Would striking over fuel prices get us anywhere?

[HeadingNorth]

And there was silly old me voting Lib Dem to erradicate tuition fees.

 

Personally this is why I'd make manifestos legally binding.

 

 

Assuming that they were, the Lib Dems still would not have eradicated tuition fees, because they do not have a working majority; so I'm not sure what point you think you've manage to make.

[dell12]

Assuming that they were, the Lib Dems still would not have eradicated tuition fees, because they do not have a working majority; so I'm not sure what point you think you've manage to make.

 

I guess I was trying to make the point that I voted Lib Dem because I thought in general the party was trying to go in the direction of eliminating fees.

 

I get the fact they've compromised because of the coalition though.

[dell12]

Or perhaps the parties could print a manifesto, alongside a list of the policies they would keep if they went into coalition....

[HeadingNorth]

Or perhaps the parties could print a manifesto, alongside a list of the policies they would keep if they went into coalition....

 

It's logically impossible to know in advance which policies you will be able to keep in a coalition. You don't know how strong, or weak, a partner of it you are going to be.

 

 

Come to think of it, you don't evne know who your coalition partner might be, and that can make a huge difference. The Lib-Dems have achieved almost all of their civil liberties legislation, because most of it coincided with what the Tories wanted to do anyway; they've had to make some major concessions on economic policies. If it had been Labour who formed the largest party and joined them in a coalition, their position would quite likely be the exact opposite.

[Vague_Boy]

Better get used to it.

 

Peak Oil and "The Long Emergency"

[dell12]

It's logically impossible to know in advance which policies you will be able to keep in a coalition. You don't know how strong, or weak, a partner of it you are going to be.

 

 

Come to think of it, you don't evne know who your coalition partner might be, and that can make a huge difference. The Lib-Dems have achieved almost all of their civil liberties legislation, because most of it coincided with what the Tories wanted to do anyway; they've had to make some major concessions on economic policies. If it had been Labour who formed the largest party and joined them in a coalition, their position would quite likely be the exact opposite.

 

True it wouldn't be easy. But it is the Lib Dems who favour AV, which would surely lead to more hung parliaments so perhaps something may change in terms of manifestos legality as promises get broken more and more often.

 

If it doesn't I can see alot of people a) getting angry and b) just going back to the party they've always voted for because they generally trust them to do the 'right' thing.

 

While I probably would class myself as a Labour voter, I voted Lib Dem because I really liked alot of what was in their manifesto, but if governance in the future is going to be all about compromise, it will be harder and harder simply to vote for a party simply on a manifesto which contains promises they may or may not keep.

[Fartown]

Always the first thing people say. But let me turn it around - have you given any in-depth thought to what else to tax? Or how to spend more efficiently to do the same job with lower taxes? No, because you're not in Government and it's their job not yours? Same here.

 

There are 2 problems with that:

 

1. The government is already over-spending and has said it is going to make draconian cuts (to howls of anguish, particularly from those who are going to lose their jobs.) The government has already been criticised widely for saving money by cutting expenditure rather than by increasing taxes. Cutting taxes such as those on road fuels would effectively mean that the cuts:tax increase ratio would swing even more in favour of cuts.

 

2. Everybody pays fuel taxes; either directly when they buy the fuel or indirectly when they buy goods or services delivered to them using fuel. Progressive taxation is a 'good thing', but is it really fair to exempt some people from all taxation whatsoever and add the increase to the burden faced by those who probably feel that they are paying more than their share anyway?

 

But what I do know is that the tax on fuel has risen much more rapidly than inflation over the last few years. And let's not forget the icing on the cake - after they've slapped an unfair and extortionate amount of tax on the fuel, they then tax us AGAIN by applying VAT to the duty.

 

The previous government introduced a policy of increasing fuel tax above the rate of inflation. It was argued that the tax was a punishment or deterrent and was intended to deter people from using fuel. I thought that the purpose of taxation was to raise funds to pay for planned government expenditure, not to punish people? I agree that the increase in fuel tax - particularly given the government's reason for doing so - was an abuse of power.

 

I, like you, feel that 'tax on tax' is an abomination, but it's not limited to VAT on fuel duty. I feel that VAT is in itself flawed. It discourages people from employing others, because it adds considerably to the cost of getting work done. It's a real tax on jobs.

 

Imagine I'm a plumber and I come to your house to fix a leaky radiator. I will charge you for materials, I will charge you for my time, I will charge you for my costs in getting to your house (and I'll probably also charge you a contribution for the time I spend 'waiting' for work and the time I spend together, with costs incurred, doing 'free' estimates.)

 

A part (a large part) of the bill will be the money I need to pay National Insurance and Income tax. When I've added up the bill, I will charge VAT on the lot. You will therefore be paying VAT on the materials, on my income tax and VAT on my National Insurance.

 

It gets worse! I mentioned the costs of me travelling to your house. Those costs will include the cost of the fuel I used and I will have paid fuel duty on that fuel, plus VAT on the duty. You will pay VAT on the VAT on the fuel duty. (I will no doubt deduct the VAT I pay on fuel as input tax when I file my quarterly returns, but I wonder how many people remember [or bother, because you'd need a clear paper trail] to deduct the VAT on the fuel from the costs they charge their customers before they add VAT to the final bill?

 

Oh, and I didn't say they shouldn't charge any tax on fuel. I'd like to see them remove the VAT from the duty portion though, and only add it to the actual product. Or reverse all rises since the credit crunch. They've essentially been kicking us while we're down.

 

You appear to be suggesting that VAT should be scrapped and replaced with a purchase tax. Good idea, but it isn't going to happen.

 

You suggest that the government has been kicking us while we are down, but our treatment appears to be little worse (indeed, it's rather better) than that meted out to many of our neighbours in Europe.

 

VAT in the UK is lower than it is in most other EU states and even when it increases to 20% we will still have a rate which is lower than or equal to 20 out of the 27 EU member states.

[Fartown]

Or perhaps the parties could print a manifesto, alongside a list of the policies they would keep if they went into coalition....

 

From Milliband's answer when asked whether, if elected, he would repeal the increase in tuition fees, the Labour list would be rather short.

 

'Under-promise, over-perform'? - I bet the grass grows high in his garden.