Islam is a religion based on peace, love and respect, and to claim otherwise may result in death by stoning
Maybe it has, maybe not. The main problem is that today, people are placing their own interpretation to suit their own agenda on scripts written thousands of years ago and re-written and re-interpreted many times since. Send three-and-fourpence, we are going to a dance.
And good comment from Jeremy Warner Soak the rich? Like Hollande, Miliband will destroy the economy - Telegraph
Wow. Daily Telegraph publishes article sneering at Labour Party policies - there's a surprise. Slight more connected to reality is the accompanying forecast of the likely 2015 general election results, if recent opinion polls hold steady for the next year: Labour 367 Conservative 232 Lib Dem 23 UKIP 0 Others 28 Overall majority 84.
Just goes to show that Labour is peddling populist pap just like Francoise Hollande did in France, and look where it has got them.
"Populist"? In a democracy, political parties are supposed to try and identify policies which will be popular with voters, ready to put them in the manifesto for the next election. That's what Labour is busy doing at the moment. Are you saying there is something wrong with that? What would you prefer?
No, political parties are supposed to identify policies that are good for the country and address the pressing issues of the time rather than indulge in garbage designed to garner popular support. France has tried supply side legislation and tax increases and it is not working. The Labour model is more X Factor than serious politics. Their policies are designed to get them elected not to solve the economic and social problems that we face;hence "populist pap".
Well said. And Balls is devious. He focuses on the nonsensical "tax breaks for millionaires" and "bring back the 50p rate" phrases, without making any attempt to sort out the mess that his party made of the income tax system, and which the current government has merely tinkered with (that's all that reducing a rate from 50 to 45% is). What few seem to realise, partly because it doesn't affect most of us (not me anyway) is that the tax rate from around £100K to £120K is 60% - how? because Darling, his strings pulled by Brown no doubt, sneaked in the concept of "progressive personal allowance withdrawal" when he introduced the 50% rate for incomes above £150K (note that the 50% rate applied for a month or two under Labour - they had been happy with a top rate of 40% from 1997 until 2010). The result of all the PREVIOUS Labour paty dicking-about with income tax is that we have a system which starts wth a tax free personal allowance (which has been increased a lot recently - it's higher than in many countries) then income tax kicks in at a rate of 20% (Brown/Balls got rid of the 10% band - now he wants to bring it back - mad, or what?), then goes straight to 40% from about £40K to £100K, with no 30% band to soften the transition.... then goes up to 60% at £100K, back to 40% at £120K (because every £2 someone earns above £100K results in £1 being subtracted from their personal allowance, until they have no allowance left), and finally up to 45% at £150K (and now everyone is arguing about the minor detail of whether that should go up to 50% again...). If Balls had any guts or sense he would be honest enough to say that he'll bring the top rate band down to £100K (up to him whether he says that should be 45 or 50%), but allow people to keep their personal allowance. If he really thinks we need a 10% band below 20%, he also needs to propose a 30% band before 40%. I realise that NI complicates this, but that's another car-crash situation which none of the parties seems to have any clever ideas about.
You are correct about the rate of tax and how they apply. I guess, however you carve it up, HMRC has to deliver its budget for the treasury. I suppose the politicians need to get the right balance so that everyone shoulders their fair share of the burden, and we all want our fair share to be less!! I do agree the current treatment of personal allowance is absurd.
Not sure what planet you inhabit, but on this one parties do indeed try to find policies 'designed to get them elected'. Bears also shit in the woods. Parties which instead prefer to focus on maintaining the purity of their ideologies never get elected to office, so in permanent opposition they can never achieve anything real. That's the way it works.
So it is X Factor ? There is no significant difference in ideology between the Lib Lab Cons, they compete on the periphery with populist policies which have little value, whilst trying to trip the other side up and dodging the big issues, such as energy policy. I know perfectly well how it works Pete, and the last time I looked we did indeed inhabit the same planet.
A lot of the problem seems to be us, the electorate. I`m generalising of course but too many of us are not interested in what really goes on and are happy to be bribed with the promise of sweeties so that is what we get offered.
Rather than not being interested in what goes on, I think that most of us don't actually understand what goes on. How does Parliament really work? Who can table motions? Are there different sorts? How do you get on to a Select Committee? When are they convened, and why? How much does the Prime Minister decide? If you don't like your party's motion and vote against it, what really happens to you? What are White Papers? Green Papers? Why are they produced? By whom? The electorate is incredibly ignorant of these things, but as little attempt is taken to explain them, we are left with politics as soap opera.
Knowledge and understanding is only of value if you also have the ability to influence things, and most people do not. Voting once every 5 years for the party that gets to form the government is not exactly a hands on democracy, there is an ever widening gulf between the electorate and the political elite.
