so much less are contributing so much.

    How will Lib Dems tackle tax avoidance?
    Liberal Democrats will introduce a General Anti-Avoidance Rule, outlawing any move taken simply to try and avoid tax. We will continue to push for international tax reform, greater banking transparency and greater co-operation between nations to tackle tax evasion and avoidance, within the EU, the G8 and beyond. We will invest more in the HMRC and push for greater tax transparency from multinational companies, including increased disclosure of inter-company transactions, and publication of tax settlements.
     
    #230
  11. swantastic

    swantastic Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2011
    Messages:
    21,786
    Likes Received:
    36,831
    #231
  12. Terror ball

    Terror ball Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2011
    Messages:
    5,519
    Likes Received:
    826
    Mansion tax

    Liberal Democrats want to introduce a High Value Property Levy, the ‘Mansion Tax’, to help balance the books. We believe it is important that those who can most afford it pay their fair share to help the country get back on its feet. We will therefore introduce a banded High Value Property Levy on properties worth more than £2 million, and use the money raised to bring down the deficit.
    please log in to view this image

    please log in to view this image

    please log in to view this image

    please log in to view this image


    Q&A: Mansion tax


    What is the ‘Mansion Tax’?

    The ‘Mansion Tax’ refers to an annual tax on high value properties: houses worth more than £2 million. Vince Cable introduced the concept of a Mansion Tax back in 2009. Our Levy would only apply to the most expensive 0.5% of houses – just 70,000 properties. The threshold would rise in line with house prices, so a property worth £1.9 million now will not incur the Levy in the future if its value rises in line with the average.

    Why is the Mansion Tax necessary?
    In 2010, we were borrowing more than £150 billion a year – £1 for every £4 the Government spent. We’ve now halved the deficit we inherited from Labour, but we need to finish the job of eliminating it fairly, in full and on time.
    Unlike the Conservatives who want to balance the books on the backs of the poorest, we will continue to tackle the deficit fairly by asking the wealthiest to pay their fair share. A Mansion Tax on the most expensive houses in the UK is a key part of how we will do this.

    How much will the Mansion Tax cost?
    We will set bands for properties worth over £2 million, with a fixed charge for properties in each band – just like the way Council Tax works. We will ensure that those in the lowest bands pay a much smaller charge then those in the top-value properties. We will set the bands and charges so that we raise £1 billion when the Levy is introduced in 2017/18. We will then raise these bands each year in line with house price inflation.

    How much will the Mansion Tax raise?
    The Mansion Tax will raise £1 billon a year. We will use this to help balance the books.
     
    #232
  13. PGFWhite

    PGFWhite Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2011
    Messages:
    12,677
    Likes Received:
    6,938
    #233
  14. Terror ball

    Terror ball Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2011
    Messages:
    5,519
    Likes Received:
    826
    Somebody with the right attitude (I'm saying that as somebody who can't stand her "humour").......

    Sandi Toksvig campaigns for equality with new political party
    please log in to view this image

    Sandi Toksvig said the party would put up candidates at the 2020 general election
    Comedian Sandi Toksvig has revealed that she quit BBC Radio 4's News Quiz to set up a new political party named the Women's Equality Party.
    Toksvig announced earlier this week that she was leaving the topical comedy show after nine years.
    "I have made jokes over and over again about politics and, do you know, this election I've had enough," she said.
    "And I have decided that instead of making jokes about it, I need to participate."
    Speaking on BBC Radio 4's Woman's Hour, she continued: "So I am involved in the founding of a new political party.
    "It's called the Women's Equality Party. It is a fantastic group of women - and indeed men - who have decided that enough is enough and we need to make some changes."
    They are not fielding candidates in the 2015 general election but will do so in five years time, she said.

    'Parlous state'
    She said it was "very possible" that they would get MPs elected in 2020.
    "The world is in a parlous state," she said, adding that 9.1 million women did not vote in the last election. "We need to attract them. We also need to attract the more than seven million men who didn't vote.
    "Why are people not engaging with politics? Because I don't think the people standing represent the diversity of this country."
    Asked why the party was specifically campaigning for women's equality, she replied: "There's a huge issue. Women are certainly not equal. How is it that we still have a pay gap? What is it, 45 years since the Equal Pay Act?
    "On average for part-time work, women are paid 35% less than men. How is that possible? Ten per cent less in full-time employment. It's the Women's Equality Party because unless we access all the talents in this country we're not going to succeed. Equality's better for everybody."

    'Majority' voice
    Author and former Time Magazine editor-at-large Catherine Mayer is among the party's other founders.
    According to a Facebook post about a recent meeting, their aims and objectives are: Equal representation in politics and the boardroom; equal pay; equal parenting rights; equality of and through education; equal treatment by and in the media; and an end to violence against women.
    Asked why she had not joined an established political party, Toksvig replied: "Most of the mainstream parties seem to treat women's issues as if we were a minority group rather than, in fact, what we are, which is the majority of the country.
    "So you get separate women's manifestos, or you get childcare talked about as if it was only a woman's issue, and if UKIP and the Green Party have taught us anything, actually pushing our agenda from the outside and pushing the mainstream parties to pay attention is much more successful.
    "The party's going to be non-partisan. It's not going to be right or left. It's going to be a very pragmatic, female approach to things, which is to say, 'What is the problem that we have in front of us? And what is the most practical and possible way in which we can solve this?'
    "I want the party to attract people from all sides."
     
    #234
  15. aberdude

    aberdude Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2012
    Messages:
    24,477
    Likes Received:
    8,440
    I like her wine gum necklace..........yep she got on my tits in number73, but is looking kinda tasty these days
     
    #235
  16. aberdude

    aberdude Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2012
    Messages:
    24,477
    Likes Received:
    8,440
  17. swantastic

    swantastic Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2011
    Messages:
    21,786
    Likes Received:
    36,831
    1
     
    #237
    Last edited: May 15, 2015
  18. Jager

    Jager Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2011
    Messages:
    7,353
    Likes Received:
    2,072
    Basically you've lost the argument when you resort to personal insults! I will of course refrain from calling you a knob and a twat
     
    #238
    DragonPhilljack likes this.
  19. Jager

    Jager Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2011
    Messages:
    7,353
    Likes Received:
    2,072
    #239
    DragonPhilljack likes this.
  20. DragonPhilljack

    DragonPhilljack Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2011
    Messages:
    25,369
    Likes Received:
    11,125





    What a load of old Bollocks! You are really showing your limited IQ, It's not that the British people don't understand the financial crisis, it's just where the Tory and LIBDEM Scum have wielded the axe you plonker, that's the bloody issue, or is that too much for you to digest? So easy for the cowardly scum to target the poorest and most vulnerable, but clearly you have no issues with that but I have..............<ok>
     
    #240
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2015
    PGFWhite, Jager and swanseaandproud like this.

Share This Page