Forum menu
Unemployment graph here, I'll leave others to make their own conclusions:
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10604117 ]Graph1[/url]
Currently after Germany we have the lowest levels of unemployment in Europe.
Is this not a silly question on here? 😆
Unemployment graph here, I'll leave others to make their own conclusions:
I'm not arguing against that, just that the established orthodoxy that the tories are good at managing the economy, and labour bad is a myth. There's no real difference between them as far as I can see and certainly isn't a reason on whether to vote for one or the other.
I'm not having Miliband leading the country
Not sure which of the other less rubbish parties I'm going to vote for yet
I don't disagree with help for those who need it, however I have seen overwhelming evidence that this is not how most of it is spent.
I agree. If we had been less helpful to the banking sector, we wouldn't be in this sorry mess.
I don't disagree with help for those who need it, however I have seen overwhelming evidence that this is not how most of it is spent.
Have you hell.
You've seen some benefit scroungers. You've no idea of the actual statistics have you?
Having grown up in a fairly rough area, I know all too well how benefits are spent - on people who can't be bothered to work because it is easier to just have 3 kids.
Far more goes on deserving cases than non-deserving ones. This isn't even controversial. And it should be fairly obvious that cutting benefits to those who need it because other people are abusing the system is pretty shitty.
What rankles the most is that most of them try to justify it through spurious logic of tough-love and 'unfairness' against 'hard working people' rather than just admitting that they don't give a sh*t.
Really? I thought the main reason is that they say Miliband is ugly.
My priority is to my family, and despite the fact that there are other people in the country who need money, I will vote for whoever I think will enable me to provide best for them. I don't work in the public sector or claim benefits, I'm not poor, but I'm a looong way from rich (and have no desire to be); long enough not to be able to afford to vote to the detriment of teamW out of some feeling of benevolence.
I just want someone who wont rock the boat too much, a coalition of opposites or a change every term so it limits the opportunity for any party to FUBAR the UK (although I'm sure some would try given the chance). For this reason, I quite like the lib dems but I fear their ship has sailed.
I'm not poor, but I'm a looong way from rich
You earn (I'm guessing) more than the median income in one of the richest countries in the world.
You're rich.
My postal vote is Tory. Mainly because I want one of the two big parties to win a proper majority so they tale full responsibility for their decisions. Labour won't make much of a showing in my constituency so Tory it is.
You're rich.
Well that means Labour want to **** me into oblivion. The choice is becoming easier.
My priority is to my family, and despite the fact that there are other people in the country who need money, I will vote for whoever I think will enable me to provide best for them.
Mine too. However, if I'm well off enough, a few quid a month won't make a difference and is going to a good cause. If I'm poor enough for a few quid a month to matter, then I should be the receipient of the money rather than the donor.
I realise that I'm not any more important than other people, and since I do okay I'll vote to help those who need it.
Well that means Labour want to **** me into oblivion.
Don't be stupid. Inflammatory rhetoric does no-one any favours.
Well that means Labour want to **** me into oblivion. The choice is becoming easier.
I've lived most of my adult life under a labour government and earning reasonably, and still appear to be ok. But then I'm not tempted to lapse into ridiculous hyperbole.
My priority is to my family, and despite the fact that there are other people in the country who need money, I will vote for whoever I think will enable me to provide best for them.
So why is voting for your family's interests separate to voting for everyone's interests? There's tons of research out there that says more equal societies are more happy societies. By reducing poverty and hopelessness, everyone benefits. or would you rather live in a society like the US or South Africa with gated communities, private security guards, severely mentally ill people and beggars on the streets, people unable to afford basic healthcare etc?
Don't be stupid.
Steady.
Inflammatory rhetoric does no-one any favours.
There's LOADS of far more "Inflammatory rhetoric" on here than I'd manage in 4 pages of posts!
there was still a consensus that the govt should support people through subsidised higher education and other things that helped
You should vote Tory then, more poor go to University now than in the past, more to do to get them to better universities but progress.
Despite fears that the introduction of tuition fees would discourage less wealthy students to apply, the figures show that the poorest young people are now over 10% more likely to go to university than they were last year and a third more likely than five years ago.
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/dec/19/lower-income-students-university-tuition-fees-ucas-admissions-poorer-families ]Guardian article[/url]
That Gove what a tosser, let's post a picture of pob or a cartoon of him trying to shoot down an aeroplane.
a million more pupils are now at schools rated good or outstanding. This title cherishes education. Such success cannot be ignored.
[url= http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/editorials/in-defence-of-liberal-democracy-10224221.html ]Independent editorial[/url]
Could not vote for the Tories. Most of the parties have come out with stuff I find disagreeable but the Tories are the only ones to make me shout obscenities at the radio.
Complete failure to give the slightest crap about the UK housing bubble and increasingly bonkers schemes to prop it, protecting their vested interests whilst damaging the UK's competitiveness.
But then I'm not tempted to lapse into ridiculous hyperbole.
There is plenty on here, that's for sure.
You should vote Tory then, more poor go to University now than in the past, more to do to get them to better universities but progress.
Yes, their tuition fees policy was so badly thought-out, that it has had the opposite effect of what was intended.
Even if I was solely motivated by my own personal wealth, I wouldn't vote Tory. They inherited a weak recovery from Labour, then snuffed it out with over aggressive austerity for two years. They reverted back to Labours slower deficit reduction plan, which gave us very weak growth. To make things look better we had a minor housing bubble inflicted upon us (debt fuelled boom) which was then snuffed out by hints at interest rate rises from the BoE and we're now back to very weak growth for this quarter. They're also offering more aggressive cuts for two years which I fully expect to push us back into recession.
I'd hardly call that best with the economy. GO's one success was from switching from a Tory financial plan to a Labour one. Oh the ironing....
As for rebalancing the economy away from housing debt fuelled bubbles, not one iota of progress!
Edit: just seen [url= http://www.dontbea****ingidiot.uk ]it[/url] on the previous page.
[s]@Pigface, because they spend much more overall and on items which have VAT levied on them. There is no VAT on food (in the UK unlike France, Germany etc), lower rated on gas and electricity. VAT is a very important tax as it raises money from consumption and is paid by visitors too[/s] Because I ignore what the actual facts and the published research states about what % of their income they spend on VAT and just waffle on instead.
FTFY - all the research agrees on it being regressive. There is no way it can be both regressive and the rich pay more. They poay sa lower % of their income on VAT its a fact you can argue with Facts if you like but its pretty foolish
I'd hardly call that best with the economy. GO's one success was from switching from a Tory financial plan to a Labour one. Oh the ironing...
THIS they missed all their targets - blaming the Eurozone iirc then did what Labour planned then declared themselves brilliant and some folk swallowed it
There's LOADS of far more "Inflammatory rhetoric" on here than I'd manage in 4 pages of posts!
Aye, it's not just you! It's everyone.. more's the pity.
everyone want to earn their money, inflate it at an unbelieveable rate through property, pass all of it to their children, draw a full and liveable state pension and live out their days being cared for by 'government' money. There is more than a generation of it and nobody is gonna derail that train
its not sustainable, but there doesnt appear to be a single person who can/will change it.
Yes, their tuition fees policy was so badly thought-out, that it has had the opposite effect of what was intended.
Absolutely unintended consequences
As a result, we estimate that around one quarter of graduates on the lowest incomes will actually pay back less than under the current system. We also expect that around one million students will be eligible for more help with their living costs than at present.
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/education/2010/dec/06/david-willetts-defends-tuition-fees-universities ]Guardian article[/url]
It's weird that you say "actual, useful" jobs because usually what people who are saying that are trying to do is sneer at social workers and legal aid lawyers and the like. But the examples of jobs you gave were being a hereditary farmer and military person - in other words, a government job and a job heavily subsidised by the government. That's not very capitalist!
"...usually what people who are saying that are trying to do is sneer at social workers and legal aid lawyers and the like."
Usually what people who make sweeping, unfounded generalisations such as yours are trying to do is validate their own small-world view by suggesting that opinions that differ from their own could only be held by unfeeling monsters that view the most helpless in society with scorn, derision and contempt. I could list all the social services and public servant type professions that my wife, my family and I either are or have been directly involved with, but seeing how the minds of some on here appear to work I guess that would probably end up looking like a "I'm not racist, some of my best friend's are black" post than the "you couldn't be further from the truth if you tried" post it would be intended as. So let's just say that you couldn't be further from the truth if you tried.
When I say "actual, useful jobs" I mean things like humanitarian efforts such as clearing landmines (outside of his military career) and VSO charity work, serving as a school governor, local business enterprise work, etc. As opposed to being a party apparatchik whose law degree and subsequent appointment to the back offices of national government apparently means he is eminently qualified to advise on policies as wide ranging as Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth, Infrastructure and Capital Investment, Environment and Rural Affairs, Europe and External Relations, and Energy and Climate Change.
Anyway, so what if my preferred candidate is from a farming/forestry/armed forces background? If your local area's economy, culture and population has deeply ingrained ties to a mix of farming/forestry/armed forces then why wouldn't you want someone representing you who has direct, hands-on experience of all those things and more, regardless of what colour tie they wear? I'd rather that than a career pen pusher and "yes" man from my preferred choice of party.
Aye, it's not just you! It's everyone.. more's the pity.
Quite. So why join in? 😉
Absolutely unintended consequences
Quite. Tuition fees were tripled in order to reduce costs. The effect of this policy has been to increase the proportion of unpaid loans to the point where it costs more than the old system.
The proportion of graduates failing to pay back student loans is increasing at such a rate that the Treasury is approaching the point at which it will get zero financial reward from the government's policy of tripling tuition fees to £9,000 a year.
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/mar/21/student-fees-policy-costing-more ]Guardian article[/url]
VAT regressive or Progressive? You can argue it either way - and people are doing exactly that. 😀
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12111507
The proportion of graduates failing to pay back student loans is increasing at such a rate that the Treasury
After a period of low income growth that is hardly surprising, with a recovering economy wage growth will continue thus reducing the problem. It is a long tail liability so short term movements are not necessarily the best indicator. However, the fundamental point is that the poorest have benefited the most as a result of the change. Hence the New Statesman attacking Miliband's proposal to reduce them.
[url= http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/01/reducing-tuition-fees-labour-about-propose-tax-cut-rich ]NS article[/url]
9bn added to public debt just through student loans last year, I cant see how thats gonna end well
outofbreath - Member
VAT regressive or Progressive? You can argue it either way - and people are doing exactly that.
Indeed, but it is neither strictly speaking (we have done this one before). You either have to not understand the terms, or deliberately be misusing them to make that argument
The reasons for the increasing worldwide adoption of VAT are very different and straddle party politics
After a period of low income growth that is hardly surprising, with a recovering economy wage growth will continue thus reducing the problem.
Assuming there are enough jobs with a graduate pay premium to employ all the millions of graduates we are creating. If they majority just end up working in bars and restaurants then we'll not see a return on the investment....
the charts of the deficit would show the Labour legacy was a massive deficit and the period in surplus was very short. The national debt started to spiral out of control under Labour due to the growing deficit and reliance on borrowing
Hmmm ... this chart shows something different ...
You've seen some benefit scroungers. You've no idea of the actual statistics have you?
they're on telly every night, scroungers every single one of them, same as all those immigrants, blocking our motorways and taking our jobs by doing three jobs at once and claiming benefits and sending all the money back home as well as buying up all the tunnock's plain caramel wafers so there's none left for us hard working brits.
statistics, who needs 'em, I know what blessed st nigel says, a breath of fresh air he is, because what this country needs is another public school educated ex city banker millionaire with his snout firmly lodged in the euro expenses trough.
😆
After a period of low income growth that is hardly surprising,
You're right - it was entirely foreseeable. The tories failed to foresee it.
Hey Junkyard, all those other EU countries with VAT on food (5.50% - 8%) those people must be so repressed ?
Never mind published research lets just do some back of the envelope calculations at some income points like £20k, £50k and £100k - then look at impact of welfare payments which are made by the government and effectively pay the VAT on the extra spending above rent/food which are non-VATable
@molgrips - just look at the numbers, its not hard for me to say the overall budget should be better divided. A cap on benefits makes total sense in particular when you think its a net of tax figure. Disability benefit used to be a payment made to disabled people, its become a catch all payment and a way to pay people who are unable work, or so they say.
Total Government spending £750bn - some of the larger items below
Welfare £112bn
NHS £130bn
Pensions £150bn
Education £92bn
Interest on debt £60bn
Defense £43bn
Local Authority spending is £170bn (might double count education but includes Police)
public school educated ex city banker millionaire
You're right, as countries without people like that are doing brilliantly without increasing levels of income equality and fabulous public services and no budget deficits etc etc. The grass is so much greener over there.
Couple of years out of date
[url= https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8512/8361851095_818227afbb_z.jp g" target="_blank">https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8512/8361851095_818227afbb_z.jp g"/> [/img][/url][url= https://flic.kr/p/dJUF1t ]Benefit spending breakdown 2011-2012[/url] by [url= https://www.flickr.com/people/75003318@N00/ ]brf[/url], on Flickr
Hi,
Question for all the responses who said you'd vote Tory. Are any of you on sub £20k, less abled, non UK resident, not heterosexual etc?.
Disability benefit used to be a payment made to disabled people, its become a catch all payment and a way to pay people who are unable work, or so they say.
1) What's the difference between being disabled and being unable to work?
2) So some people lie. Why should that affect actual disabled people?
[img] 
[/img]
Pretty current given the HSBC scandal...
http://www.theweek.co.uk/uk-news/62461/which-is-bigger-the-bill-for-benefit-fraud-or-tax-evasion
Just don't mention Lord Green
[img] 
[/img]
Hmmm ... this chart shows something different ...
It doesn't it shows that Labour were spending too much in the good years, hence ill prepared for the recession that would eventually happen.