Wasted votes

First published in Letters

THE BBC’S projected national share of the vote suggests UKIP on 17 per cent; Labour would have got 31 per cent, Conservatives on 29 per cent and Liberal Democrats on 13 per cent. If the same percentage of the vote happened in next year’s general election, then we would have a Lab/Lib government or a Tory/UKIP government. UKIP gains are down to the anti-Europe and in Wales also the anti-Welsh Assembly voter. I ask, how can people vote for a party that has no intention of playing a positive role in both tiers of government but happily enjoys the prestige and wage?

Andrew Nutt Heolddu Road Newport

Comments (23)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

2:49pm Tue 3 Jun 14

tebes says...

Andrew I agree with you,

I will not vote Plaid!
Andrew I agree with you, I will not vote Plaid! tebes
  • Score: 3

3:19pm Tue 3 Jun 14

-trigg- says...

Let's be fair, Plaid Cymru serve a useful purpose.

If it wasn't for them taken the votes of a handful of rabid socialists there would be even more people mindlessly backing the donkey in the red rosette
Let's be fair, Plaid Cymru serve a useful purpose. If it wasn't for them taken the votes of a handful of rabid socialists there would be even more people mindlessly backing the donkey in the red rosette -trigg-
  • Score: 6

3:20pm Tue 3 Jun 14

Llanmartinangel says...

Not believing in either of these tiers of government is every bit as valid a view as supporting them. There is ample sustained evidence of failure of the Welsh Assembly for example, so after fourteen years and around £7 billion spent on this failed experiment, the abolitionist ticket is entirely logical. It's mainly Socialists and Nationalists that believe there should be no upper limit to the numbers of people on the public payroll achieving bugg*r all. They also agree with exponentially increasing taxes to fund it.
Not believing in either of these tiers of government is every bit as valid a view as supporting them. There is ample sustained evidence of failure of the Welsh Assembly for example, so after fourteen years and around £7 billion spent on this failed experiment, the abolitionist ticket is entirely logical. It's mainly Socialists and Nationalists that believe there should be no upper limit to the numbers of people on the public payroll achieving bugg*r all. They also agree with exponentially increasing taxes to fund it. Llanmartinangel
  • Score: 8

10:52pm Tue 3 Jun 14

pwlldu says...

The Conservatives have challenged First Minister Carwyn Jones over Labour's position on devolving tax powers.Ministers in Cardiff would also get some power to vary income tax, subject to a referendum.Welsh Conservative leader Andrew RT Davies asked Mr Jones: "Considering Owen Smith said 'we will not seek these powers in the future', on record, do you not support the devolution of these powers because Owen Smith is saying that you as a party will not seek the devolution of these powers?" Both Labour and the Conservatives are still split over the Welsh Assembly.
The Conservatives have challenged First Minister Carwyn Jones over Labour's position on devolving tax powers.Ministers in Cardiff would also get some power to vary income tax, subject to a referendum.Welsh Conservative leader Andrew RT Davies asked Mr Jones: "Considering Owen Smith said 'we will not seek these powers in the future', on record, do you not support the devolution of these powers because Owen Smith is saying that you as a party will not seek the devolution of these powers?" Both Labour and the Conservatives are still split over the Welsh Assembly. pwlldu
  • Score: -8

8:07am Wed 4 Jun 14

Llanmartinangel says...

pwlldu wrote:
The Conservatives have challenged First Minister Carwyn Jones over Labour's position on devolving tax powers.Ministers in Cardiff would also get some power to vary income tax, subject to a referendum.Welsh Conservative leader Andrew RT Davies asked Mr Jones: "Considering Owen Smith said 'we will not seek these powers in the future', on record, do you not support the devolution of these powers because Owen Smith is saying that you as a party will not seek the devolution of these powers?" Both Labour and the Conservatives are still split over the Welsh Assembly.
Your support for tax varying powers is naive. Firstly, whatever portion can be varied will be deducted from the block grant. If WAG raise taxes here above England's levels, people will leave. You will not recruit professionals like doctors. If you lower taxes WAG will have less money than it has now. Either way Wales loses. That's the real reason Carwyn doesn't want it. It's a poisoned chalice. The UK is too small a place to have different tax regimes. If people will move from France to London and Belgium to avoid heavy taxes, don't delude yourself that people in Wales will act any differently.
[quote][p][bold]pwlldu[/bold] wrote: The Conservatives have challenged First Minister Carwyn Jones over Labour's position on devolving tax powers.Ministers in Cardiff would also get some power to vary income tax, subject to a referendum.Welsh Conservative leader Andrew RT Davies asked Mr Jones: "Considering Owen Smith said 'we will not seek these powers in the future', on record, do you not support the devolution of these powers because Owen Smith is saying that you as a party will not seek the devolution of these powers?" Both Labour and the Conservatives are still split over the Welsh Assembly.[/p][/quote]Your support for tax varying powers is naive. Firstly, whatever portion can be varied will be deducted from the block grant. If WAG raise taxes here above England's levels, people will leave. You will not recruit professionals like doctors. If you lower taxes WAG will have less money than it has now. Either way Wales loses. That's the real reason Carwyn doesn't want it. It's a poisoned chalice. The UK is too small a place to have different tax regimes. If people will move from France to London and Belgium to avoid heavy taxes, don't delude yourself that people in Wales will act any differently. Llanmartinangel
  • Score: 7

8:56am Wed 4 Jun 14

Mervyn James says...

Llanmartinangel wrote:
pwlldu wrote:
The Conservatives have challenged First Minister Carwyn Jones over Labour's position on devolving tax powers.Ministers in Cardiff would also get some power to vary income tax, subject to a referendum.Welsh Conservative leader Andrew RT Davies asked Mr Jones: "Considering Owen Smith said 'we will not seek these powers in the future', on record, do you not support the devolution of these powers because Owen Smith is saying that you as a party will not seek the devolution of these powers?" Both Labour and the Conservatives are still split over the Welsh Assembly.
Your support for tax varying powers is naive. Firstly, whatever portion can be varied will be deducted from the block grant. If WAG raise taxes here above England's levels, people will leave. You will not recruit professionals like doctors. If you lower taxes WAG will have less money than it has now. Either way Wales loses. That's the real reason Carwyn doesn't want it. It's a poisoned chalice. The UK is too small a place to have different tax regimes. If people will move from France to London and Belgium to avoid heavy taxes, don't delude yourself that people in Wales will act any differently.
Hasn't deterred Scotland... OR, Cameron stating if they stay in the UK and bow to English subservience, they can tax how they want. Surely you aren't suggesting Cameron is talking out of his rear end too ?
[quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pwlldu[/bold] wrote: The Conservatives have challenged First Minister Carwyn Jones over Labour's position on devolving tax powers.Ministers in Cardiff would also get some power to vary income tax, subject to a referendum.Welsh Conservative leader Andrew RT Davies asked Mr Jones: "Considering Owen Smith said 'we will not seek these powers in the future', on record, do you not support the devolution of these powers because Owen Smith is saying that you as a party will not seek the devolution of these powers?" Both Labour and the Conservatives are still split over the Welsh Assembly.[/p][/quote]Your support for tax varying powers is naive. Firstly, whatever portion can be varied will be deducted from the block grant. If WAG raise taxes here above England's levels, people will leave. You will not recruit professionals like doctors. If you lower taxes WAG will have less money than it has now. Either way Wales loses. That's the real reason Carwyn doesn't want it. It's a poisoned chalice. The UK is too small a place to have different tax regimes. If people will move from France to London and Belgium to avoid heavy taxes, don't delude yourself that people in Wales will act any differently.[/p][/quote]Hasn't deterred Scotland... OR, Cameron stating if they stay in the UK and bow to English subservience, they can tax how they want. Surely you aren't suggesting Cameron is talking out of his rear end too ? Mervyn James
  • Score: 0

10:26am Wed 4 Jun 14

Llanmartinangel says...

