[Closed] anyone on here voting tory. why?

@molgrips, it's just as anecdotal to imply that budget cuts are meaning that the disabled are bearing the brunt of the cuts. I come back to my point that this is real cost of the Labour excesses in the good years, it's become unaffordable to maintain the spending commitments

@jhj, I am all for cracking down on tax evasion. A very big part of the HMRC estimate is jobs done cash in hand which should be both VAT-able and declared for income tax purposes. I love the Aussie approach where they get the mortgage application form of self employed people and ask them why their income declared for tax purposes is different to that on the form. We are very lax here compared to the US and to the French in this regard (those being the two tax regimes I am most familiar with).

hence ill prepared for the recession that would eventually happen.

Ah yes the good old 'not fixing the roof while the sun was shining' chestnut. Ignoring of course that pre-2008 the tories were signed up to match labour's spending plans and were campaigning for tax cuts which would have resulted in an even worse position. These myths and fictions regarding labour's profligacy and the tories supposed frugality have been trawled over in numerous threads so unless there's anything new maybe leave it at that?

Hey Junkyard, all those other EU countries with VAT on food (5.50% - 8%) those people must be so repressed ?

Embarrassing.

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

By any chance does that prove you were correct and negate the published research. What a very odd thing to say.
I really dont understand what you hope that post would prove.

this is real cost of the Labour excesses in the good years, it's become unaffordable to maintain the spending commitments

I am all for cracking down on tax evasion.

@molgrips, it's just as anecdotal to imply that budget cuts are meaning that the disabled are bearing the brunt of the cuts.

That wasn't my point. I was thinking more of the ATOS thing.

https://fullfact.org/economy/labour_government_record_unemployment-31114

I agree. If we had been less helpful to the banking sector, we wouldn't be in this sorry mess.

Don't really feel reading the front page of The Sun makes you an expert.

[img] [/img]

nearly everyone i talk to is voting labour or wasting a vote on ukip,and unless cameroooooooooooon can arrange a war before thursday theyre going to be whooped.

There are at least 26 seats where voting UKIP won't be wasted, or at least according to the Torygraph. But then they may be a tad biased?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/11582796/The-26-seats-where-a-vote-for-Ukip-could-make-Ed-Miliband-prime-minister.html

JHJ _ I have been a good boy and done my own research, unfortunately the only report I can find that might reference your figures is the NAO report which can be found [url= http://www.nao.org.uk/report/hmrc-the-compliance-and-enforcement-programme/ ]here[/url]. But this can't be the one you are referring to because it doesn't contain the figures that are quoted in the diagram.

Cool, you might want to research if this is legit too:

[img] [/img]

Edit:

[url=www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn06265.pdf]This report compiled for parliament seems to support the £70bn annual figure for tax avoidance[/url]

Only skim read, so not sure if it includes the many tax havens under the jurisdiction of the Queen and Privy Council

As it is posted by you I have a 90% confidence level that it is not and as the first statement is wrong I won't bother to look at the rest.

Can you substantiate your claims that the 1st statement is wrong?

Your account seems to contradict what is said here...

http://news.sky.com/story/1446174/coalition-promises-v-what-they-delivered

A least the last comment is accurate

Your account seems to contradict what is said here...

The graph

EDIT: BTW your earlier link doesn't work.

[quote=jivehoneyjive ]Can you substantiate your claims that the 1st statement is wrong?

Do your own research.

Gladly 😉 ... if you check the last post on this thread, you'll see my sources are generally pretty reliable:

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/1400-children-were-subjected-to-appalling-sexual-exploitation-in-rotherham/page/19

anyhoo, back on topic

Direct link to pdf:

www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn06265.pdf

admittedly, it's debated rather than conclusive, but HMRC admit they haven't taken all tax avoidance into account

For example...

Q231 Chair: Am I right in saying that the sort of issues that we were discussing in relation to Starbucks, Amazon and Google … and the tax that could have been payable from those companies is not included, because it is not seen to be within the rules?

Edward Troup: The tax gap that we measure is a compliance tax gap.

Q232 Chair: It does not include that. I am asking whether it includes the Starbucks scenario, the Amazon scenario or the Google scenario.

