Election Issues

[masona]

the best yardstick that i go by is how well off i am with the current government and how happy i am with their policies and i make up my own mind as to how good they are rather than let someone else tell me what they think.

Yes we all think like this but is it right or selfish? It's a bit like saying I'm all right jack sod everybody else! The rich people are more richer with Labour than they was when the Tory was in power. It's always the middle class that suffer. It's very difficult for me to vote for any party at the moment and yet I want to vote. I feel at the moment why should Blair have a another chance?

 

[Richardp]

The rich people are more richer with Labour than they was when the Tory was in power.

Well if thats true I'll not be voteing for the labour party,In the past labour has always supported the poor and conservatives the rich.

 

[masona]

The rich people are more richer with Labour than they was when the Tory was in power.

Well if thats true I'll not be voteing for the labour party,In the past labour has always supported the poor and conservatives the rich.

I read it somewhere but can't remember where perhaps someone can enlighten me with this one, my uncle is a very rich man and even he mention I'm a lot richer under Labour & he will be voting for Labour because of this.

What I seeing now is that the middle class is paying for the rich and the poor.

 

[kendor]

The rich people are more richer with Labour than they was when the Tory was in power.

Well if thats true I'll not be voteing for the labour party,In the past labour has always supported the poor and conservatives the rich.

I read it somewhere but can't remember where perhaps someone can enlighten me with this one, my uncle is a very rich man and even he mention I'm a lot richer under Labour & he will be voting for Labour because of this.

What I seeing now is that the middle class is paying for the rich and the poor.

As before stated, you will not be happy with all a parties policies as they have to look at the big picture, but thats why i use my yardstick as it is the only reliable source for me to go by. it may well be selfish but unfortunately that's life it is up to each individual to guage their own views on the subject and vote accordingly.

 

[masona]

As before stated, you will not be happy with all a parties policies as they have to look at the big picture, but thats why i use my yardstick as it is the only reliable source for me to go by. it may well be selfish but unfortunately that's life it is up to each individual to guage their own views on the subject and vote accordingly.

Yes very true but would you think to form a coalition party would be better where they take the best politician's out of all parties?

 

[pipme]

It has been said that there is a major problem with PR (Proportional Representation) It is that decisions are difficult to come by ... I used to think that a problem, but in the light of overwhelming majorities in the 'first past the post' recent UK Govn's .. I am not so sure.
Perhaps what I am really saying is, I just have no confidence that the continuous meddling with laws and taxes etc are actually bringing the benefits promised .... There really is a feeling out there that the state of the economy is more down to luck and good fortune than the good stewardship of Govn ... I was recently talking to a tax specialist accountant .. he thinks they deffo have the tax situation wrong and again good fortune has been smiling on them .. 'not to last' he reckoned.

 

[masona]

The rich people are more richer with Labour than they was when the Tory was in power.

Well if thats true I'll not be voteing for the labour party,In the past labour has always supported the poor and conservatives the rich.

Found one of them, the gap between the rich and poor in Britain is widening from 2001.

New Labour Watch: Rich getter rich faster under New Labour
The Office for National Statistics in a report on social inequality has shown that the gap between the rich and the poor has risen faster under New Labour than under the Tories. The richest top 1% have seen their wealth double. On average they are now over £700.000 better off. The gap in life expectancy has also widened. New Labour plans to increase the gaps further by taxing the poor more than the rich and also make the poor work longer

 

[AdamW]

What I seeing now is that the middle class is paying for the rich and the poor.

Glad someone else can see this! At launch, it seemed that New Labour was being aimed at the large, traditionally Tory middle class electoral presence. It seems that my (middle class) family and friends have really lost out.

the best yardstick that i go by is how well off i am with the current government

I was just reading one of the "Have your say" things on the BBC website about the Tory plans to abolish stamp duty up to £250K. It made for interesting reading, I noticed that the majority of those against it were from Scotland (where houses are cheap and few people are bothered by the higher rates of stamp duty), and a lot of those FOR it were from London and the Home Counties (where it is pretty much impossible to avoid stamp duty).

It doesn't matter how much of an idealist you are, 99.99% of the population succumb to their instinct of self-preservation at election time. If a party introduced a policy where people called Ken and born before 2005 would become tax exempt, I would not blame you for voting for them!

One man, one vote.
Every man has his price.
So, it is reasonable to say that every vote has a price.

 

[kendor]

As before stated, you will not be happy with all a parties policies as they have to look at the big picture, but thats why i use my yardstick as it is the only reliable source for me to go by. it may well be selfish but unfortunately that's life it is up to each individual to guage their own views on the subject and vote accordingly.

Yes very true but would you think to form a coalition party would be better where they take the best politician's out of all parties?

it's been tried before it doesn't really work, it may allow some papers to go through but 9 times out of 10 disagreements stop anything getting done.
usually they are formed to stop a vote of no confidence from the house when a government no longer has a majority.
it's hard enough with rebels in a party let alone mixing two parties together

 

[kendor]

It has been said that there is a major problem with PR (Proportional Representation) It is that decisions are difficult to come by ... I used to think that a problem, but in the light of overwhelming majorities in the 'first past the post' recent UK Govn's .. I am not so sure.
Perhaps what I am really saying is, I just have no confidence that the continuous meddling with laws and taxes etc are actually bringing the benefits promised .... There really is a feeling out there that the state of the economy is more down to luck and good fortune than the good stewardship of Govn ... I was recently talking to a tax specialist accountant .. he thinks they deffo have the tax situation wrong and again good fortune has been smiling on them .. 'not to last' he reckoned.

good point pip, it's all this arguing in the house to gain ego points in front of the cameras that stops constructiveness being done by any government think how efficient a government could be if that worthless tittle tattle was outlawed. i'm not saying let a government have carte blanche over all issues but a great deal of time is wasted each day by this worthless bun fight.
all mp's are guilty of this.
once a government is elected they should allow them to get on with the job, leave the criticism's till after the term is over.
that's when most inquiries are held in life so same should apply to parliament.

 

[kendor]

The rich people are more richer with Labour than they was when the Tory was in power.

Well if thats true I'll not be voteing for the labour party,In the past labour has always supported the poor and conservatives the rich.

Found one of them, the gap between the rich and poor in Britain is widening from 2001.

New Labour Watch: Rich getter rich faster under New Labour
The Office for National Statistics in a report on social inequality has shown that the gap between the rich and the poor has risen faster under New Labour than under the Tories. The richest top 1% have seen their wealth double. On average they are now over £700.000 better off. The gap in life expectancy has also widened. New Labour plans to increase the gaps further by taxing the poor more than the rich and also make the poor work longer

have you thought that it may be because investment is bringing more returns and the rich had a flying start with more money to invest and make interest on. compared to the poor, so no wonder if there is a bigger gap.
most what you would call "poor" people have no idea about how to look after their money and so tend to not risk investing/saving but choose to spend.

 

[kendor]

What I seeing now is that the middle class is paying for the rich and the poor.

Glad someone else can see this! At launch, it seemed that New Labour was being aimed at the large, traditionally Tory middle class electoral presence. It seems that my (middle class) family and friends have really lost out.

the best yardstick that i go by is how well off i am with the current government

I was just reading one of the "Have your say" things on the BBC website about the Tory plans to abolish stamp duty up to £250K. It made for interesting reading, I noticed that the majority of those against it were from Scotland (where houses are cheap and few people are bothered by the higher rates of stamp duty), and a lot of those FOR it were from London and the Home Counties (where it is pretty much impossible to avoid stamp duty).

It doesn't matter how much of an idealist you are, 99.99% of the population succumb to their instinct of self-preservation at election time. If a party introduced a policy where people called Ken and born before 2005 would become tax exempt, I would not blame you for voting for them!

One man, one vote.
Every man has his price.
So, it is reasonable to say that every vote has a price.

good one Adam! this unfortunately is the current selfish society we live in where one looks after themselves first.
This attitude seems to me to have started when house ownership took off to the masses.
with that millstone around your neck who can blame people from voting who they think will look after them the best.
unfortunately a by product of this attitude is a lessening feeling for one's brothers and sisters less well off than themselves.
I wonder how long a society that bases itself on such values can last until anarchy ensues?
are we so embroiled in society these days that we don't see the reason we created civilisation in the first place to live as a human race. not as competitors against each other, by that i mean shareholders want more profits, accountants want to slimline and make hitting targets harder, god sake we will all end up with heart attacks before the firms we work for are satisfied.
what price civilisation?

 

[david and julie]

Not going to disagree with that(heart attacks)comment kendor, but I would of thought the poor are more interested in what interest they pay rather than what they get. Most of them live from week to week and can't afford to think about investments.

 

[kendor]

Not going to disagree with that(heart attacks)comment kendor, but I would of thought the poor are more interested in what interest they pay rather than what they get. Most of them live from week to week and can't afford to think about investments.

and what little left would probably be spent on baccy and booze, nothing wrong with that, it's their lifestyle and they are entitled to it but it maybe explains the gulf in wealth?
the bit about the heart attacks is closer to home, my brother in law has worked under pressure of targets from his first working day starting off in insurance and progressing to mortgage consultancy, he's fabulously wealthy but has had a scare recently, what use is money when you are dead? and whats more important than his family that he'd leave behind?
i wonder if managers could be held responsible say on manslaughter charges for putting their workers under so much stress? that would be an interesting one if it ever came to court.

 

[pipme]

Hey up guys .. ref 'rich getting richer etc' a different slant :-

If your house is valued at £200k for example, you decide to downsize and utilise cost difference as pension booster so buy £100k the dif shoved in rocket = £100k.

Over a period thereafter, property increases in value by 20% (1/5), the £200k house becomes £240k the £100k becomes £120k dif = £120k, the difference in prices has also increased by 20% ... This is a natural phenomenon using percentage increases ... can lead to some scurrilous usage in stat-talk.