Mervyn James wrote:
Llanmartinangel wrote:
pwlldu wrote:
The Conservatives have challenged First Minister Carwyn Jones over Labour's position on devolving tax powers.Ministers in Cardiff would also get some power to vary income tax, subject to a referendum.Welsh Conservative leader Andrew RT Davies asked Mr Jones: "Considering Owen Smith said 'we will not seek these powers in the future', on record, do you not support the devolution of these powers because Owen Smith is saying that you as a party will not seek the devolution of these powers?" Both Labour and the Conservatives are still split over the Welsh Assembly.
Your support for tax varying powers is naive. Firstly, whatever portion can be varied will be deducted from the block grant. If WAG raise taxes here above England's levels, people will leave. You will not recruit professionals like doctors. If you lower taxes WAG will have less money than it has now. Either way Wales loses. That's the real reason Carwyn doesn't want it. It's a poisoned chalice. The UK is too small a place to have different tax regimes. If people will move from France to London and Belgium to avoid heavy taxes, don't delude yourself that people in Wales will act any differently.
Hasn't deterred Scotland... OR, Cameron stating if they stay in the UK and bow to English subservience, they can tax how they want. Surely you aren't suggesting Cameron is talking out of his rear end too ?
I'm certainly suggesting that Cameron is playing politics. He realises that the devolved powers will be (a) socialist in nature and (b) poorer overall than England. Therefore the dilemma I outlined about going higher or lower with taxes, and losing either way, won't look like his fault. Carwyn has worked that out. The question is; why haven't you or Pwlldu?
[quote][p][bold]Mervyn James[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pwlldu[/bold] wrote: The Conservatives have challenged First Minister Carwyn Jones over Labour's position on devolving tax powers.Ministers in Cardiff would also get some power to vary income tax, subject to a referendum.Welsh Conservative leader Andrew RT Davies asked Mr Jones: "Considering Owen Smith said 'we will not seek these powers in the future', on record, do you not support the devolution of these powers because Owen Smith is saying that you as a party will not seek the devolution of these powers?" Both Labour and the Conservatives are still split over the Welsh Assembly.[/p][/quote]Your support for tax varying powers is naive. Firstly, whatever portion can be varied will be deducted from the block grant. If WAG raise taxes here above England's levels, people will leave. You will not recruit professionals like doctors. If you lower taxes WAG will have less money than it has now. Either way Wales loses. That's the real reason Carwyn doesn't want it. It's a poisoned chalice. The UK is too small a place to have different tax regimes. If people will move from France to London and Belgium to avoid heavy taxes, don't delude yourself that people in Wales will act any differently.[/p][/quote]Hasn't deterred Scotland... OR, Cameron stating if they stay in the UK and bow to English subservience, they can tax how they want. Surely you aren't suggesting Cameron is talking out of his rear end too ?[/p][/quote]I'm certainly suggesting that Cameron is playing politics. He realises that the devolved powers will be (a) socialist in nature and (b) poorer overall than England. Therefore the dilemma I outlined about going higher or lower with taxes, and losing either way, won't look like his fault. Carwyn has worked that out. The question is; why haven't you or Pwlldu? Llanmartinangel
  • Score: 3

10:42am Wed 4 Jun 14

pwlldu says...

UKIP MEP Nathan Gill defends use of Eastern European and Filipino workers in his family care company.



Wales' newly-elected Ukip MEP says he sees no inconsistency between his party’s stance on immigration and the fact that he employed “dozens” of eastern European and Filipino workers in a care company.

It has emerged that Mr Gill, who lives in Anglesey, was a director of a number of family businesses that owned property and provided care services on contract to Hull City Council in Yorkshire.

He yesterday confirmed he had employed “dozens” of immigrants from new EU countries like Poland and others from the Phillipines. He also said he had provided “bunkhouse” accommodation for employees and others who had migrated from eastern Europe.

One of Ukip’s major campaign policies at the recent election was its opposition to unlimited migration from other EU countries.

Mr Gill said: “We employed people from overseas because we could not find local workers to do the jobs. We had a care home of our own, but mostly our workers were employed on home care contracts we had with Hull City Council and other organisations. The workers were paid more than the minimum wage, but not massively more.
UKIP MEP Nathan Gill defends use of Eastern European and Filipino workers in his family care company. Wales' newly-elected Ukip MEP says he sees no inconsistency between his party’s stance on immigration and the fact that he employed “dozens” of eastern European and Filipino workers in a care company. It has emerged that Mr Gill, who lives in Anglesey, was a director of a number of family businesses that owned property and provided care services on contract to Hull City Council in Yorkshire. He yesterday confirmed he had employed “dozens” of immigrants from new EU countries like Poland and others from the Phillipines. He also said he had provided “bunkhouse” accommodation for employees and others who had migrated from eastern Europe. One of Ukip’s major campaign policies at the recent election was its opposition to unlimited migration from other EU countries. Mr Gill said: “We employed people from overseas because we could not find local workers to do the jobs. We had a care home of our own, but mostly our workers were employed on home care contracts we had with Hull City Council and other organisations. The workers were paid more than the minimum wage, but not massively more. pwlldu
  • Score: 0

10:55am Wed 4 Jun 14

pwlldu says...

Channel isles got more control over their money than Wales. Reducing tax would encourage more companies to start up in Wales and give more jobs. Reducing VAT will encourage more local spending. More people in work means less people on the dole and claiming benefits.
Channel isles got more control over their money than Wales. Reducing tax would encourage more companies to start up in Wales and give more jobs. Reducing VAT will encourage more local spending. More people in work means less people on the dole and claiming benefits. pwlldu
  • Score: 1

11:24am Wed 4 Jun 14

Llanmartinangel says...

pwlldu wrote:
UKIP MEP Nathan Gill defends use of Eastern European and Filipino workers in his family care company.



Wales' newly-elected Ukip MEP says he sees no inconsistency between his party’s stance on immigration and the fact that he employed “dozens” of eastern European and Filipino workers in a care company.

It has emerged that Mr Gill, who lives in Anglesey, was a director of a number of family businesses that owned property and provided care services on contract to Hull City Council in Yorkshire.