Edward Troup: It does not include the amounts of tax that some of the commentators have said these companies should pay. That is correct …

Q258 Chair: At the moment … your tax gap is purely the tip of an iceberg.

Jim Harra: Our tax gap is a complete measure of non-compliance with current tax law. It does not include a measure of how much additional tax might be collected if you changed the policy.

At one stage the annual figure for tax avoidance was touted as £120bn...

Have to Tory voters seen this? http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/feb/01/david-cameron-rebuked-over-debt-claims

Ah, a Richard Murphy report, the independent commentator funded by the TUC and Unison.

Have to Tory voters seen this? http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/feb/01/david-cameron-rebuked-over-debt-claims

Sadly he did get it wrong, unfortunately too many politicians and commentators from all sides do this.

[quote=aracer opined]
Do your own research.

Pwned and beautifully so 😆

Glad you admit it Junky...

I kick ass, as usual

8)

back on topic... for at least one post...

I won't be voting Tory as they have a 15% share of the vote where I live which is a Liberal/ Labour marginal seat.

tax evasion /avoidance are the same result--entities not paying their share -at even a low estimate of £70 Billion -then back date that , it runs into amounts that distort the economy to such an extent that every thing else is just meaning less, but the ruling order , have convinced many people that their woes lie at the door of the poor, sick , immigrants, people who have one more room than is deemed essential by people who live in mansions , often with wealth obtained by........tax evasive companies they have relations with......its some trick , i'll give them that....

I won't be voting Tory as they have a 15% share of the vote where I live which is a Liberal/ Labour marginal seat.

You won't be voting Tory because most other people near you won't. Not sure I follow that.

Interesting no one responded to my earlier post.

In a very informal way it demonstrates that Tory voters are on the whole at the higher end of the social stratification ladder/power tree/'haves' camp ...

Whilst there are many non Tory voters in these social and economic status groups, my opinion is they have a more critical view of the world and society and can see what is going on around them - and crucially see what the tory party stands for.

Tory's are all about exclusivity and subscribe wholly to the neo-liberalist agenda of individualisation...their slogan says it all.."hard working working families..." What if you cannot work? Born less able? Didnt get educated? Life opportunities not offered...?

Sorry, but my vote goes to a party that subscribes to inclusivity values, see humans as all the same and understands some people need more help because life can be shit and its not their fault. Not a party that puts responsibility down to the individual and blames everything on their life choices.. That is why the Tory party is still known as the nasty party...

[quote=edenvalleyboy said]their slogan says it all.."hard working working families..."

A phrase used repeatedly by Gordon Brown during his time in Westminster.

Emerging from some British newspapers around 1995,[citation needed] Gordon Brown expressed gratitude to Bob Shrum for suggesting the phrase between 1994 and 1997

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardworking_families

Anyway, carry on.

Allthepies, I see you succumb to the logic of the system.

How come your response is to critise another party, instead of defending what I guess is your Tory vote...that kind of response is a very lame argument - same as the majority of politicians..

I'm not critising anyone, you're the one doing that. I'm just pointing out that the phrase you feel so toxic is one which in not exclusively used by Tory governments.

Any system (communist, capitalist etc) is dependent on productivity. So what is wrong with appealing to, and incentivising those who enable us to have (and pay for) the NHS, social welfare etc?
You say "hard working" and "families" like they're dirty words.......

The Tory use of "hardworking families" is different to Labours use..its all contrxtual, not just a phrase that exists in its own separate space/vacuum..

My point definitely stands still (to all in this thread)...I challenge people to defend their political stance by not simply saying "well so and so did this.."

It shouldn't be about who 'supposedly' did best..imho it should be aboutnaspirational values etc...

Which is why the repeated use of statistics ti argue points is a waste of time. Statistics all depend on who writes/ccommisons them. There is no one definite version of reality so debating statistics I think is a waste of time..

😀
So tory hard working families are different to the hard working families referred to by labour?
It isn't about context, it's about votes. Neither are (or can afford to be) picky about who's they get.
Anyways it'll all be over soon, then whoevers party doesn't succeed can whine and moan about how rubbish things are for the next few years 😀

I am - and the simple reason is that they offer the best deal for me and my family.

In a perfect world, I'd love to take a broader view, but right now with a young family to provide for, the conservatives offer the best for me and seem most closely aligned to my views (not perfect fit by far, but nearer than anyone else).

I am duty bound to provide for my dependents first of all, so that's my reasoning. Flame away!!

Hi wrecker,

My point was that the phrase, in its context, excludes a huge group of people who cannot work..its not used in an inclusive way..a

If you are that poorly off the Tories won't help. If you are doing ok, then you would still do OK under labour, but the really poor people might also do better.

Do you really think your family will actually suffer under labour? I don't just mean a few quid a month on tax.

I am duty bound to provide for my dependents first of all

Molegrips nails why you can do this and also think of others

This is Britain and no one used to starve till the govt introduced sanctions and food bank use rose

Do you really think your family will actually suffer under labour? I don't just mean a few quid a month on tax.

Junkyard - lazarus
This is Britain and no one used to starve till the govt introduced sanctions and food bank use rose

Really was it all perfect? When was this time of utopia?

If we would have been less helpful to the banking sector, we would be in much much more of a mess I'm afraid.

Don't really feel reading the front page of The Sun makes you an expert.

If we had been less helpful to the banking sector, they would've been much less inclined to take risks they couldn't afford.

I expect you'll learn about it when you go to school.

Ah, a Richard Murphy report, the independent commentator funded by the TUC and Unison.

Yes, he's been paid by the TUC to do research for them, I know this because he put his name to it, so hardly a shocking revelation.

How is he wrong, btw?

You won't be voting Tory because most other people near you won't. Not sure I follow that.

You'd be surprised, I"ve lost count of the number of people I've come across who vote according to who they think is going to win. Seems they just want to be on the winning team 😯

and the simple reason is that they offer the best deal for me and my family.

See my comments earlier about being honest about not giving a sh*t. As molly says, it will make very little difference to you, but a huge difference to those dependent on the state. Sorry to sound pious, but if you're happy to swallow more homeless people sleeping on the streets, people going hungry, the disabled and infirm stranded in their homes, persecution of the jobless etc for a few quid more a month in your pocket then fine. Personally I'd rather live in a world where my kids don't ask me questions like 'why is that man sleeping on the pavement in the rain?' or 'why do some people not have enough to eat?'.

If we had been less helpful to the banking sector, they would've been much less inclined to take risks they couldn't afford.

I expect you'll learn about it when you go to school.

Perhaps you should consider who took their main constraints away in May 1997? That was the catalyst for the s**tstorm that followed.

I believe it may have been the same person who told us all "the age of boom & bust is gone" and proceeded to spend the budget surplus he had inherited plus every other penny he could get his hands on. I'm no Tory fan but someone, somewhere within Labour really needs to admit that they really did get it monumentally wrong instead of just pointing at the global recession.

All the time Ed 'the note in the Treasury was just a joke ha ha' Balls is likely to be let loose with the UK finances I can't vote for them again - it actually feels like I'm being asked to vote for the 'least bad' rather than the 'best' option for the UK.

See my comments earlier about being honest about not giving a sh*t. As molly says, it will make very little difference to you, but a huge difference to those dependent on the state. Sorry to sound pious, but if you're happy to swallow more homeless people sleeping on the streets, people going hungry, the disabled and infirm stranded in their homes, persecution of the jobless etc for a few quid more a month in your pocket then fine. Personally I'd rather live in a world where my kids don't ask me questions like 'why is that man sleeping on the pavement in the rain?' or 'why do some people not have enough to eat?'.

Viewing political parties solely in terms of the pennies in your pocket is a failure of imagination, even if we're restricting the argument to purely selfish terms. I want to breathe cleaner air, have better cycling infrastructure, and better public services. That costs money.

I believe it may have been the same person who told us all "the age of boom & bust is gone" and proceeded to spend the budget surplus he had inherited plus every other penny he could get his hands on. I'm no Tory fan but someone, somewhere within Labour really needs to admit that they really did get it monumentally wrong instead of just pointing at the global recession.

This.

So many people have forgotten how much they destroyed the economy. You can't just keep spending your way out of trouble. A return to labour would in fact make everyone worse off in the long term, especially the next generation who will be responsible for paying off our excesses.

Perhaps you should consider who took their main constraints away in May 1997? That was the catalyst for the s**tstorm that followed.

You'll have to explain why you think my comment was aimed at the conservative party.