tango

Yikes!

Fairer taxes are needed say the Lib Dems. What I find a little concerning is that their proposed local income tax would cost easterbunny and me over one thousand pounds per year more than our current council tax arrangements.

And the useless swines still wouldn't collect our rubbish.
Tags:
It really is suprising that the Conservatives and Labour aren't banging on about this a little more.
Indeed. [sigh]

otoh, are the Lib Dems promoting it as being a good thing? If not, it's probably not considered to be high enough profile.

It should be, though.
Well it would be a good thing for anyone who's on a low income, since they won't have to pay as much council tax. Someone has to bite the bullet to pay for such cuts, however...
They're not pointing out these increases because Conservative and Labour don't want to mention the fact that the Lib Dem's actually *have* policies. They're too busy labelling them as wasted votes or votes for the other side. They're determined to turn it into a two horse race and they can't rip apart lib dem policy without acknowledging them as a real threat.

Also I suspect most of the people negatively affected by the increases will either sigh and say "oh well, for the best I suppose" or not be voting lib dem anyway. Labour and Conservatives can't point out how bad this plan is for top earners without acknowledging that it's good for the bottom earners who everyone is desperately trying to claim. Also the obvious response of the Lib Dems to any criticism is to throw it back again with a "go on then, show us quantitavely where *you're* money is coming from".
All good points indeed. To be fair to the Tories their plans aren't as uncosted as Labour are making out, they have specified a wide number of areas where there are to be sweeping cuts to layers of burocracy which they claim will cover costs.

I'm really unsure of how I'm going to vote in this election. I'm in a strong LibDem seat; I would have voted for a small party to ensure they get their deposit back but there are none standing in Sutton. I'm almost hoping that the LibDems do well enough to catch up with the Tories, have a fair stab at opposition. A strong voice from them would at least drag the parties away from the authoritarian bent being osmosed from the Bush administration.
The conservatives are at least saying where the money comes from, although I'm not convinced they can really cut that amount of money in a suitable amount of time without causing chaos. With the 'promise' of tax cuts as well, I'm just not confident of their maths. Not that I'm confident of anyone else's either ;0)

I'll probably vote lib dem although I'll hold out on final decisions until I've read all manifestos. My prime reasoning at this point is that I strongly disaprove of the conservative and labour campaign strategies of slagging off the opposition. I'm heartily sick of the whole thing already and it's only just begun. Hammersmith and Fulham is actually a swing with labour holding a very small majority and is going to be utterly over-run with discussion of closing Charring Cross. The spiel I got through from the new labour candidate made me want to slap her, we'll see what the others manage ;0)
I must at this point encourage you to vote Tory. Forgetting all policies this is because my mate Greg is managing Greg Hands' campaign and his future career prospects are hinging on his election. :)
The problem with the Lib Dems is that they really haven't (or at least hadn't last time I'd looked) really thought about some of what they intend. Going back a year, they said "abolish the DTI, save £7bn".

OK, DTI is indeed a department that costs £7bn. OF which about 6 is direct money going into science and technology development and exploitation. The rest of it is business support etc, which one could possibly lose, but frankly it's a good thing especally when one considers R&D and inward investment.

The actuall staffing costs of DTI are quite low, as there's only about 3000 of us (excluding agencies such as ACAS, Comnpanies House etc). If they abolished DTI, and did not transfer the work elsewhere (which would mean moving the people around and not having any discernable effect on overall numbers) there would be no consumer protection policy, no low pay unit, no employment relations policy, no competition policy, no equal opportunities policy, no energy policy, no overseas trade development...
Oh I think they are uncosted. Leaving aside the fact that it's bollocks, axeing 235,000 civil servants will not produce massive savings for a very long time. Not least having to contract out (and thus spend more on) outsourced functions - and we all know how effective THAT's been. But also the cost of redundancy and early retirement for this many people will cost a terrifying amount of money and take a long time to achieve.

Plus - the conservatives are making a bog fuss about 6500 Rover jobs, and the 20,000 jobs in the Rover supply chain. Whilst 235,000 civil service jobs can apparently go, and no-one will notice or care? This isn't just "bureaucracy" he's cutting, it's a quarter of a million people's livelihoods. Poeple who ahve put up with shit pay and constant denigration for YEARS. Never mind upping the unemployment figures to a terrifying degree, thus adding an awful lot of cost onto the benefits system.

MAnifesto commitments are bollocks, we all know, but this scares the crap out of me.
Hmm. Even if we had two small children and were only living on Adam's salary, apparently we'd still be better off than two thirds of the country.

Time is fleeting, and scepticism is rising.