He yesterday confirmed he had employed “dozens” of immigrants from new EU countries like Poland and others from the Phillipines. He also said he had provided “bunkhouse” accommodation for employees and others who had migrated from eastern Europe.

One of Ukip’s major campaign policies at the recent election was its opposition to unlimited migration from other EU countries.

Mr Gill said: “We employed people from overseas because we could not find local workers to do the jobs. We had a care home of our own, but mostly our workers were employed on home care contracts we had with Hull City Council and other organisations. The workers were paid more than the minimum wage, but not massively more.
He's on the same page as Plaid then. Jill Evans, Plaid MEP, wants more immigration to Wales. She's also deluded. She thinks that once they'd got visas that they could be tied here. What do you make of an MEP who's never heard of a central plank of EU policy, the Shengen agreement? It allows freedom of movement in the EU.
http://www.walesonli
ne.co.uk/news/wales-
news/plaid-cymru-wan
t-wales-say-6737031
[quote][p][bold]pwlldu[/bold] wrote: UKIP MEP Nathan Gill defends use of Eastern European and Filipino workers in his family care company. Wales' newly-elected Ukip MEP says he sees no inconsistency between his party’s stance on immigration and the fact that he employed “dozens” of eastern European and Filipino workers in a care company. It has emerged that Mr Gill, who lives in Anglesey, was a director of a number of family businesses that owned property and provided care services on contract to Hull City Council in Yorkshire. He yesterday confirmed he had employed “dozens” of immigrants from new EU countries like Poland and others from the Phillipines. He also said he had provided “bunkhouse” accommodation for employees and others who had migrated from eastern Europe. One of Ukip’s major campaign policies at the recent election was its opposition to unlimited migration from other EU countries. Mr Gill said: “We employed people from overseas because we could not find local workers to do the jobs. We had a care home of our own, but mostly our workers were employed on home care contracts we had with Hull City Council and other organisations. The workers were paid more than the minimum wage, but not massively more.[/p][/quote]He's on the same page as Plaid then. Jill Evans, Plaid MEP, wants more immigration to Wales. She's also deluded. She thinks that once they'd got visas that they could be tied here. What do you make of an MEP who's never heard of a central plank of EU policy, the Shengen agreement? It allows freedom of movement in the EU. http://www.walesonli ne.co.uk/news/wales- news/plaid-cymru-wan t-wales-say-6737031 Llanmartinangel
  • Score: 4

5:08pm Wed 4 Jun 14

pwlldu says...

Llanmartinangel says...more indian doctors, more foreign medical staff, more takeaways, more over seas companies providing local jobs. When I worked for the job centre Merthyr meat slaughterhouse was forced to employ over sea workers because no local people wanted to work there. The company I work for as an over sea owner and provides jobs for twenty people.
Llanmartinangel says...more indian doctors, more foreign medical staff, more takeaways, more over seas companies providing local jobs. When I worked for the job centre Merthyr meat slaughterhouse was forced to employ over sea workers because no local people wanted to work there. The company I work for as an over sea owner and provides jobs for twenty people. pwlldu
  • Score: -4

10:03am Thu 5 Jun 14

pwlldu says...

Plaid want to see more foreign footballers and forgeign rugby players to strengthen our Welsh teams.
Plaid want to see more foreign footballers and forgeign rugby players to strengthen our Welsh teams. pwlldu
  • Score: 0

10:17am Thu 5 Jun 14

varteg1 says...

Llanmartinangel wrote:
Not believing in either of these tiers of government is every bit as valid a view as supporting them. There is ample sustained evidence of failure of the Welsh Assembly for example, so after fourteen years and around £7 billion spent on this failed experiment, the abolitionist ticket is entirely logical. It's mainly Socialists and Nationalists that believe there should be no upper limit to the numbers of people on the public payroll achieving bugg*r all. They also agree with exponentially increasing taxes to fund it.
I happen to have quite a left leaning attitude, so fall into the group you mention, however, I also seek 'small' government, hence my opposition to a devolved Assembly. At the same time I argue for far higher taxation, which under a full and proper socialist agenda would be utilised in providing the aspects of social fabric that enhance society.

Properly funded roads, hospitals, schools, pensions, etc. All of which in turn would bring a greater return to the populace by increased personal spending, on goods and services within our own country.
Wasting tax revenues on ever increasing numbers of employees in the civic sector, which in itself fails to return much to the overall pot, is a stupid waste of those revenues.

The problem has been for a long time that public establishments have become mini empires in which section heads have become managers, who in turn have demanded their own staffing levels be increased thereby founding yet more mini empires.

One does not have to become a Tory clone to understand the principles of probity, nor that austerity measures, of the kind recently enacted by the present government , would be unnecessary if correct fiscal prudence was adhered to.

