Poll: Which party will get your vote in the General Election?

Which party will get your vote in the General Election?

  • Conservative

    Votes: 704 38.5%

  • Labour

    Votes: 221 12.1%

  • Liberal Democrat

    Votes: 297 16.2%

  • British National Party

    Votes: 144 7.9%

  • Green Party

    Votes: 36 2.0%

  • UK Independence Party

    Votes: 46 2.5%

  • Other

    Votes: 48 2.6%

  • Don't care I have no intension of voting.

    Votes: 334 18.3%
  • Total voters
    1,830
Status
Not open for further replies.
Dolph said:
The race to the bottom and into dependency is classic socialist policy. The only difference this time (as I said) is that Labour didn't inflict it quite on everyone...
Click to expand...
I know this isn't really a reply, but just for greater clarity, surely that's not a policy in itself, but an emanation of policy?
 
Rich_L said:
So, I can't really be bothered to trawl through the numerous times the Tories have confirmed that they were 'sure' he was meeting his obligations - does this mean he was lying all the time, or the Tories were engaging in a cover-up?
Click to expand...
If Ashcroft was to take permanent residence in the UK, he'd have to change his status. He never did become one.

If the Tories come into Government, if he wants to remain in the Lords, he'd have to change his status. Tories are not in yet, and Labour won't adopt this rule due to their own Lords who are non doms.

If the HMRC are happy, I am happy.


Equally, what does this mean for the millions he has been providing and his role in targeting the marginal seats, when he doesn't even pay tax in the UK? Whatever your position, blue or red, it can't be good when you have, to all intents and purposes, foreign entities influencing the election - representation without taxation?
Click to expand...
I don't know. But what does it mean for many other non-dom individual donors, like Sir Paul, Sir Ronnie or Lakshmi Mittal - who donate millions at a time to the Labour party?

Also, don't put Ashcroft's donations out of perspective. I believe Ashcroft has donated £5m to the party over many years. People like Lakshmi Mittal and Lord Sainsbury have donated far more - in £2m lumps at a time.

On a technical note about the non-dom status, I don't really see what is wrong with it. If your permanent residence is not in the UK, why should you pay tax on non-UK income?
 
Last edited:
Hatter The Mad said:
If your permanent residence is not in the UK, why should you pay tax on non-UK income?
Click to expand...

Rich people can buy a house in a tax haven, declare it as their permanent home and pay virtually no tax for living there or technically 'conducting their business' from there. In actual fact/reality they spend virtually the entire year at their 'holiday home' in London, England, like 360 days a year there (and work from 'London office' etc!).

The net result is they use the things tax-payers paid for to their hearts content like street lighting, police, fire brigade, NHS etc but don't pay into the bucket at all on what is in actual fact a technicality.

It's kind of the tax equivelent of a politician getting drunk and killing someone with his Jag, then getting off on a technicality he knew existed before he started drinking ... hardly a nice view into his personality.
 
Last edited:
britboy4321 said:
Rich people can buy a house in a tax haven, declare it as their permanent home and pay virtually no tax for living there or technically conducting business from there. In actual fact/reality they spend virtually the entire year at their 'holiday home' in England, like 360 days a year there (and work from 'London office' etc!)!!
Click to expand...
It still doesn't matter - their income is derived from outside the UK. Any interest they earn in UK banks, investments or salaries get taxed in the UK.

Also, the HMRC do actually investigate how much spend you actually live in the UK, and what your work situation is - not as many people get away with it as you think.

Like I said - if HMRC have no problem with Ashcroft, then nor do I. The second HMRC say he is being dishonest about something, I will go after him with daggers.


The net result is they use the things tax-payers paid for to their hearts content like street lighting, police, fire brigade, NHS etc but don't pay into the bucket at all on what is in actual fact a technicality.
Click to expand...
What? "At all"? You do realise that any income derived in the UK is taxed in the UK, and Ashcroft has kept the HMRC fully informed about the income he derives here, and pays his tax bill like you or I?


The net result is they use the things tax payers paid for like street lighting, police, fire brigade, NHS etc but don't pay into the bucket at all on what is in actual fact a technicality.
Click to expand...
Given that people like Ashcroft are so rich they likely pay more tax than you or I do in ten years just from their UK bank and investment account interest, I don't really see the problem.

Once again, it is the politics and argument of jealousy.


Which isn't fair. And not the kind of character I'd want deciding the countries' legislation.
Click to expand...
Ah, but you'll vote Labour, who have non-doms who (that we know of, there may be more) bankrolling the party to a greater extend than Ashcroft ever has, who also sit in the House of Lords?

The same Labour who have no plans to bring in a rule that says you cannot sit in the Lords if you're a 'non-dom', yet the Conservatives and Lib Dems have pledged to introduce?
 
Last edited:
Why are people voting Conservative over Labour?

unless your really rich ect you would only vote for Conservative as they are only helping people with loads of money or well off people. i'm guessing 99% people here are all working/middle class so isnt Labour the clearest thing to do???

madness..

The amount of things which would be taken away from us now if the Conservative was incharge is crazy.

If Conservative win, watch V for Vendetta and you'll see what ill do to Parliament
 
Hatter The Mad said:
Given that people like Ashcroft are so rich they likely pay more tax than you or I do in ten years just from their UK bank and investment account interest, I don't really see the problem.

Once again, it is the politics and argument of jealousy.
Click to expand...

You really do not see the problem?

The problem - to spell it out - is the government gets less money in, so has to charge YOU AND ME higher taxes to pay for what they want to spend.

YOU and ME are being ripped off by a dodgy bloke using a loop-hole, and you don't see the problem?

Jealousy? No it's not. Your argument is flawed. I pay probably more that TWICE as much tax as someone on 20K per year. If I found a way to only pay half what I do through a dodgy technicality - people under me are rightfully 'allowed' to object without it just being dismissed as 'jealousy' would you not agree?

Otherwise effectively the richer you get, the less people can complain about you doing dodgy stuff as everyone making less is just obviously 'jealous'?!??!?!.

For example if rich-man is drunk driving, hits a kid with his ferrari and kills him, then get off on a technicality he knew of in advance (say diplomatic immunity).. The GOLF owner that saw the accident that complains and rallies to close the loop-hole, you'd dismiss his entire argument as 'He is just jealous of the ferrari mate that's all it's jealousy politics'? Seriously? Incredible.


OK, with the 'gives more than we do in 10 years' comment, I'm interested - how much do you think rich people should be 'allowed' to rip us off through a technicality before you've got objection to it? If a rich person for example only rips us off 10 million quid and spend it on hookers and cocaine is that acceptable to you? 20 million? Is it the richer you get the more acceptable 'using loopholes' becomes, like you suggest? Remember, don't complain about the rich list as by definition that immediately makes you jealous which immediately neutralises any argument you have!!! :\
 
Last edited:
Since 2001, Labour have collected around £72m in donations - same as the Conservatives.

£12,565,000 of the donations to Labour have come from non-doms. There may be more non-doms that we don't know about.

This figure only takes into account big donations (at least 10s of thousands).

Since 2001, the Conservatives have collected around £5,100,000 from Lord Ashcroft. He is the only non-dom Tory Lord and donor that I know of.
 
Last edited:
naffa said:
I reiterate, we're no longer dealing with the Socialist Labour party, we're dealing with the New Labour party.
Click to expand...

Why is it whenever anyone mentions anything bad about labours past it's "oh it's not the same party/people any more!!!"

But then it's all "oh no one remembers how bad it was with the conservatives"

You can't have it both ways.

:confused:
 
Hatter The Mad said:
Since 2001, Labour have collected around £72m in donations - same as the Conservatives.

£12,565,000 of the donations to Labour have come from non-doms. There may be more non-doms that we don't know about.

This figure only takes into account big donations (at least 10s of thousands).

Since 2001, the Conservatives have collected around £5,100,000 from Lord Ashcroft. He is the only non-dom Tory Lord and donor that I know of.
Click to expand...

For the record, are you formally changing your argument from 'I don't mind non-doms' to 'I DO mind non-doms but Labour have more'??
 
britboy4321 said:
You really do not see the problem?

The problem - to spell it out - is the government gets less money in, so has to charge YOU AND ME higher taxes to pay for what they want to spend.

YOU and ME are being ripped off by a dodgy bloke using a loop-hole, and you don't see the problem?
Click to expand...
You still have not explained why you believe that income someone makes in another country, from another economy, from other people, should be taxed in the UK.

Anything he makes in the UK (and he has a number of funds)

All you have done is reeled off made-up anecdotes about "rich" people.

Fyi;

  • Michael A. Ashcroft Associates is still a Ltd in the UK - meaning any money he gets from it is taxed here, and the company pays corporation tax.
  • He was a major shareholder in the Carlisle Group until it merged, again, UK based and taxed.
  • He recently sold British Car Auctions in the UK, netting him £200m. Again, UK based and UK taxed.
  • Ashcroft's main residence is in Belize, where his biggest business interests are (Belize Bank Holdings).

etc, etc


He owns and has holdings in many other businesses worldwide, of course.
 
Hatter The Mad said:
No, I am not.

Are you changing your record from "I do mind non-doms" to "I don't mind them at all, and will vote for a party who is bank-rolled by non-doms and shelters them"?
Click to expand...

Next, if I am making more money than you in real life, is it reasonable for me to assume all your arguments on this board against me are pure 'jealousy politics' and dismiss them as such?
 
Last edited:
britboy4321 said:
Next, if I am making more money than you in real life, is it reasonable for me to assume all your arguments on this board against me are pure 'jealousy politics'?
Click to expand...
Aren't you going to answer my question first? Why is this an interrogation?

Labour receives more non-dom donations from Labour Lords than the Conservatives do from non-dom Tory Lords. Labour have no plans to introduce rules that force Lords to become doms, the Tories and Libs do. By voting Labour, you're voting against what you've been raving about in this thread.
 
Hatter The Mad said:
Aren't you going to answer my question first? Why is this an interrogation?

Labour receives more non-dom donations from Labour Lords than the Conservatives do from non-dom Tory Lords. Labour have no plans to introduce rules that force Lords to become doms, the Tories and Libs do. By voting Labour, you're voting against what you've been raving about in this thread.
Click to expand...
Someone just got owned.
 
According to HMRC, you can register yourself as a non-dom if:

"This is allowed if a resident has provably strong links to another country. "

Obviously, Ashcroft has proved himself to HMRC (as has every other non-dom in this country).
 
Hatter The Mad said:
Aren't you going to answer my question first? Why is this an interrogation?

Labour receives more non-dom donations from Labour Lords than the Conservatives do from non-dom Tory Lords. Labour have no plans to introduce rules that force Lords to become doms, the Tories and Libs do. By voting Labour, you're voting against what you've been raving about in this thread.
Click to expand...

No party fits what I want perfectly. Labour could do better on the non-dom front. I disagree with Labour on this one. I presume this directly answers your question with enough clarification? Perhaps you can do me the same honour?

So, your turn. Are you

1) Pro non-dom (So against the conservatives proposel legislation - why are you voting for them?)

or

2) Anti non-dom (So against Ashcroft - why did you just defend him 5 posts ago?)

?

Bet you a cookie you don't/can't answer the question .. let's see ..

Also if I am making more money than you in real life, is it reasonable for me to assume all your arguments on this board against me are pure 'jealousy politics' and dismiss them as such?
 
britboy4321 said:
So, your turn. Are you

1) Pro non-dom (So anti-conservative stance - why are you voting for them?) or

2) anti non-dom (So against Ashcroft - why did you just defend him?)
Click to expand...

I already answered this. You already knew my position, so why are you asking me again?

britboy4321 said:
For the record, are you formally changing your argument from 'I don't mind non-doms' to 'I DO mind non-doms but Labour have more'??
Click to expand...
Hatter The Mad said:
No, I am not.
Click to expand...

"I don't mind non-doms".

I'm neither "pro" or "anti" non-doms; I don't mind the non-dom tax status at all, as long as HMRC is happy - I am happy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom