General Election 2015

[holepuncture]

Having played this game with many friends and colleagues over the last few days:

 

http://ig.ft.com/sites/2014/deficit-calculator/

 

I come to the conclusion that there really is no answer. Click every button and you're not that far ahead of the recommended level of the advisory watchdog. None of us could stretch beyond £30bn without going back. The next few years are going to be brutal for many people. The decades beyond will be game changing.

 

Good luck to you all.

[Coxford_lou]

Seriously, I don't want it to be as reductive as that. Just as executive power cannot be transferred via sword doled out by a watery tart (Michael Palin's words, not mine, take it up with him), we don't really own threads around here. Other posters, that's all the rage. We wear our latest cunning insults as hats. Thread ownage? It's not a custom, and I'm not comfy with being on a shortlist of two decided by a onelist of one when so many others have contributed, on issues that affect all.

 

If there's to be a poll, I think it best if every contributor was included.

 

OK, not intentionally being reductive (just biased), so in the spirit of election fever, how about a poll to vote for best debater on Saintsweb?

[Johnny Bognor]

Having played this game with many friends and colleagues over the last few days:

 

http://ig.ft.com/sites/2014/deficit-calculator/

 

I come to the conclusion that there really is no answer. Click every button and you're not that far ahead of the recommended level of the advisory watchdog. None of us could stretch beyond £30bn without going back. The next few years are going to be brutal for many people. The decades beyond will be game changing.

 

Good luck to you all.

 

i got to 24bn

 

best hope for some economic growth to increase tax receipts

[Hockey_saint]

Meanwhile Caroline Lucas criticises mp's for having 2nd jobs, whilst she devotes every waking hour to serve her electorate (her words, not mine). She must have written her soon to be published book for which she'll make thousands, in her sleep. Most politicians cash in after they are an mp, this so called caring sharing leftie/hypocrite (delete as applicable) couldn't wait to cash in.

 

john Prescott (the union man) having mock Tudor beams fitted to the front of his constituency home., courtesy of the tax payer. That's not very aristocratic is it????

 

labour mp claiming for porn films???

 

I could go on but its not a party thing. It is endemic across all parties and is quite frankly disgusting.

 

But if you want to delude yourself that it is just a Tory thing, crack on. Your people will get richer at your expense.

 

Did I say it was exclusively a Tory thing? I just prefer my hypocritical MP's not to beat up on the poorest in our society because, well, they caused all this financial chaos didn't they?

[Johnny Bognor]

Did I say it was exclusively a Tory thing? I just prefer my hypocritical MP's not to beat up on the poorest in our society because, well, they caused all this financial chaos didn't they?

 

Agreed

 

On another note, the question of more or less benefits papers over the cracks. I would prefer to see a long term cross party strategy that realy changes people's lives. But it won't happen any time soon

Edited 6 May, 2015 by Johnny Bognor

[SuperMikey]

Meanwhile catherine Lucas criticises mp's for having 2nd jobs, whilst she devotes every waking hour to serve her electorate (her words, not mine). She must have written her soon to be published book for which she'll make thousands, in her sleep. Most politicians cash in after they are an mp, this so called caring sharing leftie/hypocrite (delete as applicable) couldn't wait to cash in.

 

This is MP of the Year 2014 Caroline Lucas you're referring to is it? Perhaps she got tips from Liam Fox, Louise Mensch, Boris Johnson, Tristram Hunt and Kwasi Kwarteng on how to write a book while serving as an elected politician? You're right in saying that this kind of thing is endemic but Lucas has actually managed to be an excellent MP as well as finding the time to write a book (which spans the 5 years she's just served as an MP, which suggests the whole thing may not have been written in a week off in Sardinia).

 

I think the larger problem that she was addressing with MPs having "second jobs" is that many are advisors, directors and consultants to large businesses that benefit from government operations - there's a whole section in Owen Jones' excellent book 'The Establishment' that chronicles a few of these tales (seems that this was pretty rife among New Labour MPs especially). Writing a book doesn't quite compare to some of the examples given in the book..

[Lord Duckhunter]

Gordon Brown had a terrible attendance record in the House of Commons , I hope he's not writing a book .

[Wes Tender]

OK, not intentionally being reductive (just biased), so in the spirit of election fever, how about a poll to vote for best debater on Saintsweb?

 

 

Pap's a master debator. At least I think that's what I heard.

[Jonnyboy]

Having played this game with many friends and colleagues over the last few days:

 

http://ig.ft.com/sites/2014/deficit-calculator/

 

I come to the conclusion that there really is no answer. Click every button and you're not that far ahead of the recommended level of the advisory watchdog. None of us could stretch beyond £30bn without going back. The next few years are going to be brutal for many people. The decades beyond will be game changing.

 

Good luck to you all.

 

None of that takes into account increased revenues from increased economic growth though?

 

...anyways we need new ways of looking at money:

http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/green-party-monetary-policy-ahead.html

[Hockey_saint]

Agreed

 

On another note, the question of more or less benefits papers over the cracks. I would prefer to see a long term cross party strategy that realy changes people's lives. But it won't happen any time soon

 

I see what you did there!.....Naughty.

 

I am just saying, as a compassionate person, I will not vote for a party who, whenever they need to make a cut, they take straight from the poorest in society.

[Johnny Bognor]

I see what you did there!.....Naughty.

 

I am just saying, as a compassionate person, I will not vote for a party who, whenever they need to make a cut, they take straight from the poorest in society.

 

i do agree with you that the poorest/most vulnerable are not to blame. They are in essence victims.

 

But it is all too often easy to blame our financial woes on the banks. Don't get me wrong, they don't get off Scott free. Well actually they have. I would have liked to see a few of the ****ers behind bars. But there is more to it than just the banks...

 

New labour have to shoulder some of the blame as it was on their watch.

 

But we all have to take responsibility. For banks to lend irresponsibly, it takes people to borrow irresponsibly. It is easy to blame capitalism, but what happened with the banks wasn't capitalism. We were in a consumer debt fuelled boom. Despite what Gordon brown said, there was always going to be a crash.

 

A big part part of the problem for me, is consumerism. Borrowing money and taking out finance to have the latest tv, phone, car, clothes, etc etc. it is our collective lust to have the latest thing and borrow what we can't afford in order to have it.

 

For me, consumerism is the root cause. Our collective national greed. So we're all to blame at the end of the day. It's not right that the poorest have to pay. But we all need to take a long hard look at ourselves.

 

until we move away from consumerism, it will be a car crash waiting to happen again... And again.... And again. Until we learn.

 

i want future economic prosperity built on creating things, not borrowing money to buy things to satisfy our collective consumerism lust. Until that happens, we will go round in circles.

 

political change in the short term may help in the short term, but until society fundamentally changes, things won't get better for the poor. Taxing the rich or cutting this that or the other , for me, doesn't tackle the root cause., but merely papers over the cracks. Whoever wins tomorrow, we'll be having the same conversation in 5 years time.

Edited 6 May, 2015 by Johnny Bognor

[shurlock]

i do agree with you that the poorest/most vulnerable are not to blame. They are in essence victims.

 

But it is all too often easy to blame our financial woes on the banks. Don't get me wrong, they don't get off Scott free. Well actually they have. I would have liked to see a few of the ****ers behind bars. But there is more to it than just the banks...

 

New labour have to shoulder some of the blame as it was on their watch.

 

But we all have to take responsibility. For banks to lend irresponsibly, it takes people to borrow irresponsibly. It is easy to blame capitalism, but what happened with the banks wasn't capitalism. We were in a consumer debt fuelled boom.

 

A big part part of the problem for me, is consumerism. Borrowing money and taking out finance to have the latest tv, phone, car, clothes, etc etc. it is our collective lust to have the latest thing and borrow what we can't afford in order to have it.

 

For me, consumerism is the root cause. Our collective national greed. So we're all to blame at the end of the day.

 

A rather crusty critique. You'll be voting green next. it arguably misses the bigger picture. Check the discussion of global imbalances -what emerges is that countries like the UK have been forced to run up large deficits -in effect, generating demand for the rest of the world. Without this demand, the engines driving the global economy would be stuttering and spluttering, if they're not already. There are no saints in this -if the Germans and Chinese, the proverbial 'makers of things', saved less and spent more, biases that are hard wired into their economies, perhaps we wouldn't have to do as much heavy lifting. Alas, consumerism is bit of a red herring.

Edited 7 May, 2015 by shurlock

[whelk]

OK, not intentionally being reductive (just biased), so in the spirit of election fever, how about a poll to vote for best debater on Saintsweb?

 

I think a big problem in our modern culture is the desire for comparisons, lists and polls. Buzzfeed generation need for lists and stats.

 

No doubt SSN will have a poll tomorrow as to whether Messi is greatest player of all time v Pele etc. and the hashtag will show an overwhelming win for.......wait for it....Messi. Definitive answer at last!

 

Sorry I digressed a bit.

Edited 7 May, 2015 by whelk

[CB Fry]

Meanwhile Caroline Lucas criticises mp's for having 2nd jobs, whilst she devotes every waking hour to serve her electorate (her words, not mine). She must have written her soon to be published book for which she'll make thousands, in her sleep. Most politicians cash in after they are an mp, this so called caring sharing leftie/hypocrite (delete as applicable) couldn't wait to cash in.

 

 

I could go on but its not a party thing. It is endemic across all parties and is quite frankly disgusting.

 

But if you want to delude yourself that it is just a Tory thing, crack on. Your people will get richer at your expense.

 

Don't most people write their first books in their spare time?

 

If your outrage radar is going into overdrive over someone writing a book (specifically about their experiences as an MP) then I think you might be just a wee bit delicate for this politics lark, and you'll be unlikely to ever find anyone to vote for. Dennis Skinner might just about do you right.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

OK, not intentionally being reductive (just biased), so in the spirit of election fever, how about a poll to vote for best debater on Saintsweb?

 

Best certainly can't be Pap, he never answers any questions that are at least a little bit difficult to answer, instead resulting to insults. At least some of the others debate, instead of posting rubbish and then putting his fingers in his ears and shouting 'Selfish Tory ****s' when people call him out on it!

 

Ex Lion Tamer, Torres or Johnny Bognor for me.

[Ex Lion Tamer]

i do agree with you that the poorest/most vulnerable are not to blame. They are in essence victims.

 

But it is all too often easy to blame our financial woes on the banks. Don't get me wrong, they don't get off Scott free. Well actually they have. I would have liked to see a few of the ****ers behind bars. But there is more to it than just the banks...

 

New labour have to shoulder some of the blame as it was on their watch.

 

But we all have to take responsibility. For banks to lend irresponsibly, it takes people to borrow irresponsibly. It is easy to blame capitalism, but what happened with the banks wasn't capitalism. We were in a consumer debt fuelled boom. Despite what Gordon brown said, there was always going to be a crash.

 

A big part part of the problem for me, is consumerism. Borrowing money and taking out finance to have the latest tv, phone, car, clothes, etc etc. it is our collective lust to have the latest thing and borrow what we can't afford in order to have it.

 

For me, consumerism is the root cause. Our collective national greed. So we're all to blame at the end of the day. It's not right that the poorest have to pay. But we all need to take a long hard look at ourselves.

 

until we move away from consumerism, it will be a car crash waiting to happen again... And again.... And again. Until we learn.

 

i want future economic prosperity built on creating things, not borrowing money to buy things to satisfy our collective consumerism lust. Until that happens, we will go round in circles.

 

political change in the short term may help in the short term, but until society fundamentally changes, things won't get better for the poor. Taxing the rich or cutting this that or the other , for me, doesn't tackle the root cause., but merely papers over the cracks. Whoever wins tomorrow, we'll be having the same conversation in 5 years time.

 

I agree with most of this, but there's another way of looking at it. People are used to their incomes growing year on year, or at least holding steady, particularly when the economy is healthy. It's very hard to scale down a lifestyle that you're used to.

 

What's actually happened is average wages have been stagnant as a share of GDP since the 1980s, with the proceeds of growth going to the richest. Governments have papered over this problem by making it easier to get into debt rather than addressing the real problem of inequality.

 

Shareholder capitalism is failing people. I'm not really sure what the solution is but it's a huge issue.

Edited 7 May, 2015 by Ex Lion Tamer

[Johnny Bognor]

A rather crusty critique. You'll be voting green next. it arguably misses the bigger picture. Check the discussion of global imbalances -what emerges is that countries like the UK have been forced to run up large deficits -in effect, generating demand for the rest of the world. Without this demand, the engines driving the global economy would be stuttering and spluttering, if they're not already. There are no saints in this -if the Germans and Chinese, the proverbial 'makers of things', saved less and spent more, biases that are hard wired into their economies, perhaps we wouldn't have to do as much heavy lifting. Alas, consumerism is bit of a red herring.

 

I agree in part, from a government point of view in relation to global imbalances. It is a major problem. On a micro level, tHere are a number of things the government could do to encourage businesses who are net exporters, rather than treat them the same as net importers. Don't see any party doing things along these lines. Increasing/reducing tax and or benefits is so short sighted and as I say, papers over the cracks.

 

But you are missing my point. We as individuals have choice. If we choose to buy foreign goods, it further excentuates the problem. I don't have to buy a German car. I could buy one made in the UK. I don't have to holiday abroad. Etc etc. it's all too easy to blame a government, but we as individuals, blinded by consumerism, are part of the problem, not the solution. It's even worse, when we are doing it with money we don't have.

 

Oh, I never go on about the "makers of things". There is a big difference to the "creators of things". Britains future lies in design and entrepreneurship, because that's where the money's at. We can leave the Germans, Chinese et al to make the things we create.

 

all the main parties go on about vision, but the only vision they really have is getting themselves elected.

 

So aside of refocusing our economy on creating things, how do you suggest we get out of this mess??? Carry on as usual??

Edited 7 May, 2015 by Johnny Bognor

[Johnny Bognor]

Don't most people write their first books in their spare time?

 

If your outrage radar is going into overdrive over someone writing a book (specifically about their experiences as an MP) then I think you might be just a wee bit delicate for this politics lark, and you'll be unlikely to ever find anyone to vote for. Dennis Skinner might just about do you right.

 

theres nothing wrong with writing a book, but if you are criticising others for cashing in, whilst you're devoting "all of your waking hours to the electorate", when you're cashing in too, just seems a little hypocritical.

 

I would prefer her to write her book after retiring from politics, it would make her less of a hypocrite.

 

and when the likes of John Prescott, supposedly sticking up for the working class, with his snout firmly embedded in the trough, it makes me sick. The lefties are quick to criticise the Tory mp's, meanwhile they are being betrayed by their own. How any leftie cannot see this and even worse defend this, is beyond me.

Edited 7 May, 2015 by Johnny Bognor

[CB Fry]

theres nothing wrong with writing a book, but if you are criticising others for cashing in, whilst you're devoting "all of your waking hours to the electorate", when you're cashing in too, just seems a little hypocritical.

 

I would prefer her to write her book after retiring from politics, it would make her less of a hypocrite.

Has she accused other MPs of cashing in? Genuinely no idea of what she has said on it.

 

And I'll refer you to my previous post if writing an unquestionably dull book for a liberal independent publisher is "cashing in" to you.

[Johnny Bognor]

Has she accused other MPs of cashing in? Genuinely no idea of what she has said on it.

 

And I'll refer you to my previous post if writing an unquestionably dull book for a liberal independent publisher is "cashing in" to you.

 

on a local political programme she appeared with several of the souths MP's. The topic of second jobs came up. She was highly critical, taking the moral high ground claiming that she devotes all waking hours to her constituents. When the presenter brought out a copy of her new book, she looked quite ridiculous.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

theres nothing wrong with writing a book, but if you are criticising others for cashing in, whilst you're devoting "all of your waking hours to the electorate", when you're cashing in too, just seems a little hypocritical.

 

I would prefer her to write her book after retiring from politics, it would make her less of a hypocrite.

 

and when the likes of John Prescott, supposedly sticking up for the working class, with his snout firmly embedded in the trough, it makes me sick. The lefties are quick to criticise the Tory mp's, meanwhile they are being betrayed by their own. How any leftie cannot see this and even worse defend this, is beyond me.

 

Of course they can't see it, their heads are always so far up their own pompous, judgemental arses they can't see a ****ing thing.

 

[CB Fry]

on a local political programme she appeared with several of the souths MP's. The topic of second jobs came up. She was highly critical, taking the moral high ground claiming that she devotes all waking hours to her constituents. When the presenter brought out a copy of her new book, she looked quite ridiculous.

Fair enough, although I see no cashing in or hypocrisy personally.

 

If that's your outrage benchmark then you'll have a pretty miniscule pool of MPs to pick from.

[Johnny Bognor]

Fair enough, although I see no cashing in or hypocrisy personally.

 

If that's your outrage benchmark then you'll have a pretty miniscule pool of MPs to pick from.

 

Oh theres plent. Tory and labour. It's one of the reasons, I can't bring myself to vote for any of them. But the Green Party are the most hypocritical.

 

They expect us to be frugal on a personal level, whilst their policies require extravagent spending on a national level.

 

That is what turns me off most about the Greens. I look at them and see middle-class, materially comfortable, self-righteous hypocrites. I have no doubt that few of them would survive in the wilderness, which is where their policies would take us.

[shurlock]

I agree in part, from a government point of view in relation to global imbalances. It is a major problem. On a micro level, tHere are a number of things the government could do to encourage businesses who are net exporters, rather than treat them the same as net importers. Don't see any party doing things along these lines. Increasing/reducing tax and or benefits is so short sighted and as I say, papers over the cracks.

 

But you are missing my point. We as individuals have choice. If we choose to buy foreign goods, it further excentuates the problem. I don't have to buy a German car. I could buy one made in the UK. I don't have to holiday abroad. Etc etc. it's all too easy to blame a government, but we as individuals, blinded by consumerism, are part of the problem, not the solution. It's even worse, when we are doing it with money we don't have.

 

Oh, I never go on about the "makers of things". There is a big difference to the "creators of things". Britains future lies in design and entrepreneurship, because that's where the money's at. We can leave the Germans, Chinese et al to make the things we create.

 

all the main parties go on about vision, but the only vision they really have is getting themselves elected.

 

By makers, I also implied 'creation', a reference to the maker movement. No big deal - you can switch creators for makers and the point is virtually the same.

 

Mmm. Not sure you really understand the idea of global imbalances and what it implies for the UK economy and the deficit, so won't belabour things. Suffice to say one element is that surplus countries -in the past China but increasingly Germany- have intervened quite significantly in markets to keep their currencies weak and make exports super-competitive. Ordinarily a currency should appreciate when a country exports more than it imports; but this has not happened, leading to accusations of currency manipulation. The corollary is obvious: why should we buy British when imports are so (artificially) cheap?

Edited 7 May, 2015 by shurlock

[Torres]

That is what turns me off most about the Greens. I look at them and see middle-class, materially comfortable, self-righteous hypocrites. I have no doubt that few of them would survive in the wilderness, which is where their policies would take us.

 

And worst of all, Louise Bennett walks like John Wayne. Keep a look out today for the footage of her swaggering into the polling station like she's just ridden into town on a 17hh stallion.

[buctootim]

Having played this game with many friends and colleagues over the last few days:

 

http://ig.ft.com/sites/2014/deficit-calculator/

 

I come to the conclusion that there really is no answer. Click every button and you're not that far ahead of the recommended level of the advisory watchdog. None of us could stretch beyond £30bn without going back. The next few years are going to be brutal for many people. The decades beyond will be game changing.

 

Good luck to you all.

 

Thats a very selective list which leaves out big big areas of expenditure like pensions. If you cut by 7% across the board instead of having sacred cows

you would get to £50bn. That said if the UK economy grows by 2.5% pa over the next five years its will add £200bn. With government tax take of around 36% that is another £72bn by doing nothing - much preferable to plunging us back into recession by taking too much money out of the economy too quickly.

[Johnny Bognor]

By makers, I also implied 'creation', a reference to the maker movement. No big deal - you can switch creators for makers and the point is virtually the same.

 

Mmm. Not sure you really understand the idea of global imbalances and what it implies for the UK economy and the deficit, so won't belabour things. Suffice to say one element is that surplus countries -in the past China but increasingly Germany- have intervened quite significantly in markets to keep their currencies weak and make exports super-competitive. Ordinarily a currency should appreciate when a country exports more than it imports; but this has not happened, leading to accusations of currency manipulation. The corollary is obvious: why should we buy British when imports are so (artificially) cheap?

 

My business is a net exporter. We create products and services that we sell to the rest of the world. If we had a change of mentality, whereby we nuture and encourage this on a national scale, it would 'import' wealth. It might not solve all of our problems, but it would go some way to making our economy stronger.

 

But like most lefties on here, you didn't come up with any solutions to make things better. It is OK to sit on the sidelines and snipe at others, without offering practical solutions yourself.

I have offered many across this debate, so I'll chuck in another one for good measure...

 

Rather than add or take away 1% on corporation tax, how about reducing employers NI, which is effectively a tax on employing people??? If you want to encourage business to create more jobs, don't tax them on it. I cannot fathom why Labour want to **** about with rates (by reversing the corporation tax reduction), when they claim to stand up for working people. Here is a simple measure that is easy to implement and would incentivise / reward businesses to employ more people.

 

Over to you to hear your suggestions on how we can make the world a better place, with anticipation .......

Edited 7 May, 2015 by Johnny Bognor

[View From The Top]

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/commentisfree/2015/may/07/labour-risks-failing-the-english-just-like-it-did-the-scottish?CMP=share_btn_tw

[trousers]

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/commentisfree/2015/may/07/labour-risks-failing-the-english-just-like-it-did-the-scottish?CMP=share_btn_tw

 

Of course, Labour had already made the massive tactical error of standing shoulder to shoulder with the Conservatives in Better Together, during the seismic referendum campaign. This greatly hastened a secular decline, giving generations of Scottish leftists the excuse to jump ship.

 

I hear this cited a lot as to why Labour's support has collapsed in Scotland, but can someone explain to me how two pro-UK parties were supposed to campaign during the separation referendum if it wasn't in some form of collaboration? Just because two parties share the same goal on one thing doesn't mean they share they same goal on everything else. It was a single issue referendum and both main UK parties wanted the same outcome.

[pap]

My business is a net exporter. We create products and services that we sell to the rest of the world. If we had a change of mentality, whereby we nuture and encourage this on a national scale, it would 'import' wealth. It might not solve all of our problems, but it would go some way to making our economy stronger.

 

But like most lefties on here, you didn't come up with any solutions to make things better. It is OK to sit on the sidelines and snipe at others, without offering practical solutions yourself.

I have offered many across this debate, so I'll chuck in another one for good measure...

 

Rather than add or take away 1% on corporation tax, how about reducing employers NI, which is effectively a tax on employing people??? If you want to encourage business to create more jobs, don't tax them on it. I cannot fathom why Labour want to **** about with rates (by reversing the corporation tax reduction), when they claim to stand up for working people. Here is a simple measure that is easy to implement and would incentivise / reward businesses to employ more people.

 

Over to you to hear your suggestions on how we can make the world a better place, with anticipation .......

 

I don't think you've really understood what this is about. You're an exporter. Big whoop. So am I. When you've finished absorbing that fact, perhaps you'll come back to this thread and realise it was about a general election that happened a few years ago.

[Verbal]

I hear this cited a lot as to why Labour's support has collapsed in Scotland, but can someone explain to me how two pro-UK parties were supposed to campaign during the separation referendum if it wasn't in some form of collaboration? Just because two parties share the same goal on one thing doesn't mean they share they same goal on everything else.

 

I don't think you grasp how toxic deeply the Tories are in Scotland. Labour's campaign during the referendum was outwardly lethargic, largely for this reason. They hoped the Scots would vote no without too much of a campaign so that it wouldn't make them appear as if they were canoodling with the Bullingdon boys.

[shurlock]

Edit

Edited 7 May, 2015 by shurlock

[trousers]

I don't think you grasp how toxic deeply the Tories are in Scotland. Labour's campaign during the referendum was outwardly lethargic, largely for this reason. They hoped the Scots would vote no without too much of a campaign so that it wouldn't make them appear as if they were canoodling with the Bullingdon boys.

 

I do indeed grasp how toxic the Tories are in Scotland. However, it's a shame that the anti-Tory brigade then decided that Labour instantly inherited said toxicity just because they happen to share the same pro-UK stance as the Tories. Sounds like cutting-off-nose-to-spite face territory to me.

[Johnny Bognor]

I don't think you've really understood what this is about. You're an exporter. Big whoop. So am I. When you've finished absorbing that fact, perhaps you'll come back to this thread and realise it was about a general election that happened a few years ago.

 

Errr, aren't general elections about policy and where 'we' are going??

 

Too many on this thread are blinkered by out dated party allegencies, slagging one or the other side off. Too happy to play the political game. Get turned on by the mud slinging (granted I get suckered into the mud slinging from time to time), but I genuinly like to debate policies. There are so many common sense policies that the main parties seem to be missing. Is it not right to debate these? Is it not right to suggest alternatives and debate them sensibly?

 

It's either that, or going back to the usual you ****ing leftie **** ****.

 

So come on Pap. Do you think labours pledge to reverse the cut in corporation tax and reduce business rates will help the working man or less advantaged in society? I happen to think the suggestion to cut Employers NI would be far more constructive. I also think I am right in questionning why none of the main parties could pick a simple vote winner.

[Torres]

I happen to think the suggestion to cut Employers NI would be far more constructive. I also think I am right in questionning why none of the main parties could pick a simple vote winner.

 

Tax cut for rich big business, init?

[pap]

Errr, aren't general elections about policy and where 'we' are going??

 

Too many on this thread are blinkered by out dated party allegencies, slagging one or the other side off. Too happy to play the political game. Get turned on by the mud slinging (granted I get suckered into the mud slinging from time to time), but I genuinly like to debate policies. There are so many common sense policies that the main parties seem to be missing. Is it not right to debate these? Is it not right to suggest alternatives and debate them sensibly?

 

It's either that, or going back to the usual you ****ing leftie **** ****.

 

So come on Pap. Do you think labours pledge to reverse the cut in corporation tax and reduce business rates will help the working man or less advantaged in society? I happen to think the suggestion to cut Employers NI would be far more constructive. I also think I am right in questionning why none of the main parties could pick a simple vote winner.

 

Yeah, you are supposed to be discussing the policies you are voting for, not using the thread as some sounding board for half-baked political ideas and the odd go at whatever Labour is doing. You're also mistaken in your assertion that left and right screaming at each other is the only sort of political discourse.

 

What I've found telling, throughout, is that those planning to vote (or have already voted) Conservative today have so little to vote for, that this ("wah, there are no good policies") is the result.

 

A Labour voter can go out and vote to end to the bedroom tax today and kill the vast majority of zero hours contracts, giving anyone presently on one a great deal more economic certainty. Those are simple vote winners that'll appeal to people. They're just being floated by a party you don't like, hence the Johnny Bognor bullshít and plate-spinning act.

[Johnny Bognor]

Tax cut for rich big business, init?

 

Tax can be used as a stick or it can be used as a carrot. Labour are proposing to increase corporation tax and use this to fund a reduction in rates. Hardly a tax cut. It is just tinkering. Why not use the tax system to influence behaviour for the greater good? Why not reduce employers NI for businesses, say with less than 10 employees. Hardly helping the rich...

[buctootim]

Im off to vote though Im not sure why - one of the safest seats in the country.

[buctootim]

Tax can be used as a stick or it can be used as a carrot. Labour are proposing to increase corporation tax and use this to fund a reduction in rates. Hardly a tax cut. It is just tinkering. Why not use the tax system to influence behaviour for the greater good? Why not reduce employers NI for businesses, say with less than 10 employees. Hardly helping the rich...

 

If you increased corporation tax and reduced employers NI so that the change was tax neutral for businesses, but an incentive to employ more people, surely that would be a good thing?

[sadoldgit]

I have just voted although up until today I wasn't going to bother. I am in a safe Tory seat but want to do my bit to unseat them if I can.

I was talking to Mrs SOG about this year's campaign last night and neither of us can but a cigarette paper between Cameron, Clegg and Miliband. They all look the same, they all sound the same. They are all squabbling over the middle ground. God help us whoever gets in although I think we are in for another coalition.

[hypochondriac]

Personally I'm hoping whoever comes in reduces business rates for nurseries. Both parties have spoken about it but done nothing and the proposed rising of "free" childcare rates (that aren't free) are going to ruin nurseries.

[Smirking_Saint]

Im off to vote though Im not sure why - one of the safest seats in the country.

 

I feel the same, a deeply liberal seat, and tbh I think usually they manage the area quite well however Im completely opposed to the building plans. Not that I think a vote in either other direction is going to matter one iota but if I dont vote I may aswell complaign to a brick wall

Edited 7 May, 2015 by Smirking_Saint

[Johnny Bognor]

Yeah, you are supposed to be discussing the policies you are voting for, not using the thread as some sounding board for half-baked political ideas and the odd go at whatever Labour is doing. You're also mistaken in your assertion that left and right screaming at each other is the only sort of political discourse.

 

What I've found telling, throughout, is that those planning to vote (or have already voted) Conservative today have so little to vote for, that this ("wah, there are no good policies") is the result.

 

I question the policy. On NI, neither the tories or labour are doing anything. So I question the tories too.

 

When I go on about corruption, I may appear to attack Labour, often in response to attacks on the tories. But I have and will bash both sides. As the forum is too left leaning, I like to dilute that somewhat.

 

I am not restricted to one party based on entrenched political beliefs. I used to vote blind on party lines, but as I have got older, I look at the policies of all parties. Some of them I like. Some of them I don't. Whether that be left or right. But for me, there is no clear winner who gets my vote. So I am one of those disenfranchised voters. Dave represents me no more than Ed respresents you, or Clegg who doesn't represent anyone.

 

A Labour voter can go out and vote to end to the bedroom tax today and kill the vast majority of zero hours contracts, giving anyone presently on one a great deal more economic certainty. Those are simple vote winners that'll appeal to people. They're just being floated by a party you don't like, hence the Johnny Bognor bullshít and plate-spinning act.

 

But zero hours contracts are not all bad. They can be very popular with the people on them. Some whole industries are reliant on them. There is no doubt they need reforming, but kill the majority of them?

 

As for bedroom tax, I am not in favour of it as it is targeted at the more vulnerable. If anything, it should be applied to home owners. If you live in a house which is bigger than you need, then you are consuming valuable housing stock and can afford to pay more. Schemes like the rent-a-room scheme are a good idea as it doesn't clobber people, who want to make a bit on the side, whilst helping to alleviate the housing crisis.

 

So on those two polices, I disagree on one and agree with them on the other. When I go through all of the policies for all of the parties, I am left in a position where I can't vote for any of them.

Edited 7 May, 2015 by Johnny Bognor

[Johnny Bognor]

If you increased corporation tax and reduced employers NI so that the change was tax neutral for businesses, but an incentive to employ more people, surely that would be a good thing?

 

Exactly. But the "party for business" and the "party for the working people" have missed it completely.

[pap]

I question the policy. On NI, neither the tories or labour are doing anything. So I question the tories too.

 

When I go on about corruption, I may appear to attack Labour, often in response to attacks on the tories. But I have and will bash both sides. As the forum is too left leaning, I like to dilute that somewhat.

 

I am not restricted to one party based on entrenched political beliefs. I used to vote blind on party lines, but as I have got older, I look at the policies of all parties. Some of them I like. Some of them I don't. Whether that be left or right. But for me, there is no clear winner who gets my vote. So I am one of those disenfranchised voters. Dave represents me no more than Ed respresents you, or Clegg who doesn't represent anyone.

 

 

 

But zero hours contracts are not all bad. They can be very popular with the people on them. Some whole industries are reliant on them. There is no doubt they need reforming, but kill the majority of them?

 

As for bedroom tax, I am not in favour of it as it is targeted at the more vulnerable. If anything, it should be applied to home owners. If you live in a house which is bigger than you need, then you are consuming valuable housing stock and can afford to pay more. Schemes like the rent-a-room scheme are a good idea as it doesn't clobber people, who want to make a bit on the side, whilst helping to alleviate the housing crisis.

 

So on those two polices, I disagree on one and agree with them on the other.

 

The only acceptable use of zero contracts is in a one-off or cyclical event. As a usual contract of employment, they're indefensible.

[Torres]

Tax can be used as a stick or it can be used as a carrot. Labour are proposing to increase corporation tax and use this to fund a reduction in rates. Hardly a tax cut. It is just tinkering. Why not use the tax system to influence behaviour for the greater good? Why not reduce employers NI for businesses, say with less than 10 employees. Hardly helping the rich...

 

I'm with you entirely, JB. My point is that any party that promised to cut employer's NI would risk being childishly portrayed by the opposition or critics within their own party as giving a tax cut to big, rich business. It's the same with the top rate of income tax - despite it being known that a 50%+ top rate of tax actually decreases tax revenue, it sounds "equitable" or "fair" and so is championed by many on the left. Sadly, so much of politics is now about managing perceptions and controlling the narrative rather than real, effective policy.

Edited 7 May, 2015 by Torres

[pap]

I'm with you entirely, JB. My point is that any party that promised to cut employer's NI would risk being childishly portrayed as giving a tax cut to big, rich business. It's the same with the top rate of income tax - despite it being known that a 50% top rate of tax actually decreases tax revenue, it sounds "equitable" or "fair" and so is championed by many on the left. Sadly, so much of politics is now about managing perceptions and controlling the narrative rather than real, effective policy.

 

You're both missing a huge point, which is if we collected the correct rate of corporation tax, from everybody, we'd likely not need to raise it.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Yeah, you are supposed to be discussing the policies you are voting for, not using the thread as some sounding board for half-baked political ideas and the odd go at whatever Labour is doing. You're also mistaken in your assertion that left and right screaming at each other is the only sort of political discourse.

 

What I've found telling, throughout, is that those planning to vote (or have already voted) Conservative today have so little to vote for, that this ("wah, there are no good policies") is the result.

 

A Labour voter can go out and vote to end to the bedroom tax today and kill the vast majority of zero hours contracts, giving anyone presently on one a great deal more economic certainty. Those are simple vote winners that'll appeal to people. They're just being floated by a party you don't like, hence the Johnny Bognor bullshít and plate-spinning act.

 

The economic certainty of nothing, is certainly better than the economic uncertainty of something isn't it?

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Personally I'm hoping whoever comes in reduces business rates for nurseries. Both parties have spoken about it but done nothing and the proposed rising of "free" childcare rates (that aren't free) are going to ruin nurseries.

 

What happens with the 15 hours free, how do you get that subsidised?

[Johnny Bognor]

The only acceptable use of zero contracts is in a one-off or cyclical event. As a usual contract of employment, they're indefensible.

 

But many people work in one-off events, cyclical events or industries where a flexible workforce is needed. Students want flexible work to fit round their studies. Zero hour contracts work in these instances. But yes, they are open to exploitation and without doubt need reforming. But banning them completely will just mean that employers use agency staff. So it doesn't solve the issue and pushes up employer costs. I personally think "internships" are a more expoitative. Offering "experience" in return for working for nothing.