It is not an aspect peculiar to Socialists or nationalists to expand the empires in public service, take a look at the 'management' regime in the NHS, created during Thatchers watch, and from an experience of mine, to find slots for some ex military officer personnel who were being made redundant with no obvious employment prospects for them, post military service.
Taxation has a duty to be utilised for those that pay the tax, the ONLY way it can be effectively and prudently utilised is via social application, But of course that does not fit well with the Thatcherite mantra " there is no such thing as society!".

To attempt the disbursement of tax via the capitalist route, almost invariably merans expecting to get a rake off 'for services rendered'.
[quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: Not believing in either of these tiers of government is every bit as valid a view as supporting them. There is ample sustained evidence of failure of the Welsh Assembly for example, so after fourteen years and around £7 billion spent on this failed experiment, the abolitionist ticket is entirely logical. It's mainly Socialists and Nationalists that believe there should be no upper limit to the numbers of people on the public payroll achieving bugg*r all. They also agree with exponentially increasing taxes to fund it.[/p][/quote]I happen to have quite a left leaning attitude, so fall into the group you mention, however, I also seek 'small' government, hence my opposition to a devolved Assembly. At the same time I argue for far higher taxation, which under a full and proper socialist agenda would be utilised in providing the aspects of social fabric that enhance society. Properly funded roads, hospitals, schools, pensions, etc. All of which in turn would bring a greater return to the populace by increased personal spending, on goods and services within our own country. Wasting tax revenues on ever increasing numbers of employees in the civic sector, which in itself fails to return much to the overall pot, is a stupid waste of those revenues. The problem has been for a long time that public establishments have become mini empires in which section heads have become managers, who in turn have demanded their own staffing levels be increased thereby founding yet more mini empires. One does not have to become a Tory clone to understand the principles of probity, nor that austerity measures, of the kind recently enacted by the present government , would be unnecessary if correct fiscal prudence was adhered to. It is not an aspect peculiar to Socialists or nationalists to expand the empires in public service, take a look at the 'management' regime in the NHS, created during Thatchers watch, and from an experience of mine, to find slots for some ex military officer personnel who were being made redundant with no obvious employment prospects for them, post military service. Taxation has a duty to be utilised for those that pay the tax, the ONLY way it can be effectively and prudently utilised is via social application, But of course that does not fit well with the Thatcherite mantra " there is no such thing as society!". To attempt the disbursement of tax via the capitalist route, almost invariably merans expecting to get a rake off 'for services rendered'. varteg1
  • Score: 0

12:13pm Thu 5 Jun 14

Llanmartinangel says...

pwlldu wrote:
Plaid want to see more foreign footballers and forgeign rugby players to strengthen our Welsh teams.
So not 'Welsh' at all then (like Sam Warburton). If you can't see the daftness in your post then you need professional help.
[quote][p][bold]pwlldu[/bold] wrote: Plaid want to see more foreign footballers and forgeign rugby players to strengthen our Welsh teams.[/p][/quote]So not 'Welsh' at all then (like Sam Warburton). If you can't see the daftness in your post then you need professional help. Llanmartinangel
  • Score: 1

12:18pm Thu 5 Jun 14

Llanmartinangel says...

varteg1 wrote:
Llanmartinangel wrote:
Not believing in either of these tiers of government is every bit as valid a view as supporting them. There is ample sustained evidence of failure of the Welsh Assembly for example, so after fourteen years and around £7 billion spent on this failed experiment, the abolitionist ticket is entirely logical. It's mainly Socialists and Nationalists that believe there should be no upper limit to the numbers of people on the public payroll achieving bugg*r all. They also agree with exponentially increasing taxes to fund it.
I happen to have quite a left leaning attitude, so fall into the group you mention, however, I also seek 'small' government, hence my opposition to a devolved Assembly. At the same time I argue for far higher taxation, which under a full and proper socialist agenda would be utilised in providing the aspects of social fabric that enhance society.

Properly funded roads, hospitals, schools, pensions, etc. All of which in turn would bring a greater return to the populace by increased personal spending, on goods and services within our own country.
Wasting tax revenues on ever increasing numbers of employees in the civic sector, which in itself fails to return much to the overall pot, is a stupid waste of those revenues.

The problem has been for a long time that public establishments have become mini empires in which section heads have become managers, who in turn have demanded their own staffing levels be increased thereby founding yet more mini empires.

One does not have to become a Tory clone to understand the principles of probity, nor that austerity measures, of the kind recently enacted by the present government , would be unnecessary if correct fiscal prudence was adhered to.

It is not an aspect peculiar to Socialists or nationalists to expand the empires in public service, take a look at the 'management' regime in the NHS, created during Thatchers watch, and from an experience of mine, to find slots for some ex military officer personnel who were being made redundant with no obvious employment prospects for them, post military service.
Taxation has a duty to be utilised for those that pay the tax, the ONLY way it can be effectively and prudently utilised is via social application, But of course that does not fit well with the Thatcherite mantra " there is no such thing as society!".

To attempt the disbursement of tax via the capitalist route, almost invariably merans expecting to get a rake off 'for services rendered'.
I mostly agree with your post. Where I think we difer is that I believe what you suggest can easily be delivered from the tax take 'as is'. If you took government waste, bureaucracy, business consultants, foreign aid, irrelevant military campaigns, benefit stupidity and all the other idiotic ideas out of what is spent already, much could be improved that we would all gain from.
[quote][p][bold]varteg1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: Not believing in either of these tiers of government is every bit as valid a view as supporting them. There is ample sustained evidence of failure of the Welsh Assembly for example, so after fourteen years and around £7 billion spent on this failed experiment, the abolitionist ticket is entirely logical. It's mainly Socialists and Nationalists that believe there should be no upper limit to the numbers of people on the public payroll achieving bugg*r all. They also agree with exponentially increasing taxes to fund it.[/p][/quote]I happen to have quite a left leaning attitude, so fall into the group you mention, however, I also seek 'small' government, hence my opposition to a devolved Assembly. At the same time I argue for far higher taxation, which under a full and proper socialist agenda would be utilised in providing the aspects of social fabric that enhance society. Properly funded roads, hospitals, schools, pensions, etc. All of which in turn would bring a greater return to the populace by increased personal spending, on goods and services within our own country. Wasting tax revenues on ever increasing numbers of employees in the civic sector, which in itself fails to return much to the overall pot, is a stupid waste of those revenues. The problem has been for a long time that public establishments have become mini empires in which section heads have become managers, who in turn have demanded their own staffing levels be increased thereby founding yet more mini empires. One does not have to become a Tory clone to understand the principles of probity, nor that austerity measures, of the kind recently enacted by the present government , would be unnecessary if correct fiscal prudence was adhered to. It is not an aspect peculiar to Socialists or nationalists to expand the empires in public service, take a look at the 'management' regime in the NHS, created during Thatchers watch, and from an experience of mine, to find slots for some ex military officer personnel who were being made redundant with no obvious employment prospects for them, post military service. Taxation has a duty to be utilised for those that pay the tax, the ONLY way it can be effectively and prudently utilised is via social application, But of course that does not fit well with the Thatcherite mantra " there is no such thing as society!". To attempt the disbursement of tax via the capitalist route, almost invariably merans expecting to get a rake off 'for services rendered'.[/p][/quote]I mostly agree with your post. Where I think we difer is that I believe what you suggest can easily be delivered from the tax take 'as is'. If you took government waste, bureaucracy, business consultants, foreign aid, irrelevant military campaigns, benefit stupidity and all the other idiotic ideas out of what is spent already, much could be improved that we would all gain from. Llanmartinangel
  • Score: 3

10:16am Sat 7 Jun 14

pwlldu says...

UKIP bubble burst at Newark, people think its better the devil they know than the devil you don't.
Newark by-election: result in full
Robert Jenrick (Con) 17,431 (45.03%, -8.82%)
Roger Helmer (UKIP) 10,028 (25.91%, +22.09%)
Michael Payne (Lab) 6,842 (17.68%, -4.65%)
Tories seem to hold onto their seats. As for Labour Newark is a seat they have won, the people still can'r trust them for government. UKIP will have a lot of seconds next year, so it just shows how first past the post is so hard to win for small parties. Maybe UKIP should campaign for PR.
UKIP bubble burst at Newark, people think its better the devil they know than the devil you don't. Newark by-election: result in full Robert Jenrick (Con) 17,431 (45.03%, -8.82%) Roger Helmer (UKIP) 10,028 (25.91%, +22.09%) Michael Payne (Lab) 6,842 (17.68%, -4.65%) Tories seem to hold onto their seats. As for Labour Newark is a seat they have won, the people still can'r trust them for government. UKIP will have a lot of seconds next year, so it just shows how first past the post is so hard to win for small parties. Maybe UKIP should campaign for PR. pwlldu
  • Score: 0

2:33pm Sat 7 Jun 14

welshmen says...

pwlldu wrote:
UKIP bubble burst at Newark, people think its better the devil they know than the devil you don't.
Newark by-election: result in full
Robert Jenrick (Con) 17,431 (45.03%, -8.82%)
Roger Helmer (UKIP) 10,028 (25.91%, +22.09%)
Michael Payne (Lab) 6,842 (17.68%, -4.65%)
Tories seem to hold onto their seats. As for Labour Newark is a seat they have won, the people still can'r trust them for government. UKIP will have a lot of seconds next year, so it just shows how first past the post is so hard to win for small parties. Maybe UKIP should campaign for PR.
Piddlypoo says Plaid Cymru has no chance of beating their record 4 MP's in the next General Election....

Yes you are Correct, the bubble has burst for all the other parties,----UKIP'S 22.09% of the vote in a SAFE Conservative seat piddlypoo, UKIP the only party with gains at the Newark Election, roll that out across marginal seats which are well over forty and UKIP will have many MP's in Westminster enough to form a Coalition Government....
[quote][p][bold]pwlldu[/bold] wrote: UKIP bubble burst at Newark, people think its better the devil they know than the devil you don't. Newark by-election: result in full Robert Jenrick (Con) 17,431 (45.03%, -8.82%) Roger Helmer (UKIP) 10,028 (25.91%, +22.09%) Michael Payne (Lab) 6,842 (17.68%, -4.65%) Tories seem to hold onto their seats. As for Labour Newark is a seat they have won, the people still can'r trust them for government. UKIP will have a lot of seconds next year, so it just shows how first past the post is so hard to win for small parties. Maybe UKIP should campaign for PR.[/p][/quote]Piddlypoo says Plaid Cymru has no chance of beating their record 4 MP's in the next General Election.... Yes you are Correct, the bubble has burst for all the other parties,----UKIP'S 22.09% of the vote in a SAFE Conservative seat piddlypoo, UKIP the only party with gains at the Newark Election, roll that out across marginal seats which are well over forty and UKIP will have many MP's in Westminster enough to form a Coalition Government.... welshmen
  • Score: 1

9:00pm Sun 8 Jun 14

Mervyn James says...

pwlldu wrote:
UKIP bubble burst at Newark, people think its better the devil they know than the devil you don't.
Newark by-election: result in full
Robert Jenrick (Con) 17,431 (45.03%, -8.82%)
Roger Helmer (UKIP) 10,028 (25.91%, +22.09%)
Michael Payne (Lab) 6,842 (17.68%, -4.65%)
Tories seem to hold onto their seats. As for Labour Newark is a seat they have won, the people still can'r trust them for government. UKIP will have a lot of seconds next year, so it just shows how first past the post is so hard to win for small parties. Maybe UKIP should campaign for PR.
The UKIP did very well actually to come from nowhere to second and push labour third, whilst kicking the lib-dems onto the street. NOT a tory success by any means. By coming second they can still alter the entire face of British Politics simply by denying the main parties those votes. PR is appealing, but I am not sure I want Migrants running the country....
[quote][p][bold]pwlldu[/bold] wrote: UKIP bubble burst at Newark, people think its better the devil they know than the devil you don't. Newark by-election: result in full Robert Jenrick (Con) 17,431 (45.03%, -8.82%) Roger Helmer (UKIP) 10,028 (25.91%, +22.09%) Michael Payne (Lab) 6,842 (17.68%, -4.65%) Tories seem to hold onto their seats. As for Labour Newark is a seat they have won, the people still can'r trust them for government. UKIP will have a lot of seconds next year, so it just shows how first past the post is so hard to win for small parties. Maybe UKIP should campaign for PR.[/p][/quote]The UKIP did very well actually to come from nowhere to second and push labour third, whilst kicking the lib-dems onto the street. NOT a tory success by any means. By coming second they can still alter the entire face of British Politics simply by denying the main parties those votes. PR is appealing, but I am not sure I want Migrants running the country.... Mervyn James
  • Score: 1

11:12am Mon 9 Jun 14

pwlldu says...

Mervyn James says... we still waiting for a UKIP earthquake, coming second is not winning. Winning by one vote UKIP would have been happy with, after their anti europe campaign. People of Britain still don't trust UKIP enough to run the country.
Mervyn James says... we still waiting for a UKIP earthquake, coming second is not winning. Winning by one vote UKIP would have been happy with, after their anti europe campaign. People of Britain still don't trust UKIP enough to run the country. pwlldu
  • Score: -1

6:45pm Mon 9 Jun 14

Mervyn James says...

You have missed the point, it isn't a matter of them winning, they won't, but coming second or even third, splits the vote to uncertainty, and the old bi-party system then looks like crumbling, (Good !), and a coalition even more of an un-elected lottery than it is now....we need PR, we also need Ministers subject to the will of those who voted for them,so if they DON'T do what we voted them in for, we can kick them out, and put a stop to this "Once they are in, then ignore us until vote time again.." No more 5 year runs, a cross examination EVERY year, if they fail, O..U..T. It is how we are adjudged in any job, we don't get a free run for years and have the right to ignore those who gave us it !
You have missed the point, it isn't a matter of them winning, they won't, but coming second or even third, splits the vote to uncertainty, and the old bi-party system then looks like crumbling, (Good !), and a coalition even more of an un-elected lottery than it is now....we need PR, we also need Ministers subject to the will of those who voted for them,so if they DON'T do what we voted them in for, we can kick them out, and put a stop to this "Once they are in, then ignore us until vote time again.." No more 5 year runs, a cross examination EVERY year, if they fail, O..U..T. It is how we are adjudged in any job, we don't get a free run for years and have the right to ignore those who gave us it ! Mervyn James
  • Score: 0

4:42pm Thu 12 Jun 14

Bobevans says...

Mervyn James wrote:
Llanmartinangel wrote:
pwlldu wrote:
The Conservatives have challenged First Minister Carwyn Jones over Labour's position on devolving tax powers.Ministers in Cardiff would also get some power to vary income tax, subject to a referendum.Welsh Conservative leader Andrew RT Davies asked Mr Jones: "Considering Owen Smith said 'we will not seek these powers in the future', on record, do you not support the devolution of these powers because Owen Smith is saying that you as a party will not seek the devolution of these powers?" Both Labour and the Conservatives are still split over the Welsh Assembly.
Your support for tax varying powers is naive. Firstly, whatever portion can be varied will be deducted from the block grant. If WAG raise taxes here above England's levels, people will leave. You will not recruit professionals like doctors. If you lower taxes WAG will have less money than it has now. Either way Wales loses. That's the real reason Carwyn doesn't want it. It's a poisoned chalice. The UK is too small a place to have different tax regimes. If people will move from France to London and Belgium to avoid heavy taxes, don't delude yourself that people in Wales will act any differently.
Hasn't deterred Scotland... OR, Cameron stating if they stay in the UK and bow to English subservience, they can tax how they want. Surely you aren't suggesting Cameron is talking out of his rear end too ?
Scotland has had the power to vary income tax for over a decade but has never done so
[quote][p][bold]Mervyn James[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pwlldu[/bold] wrote: The Conservatives have challenged First Minister Carwyn Jones over Labour's position on devolving tax powers.Ministers in Cardiff would also get some power to vary income tax, subject to a referendum.Welsh Conservative leader Andrew RT Davies asked Mr Jones: "Considering Owen Smith said 'we will not seek these powers in the future', on record, do you not support the devolution of these powers because Owen Smith is saying that you as a party will not seek the devolution of these powers?" Both Labour and the Conservatives are still split over the Welsh Assembly.[/p][/quote]Your support for tax varying powers is naive. Firstly, whatever portion can be varied will be deducted from the block grant. If WAG raise taxes here above England's levels, people will leave. You will not recruit professionals like doctors. If you lower taxes WAG will have less money than it has now. Either way Wales loses. That's the real reason Carwyn doesn't want it. It's a poisoned chalice. The UK is too small a place to have different tax regimes. If people will move from France to London and Belgium to avoid heavy taxes, don't delude yourself that people in Wales will act any differently.[/p][/quote]Hasn't deterred Scotland... OR, Cameron stating if they stay in the UK and bow to English subservience, they can tax how they want. Surely you aren't suggesting Cameron is talking out of his rear end too ?[/p][/quote]Scotland has had the power to vary income tax for over a decade but has never done so Bobevans
  • Score: 0

4:43pm Thu 12 Jun 14

Bobevans says...

pwlldu wrote:
Channel isles got more control over their money than Wales. Reducing tax would encourage more companies to start up in Wales and give more jobs. Reducing VAT will encourage more local spending. More people in work means less people on the dole and claiming benefits.
So to do this what services do you propose cutting?
[quote][p][bold]pwlldu[/bold] wrote: Channel isles got more control over their money than Wales. Reducing tax would encourage more companies to start up in Wales and give more jobs. Reducing VAT will encourage more local spending. More people in work means less people on the dole and claiming benefits.[/p][/quote]So to do this what services do you propose cutting? Bobevans
  • Score: 0

4:44pm Thu 12 Jun 14

Bobevans says...

pwlldu wrote:
Channel isles got more control over their money than Wales. Reducing tax would encourage more companies to start up in Wales and give more jobs. Reducing VAT will encourage more local spending. More people in work means less people on the dole and claiming benefits.
So you are suggesting Wales leaves the EU?
[quote][p][bold]pwlldu[/bold] wrote: Channel isles got more control over their money than Wales. Reducing tax would encourage more companies to start up in Wales and give more jobs. Reducing VAT will encourage more local spending. More people in work means less people on the dole and claiming benefits.[/p][/quote]So you are suggesting Wales leaves the EU? Bobevans
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree