The 2015 Popularity Contest (aka UK General Election )

[Bruce Wayne]

It's not as simple as that though - this article sums it up well. Bigger financial burden due to economic conditions. There's a table at the bottom which lists in order of % cut each council, look at positions of Labour and Tory run councils.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/...l-cuts-north-loses-out-to-the-south-newcastle

If you think about what that actually means though. Less tax should ordinarily mean that you have more of your own money to spend on the things you want, rather than on what politicians think you want. That is of course, unless you strongly advocate taking money from other people to spend on things you want.

I mean how would you feel if Tesco doubled prices because they were 'investing in services'? In most walks of life if you can get better services for less money, that's generally a good thing, but in politics it always seems to boil down to how much is spent, as though measuring input is somehow more valuable than measuring output.

As I mentioned above though, most of the tax income in Britain comes from the very well off, so it's perhaps not surprising that most of the population couldn't really care less how well taxes are spent, just so long as more of someone elses money goes towards it.

It's a logic I don't understand. We've had 'free' state schooling for nearly 100 years now, and yet still social mobility is no better than it was in Victorian times. We've had 'free' healthcare for all, yet things like diabetes and numerous other lifestyle diseases are booming.

Despite this miserable track record, people still want to give yet more of their money (or more of someone elses at least) to a group of people that are widely despised, and who have a terrible track record of delivering anything.

That there be madness I reckon. If only those idiots we despise would have even more of our money to waste, they could be less awful at the job they pertain to do.

 

[edge]

Labour, only because they are the only ones that can get the tories out, not that i have much faith in them and the way they are shapeing up i cant see them winning strategy look all over the show.
Milliband showed last week he hasnt got it , and it will be despite him rather than because of him if labour win.
Tory, hopefully people are fed up with the race to the bottom and can see through them not a pleasant future if they win.
UKIP,quite like bits of there stuff but what is lurking behind the mask?
Greens, just go and do one to la la land, hippy weirdos
Libs, liars traitors.school teachers and cat lovers
I wish i had a party to get behind but Labour are just a party in name rather than substance, Milliband needs getting rid of along with Harriot, Balls and the rest of the untalented bells that infest the party at the moment. the party will implode after this election and hopefully get back on track, looking after working people rather than pander to the whim,s of the coneheads at the top at present

Say,s a lot after that rant they are getting my vote, uk politics is a shamles aqt the moment and no conviction.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Labour, only because they are the only ones that can get the tories out, not that i have much faith in them and the way they are shapeing up i cant see them winning strategy look all over the show.
Milliband showed last week he hasnt got it , and it will be despite him rather than because of him if labour win.
Tory, hopefully people are fed up with the race to the bottom and can see through them not a pleasant future if they win.
UKIP,quite like bits of there stuff but what is lurking behind the mask?
Greens, just go and do one to la la land, hippy weirdos
Libs, liars traitors.school teachers and cat lovers
I wish i had a party to get behind but Labour are just a party in name rather than substance, Milliband needs getting rid of along with Harriot, Balls and the rest of the untalented bells that infest the party at the moment. the party will implode after this election and hopefully get back on track, looking after working people rather than pander to the whim,s of the coneheads at the top at present

Say,s a lot after that rant they are getting my vote, uk politics is a shamles aqt the moment and no conviction.

I don't get this 'looking after the working man' stuff. Those on low incomes barely pay any tax at all, with (for instance), someone on 28k a year paying four times what someone on 14k a year pays. That person on 14k a year would get education for their child for free (as someone else would be paying for it), their healthcare for free (same principle), and all of the various other things that tax pays for, for free.

As I pointed out above, the richest pay infinitely more of our total tax now than they did when the last 'proper' Labour government were in power, and remember we had a something like 70% top rate of tax in the 70's, and yet the wealthiest pay more in tax now than they did then (about twice as much).

What is it that the 'working' man wants exactly?

 

[1966efc]

If Labour get in, they will make marginal changes which will help those who have least. As noone, including professional politicians, has the first idea who will form the next government, it's all speculation anyway.

In the mid to late 70's, Bruce, the top rate of income tax was about 97% over a certain limit. Most of us paid 33%. This may explain why the Duke of Westminster was seen begging in the streets and shoving aside the other denizens of Knightsbridge for his spot outside Claridges.

What is it that the working man wants? That is a question which, in my view is too narrow.

What is it that any man, woman or child needs to survive, safely, healthily and in a position to contribute to others? Everyone will have their own list: education, healthcare, financial access to food and utilities will probably appear on most people's agenda. The unseens are things like streetlighting to help deter opportunistic crime; adequate staffing in council and government offices to help people through increasingly complex rules and regulations and deeal with the very necessary paperwork which crops up in everyone's life (passport crisis?)

In my lifetime, there have been two reported spikes in malnutrition as reported by NHS hospitals. The first was in the mid eighties; the second in 2012. Thatcher and Thatcherlite were / are in power. Could be pure coincidence but given the social policies of these guys, it's reasonable to assume not.

Not everyone finds it easy to be altruistic. Most people will, however arrive at a time when they need care of some description. They will need home: given current policies on social care, how confident can any Tory voter be that his / her wealth won't be taken stealthily to cover these costs (to the further enrichment of already very rich carehome providers). It's every bit as much a tax as capital gains or inheritance tax. Altruism aside, it makes social and personal sense to share over the whole population, the costs which are most formidable to meet. I have paid quite high rates of tax. Despite not having children, I'm happy to help out with education costs. I don't visit libraries, have meals on wheels, need personal care nor the attention of the police. Again, I'm happy to contribute because I know these things help knit up a coherent, more stable society that doesn't waste its time in finger wagging homilies of self sufficiency: the biggest lie on the political map.

Vote Tory if you're short sighted. Look for alternatives if you've grown up enough politically to understand that, truly, no man is an island.

 

[1966efc]

And I apologise for a long post without the words Nais; Eto'o though; and no pictures of fat Kopites.

 

[davek]

Labour have finally sickened me to the point of no return now. That Independence referendum just about clinched it. They are just another force for the enslavement of working class people and should be dismantled forever now. The project has finally failed. Ironically it's final act of treachery was in the birthplace of one of the founders of that party, now it should be laid to rest as a monument to the crushed hope of a generation that defeat represents.

I believe labour won't win in 2015, and then they'll hopefully be torn apart by factional dispute and reconstituted as something more purpose built to represent working class people again in the 21st century.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

If Labour get in, they will make marginal changes which will help those who have least. As noone, including professional politicians, has the first idea who will form the next government, it's all speculation anyway.

In the mid to late 70's, Bruce, the top rate of income tax was about 97% over a certain limit. Most of us paid 33%. This may explain why the Duke of Westminster was seen begging in the streets and shoving aside the other denizens of Knightsbridge for his spot outside Claridges.

What is it that the working man wants? That is a question which, in my view is too narrow.

What is it that any man, woman or child needs to survive, safely, healthily and in a position to contribute to others? Everyone will have their own list: education, healthcare, financial access to food and utilities will probably appear on most people's agenda. The unseens are things like streetlighting to help deter opportunistic crime; adequate staffing in council and government offices to help people through increasingly complex rules and regulations and deeal with the very necessary paperwork which crops up in everyone's life (passport crisis?)

In my lifetime, there have been two reported spikes in malnutrition as reported by NHS hospitals. The first was in the mid eighties; the second in 2012. Thatcher and Thatcherlite were / are in power. Could be pure coincidence but given the social policies of these guys, it's reasonable to assume not.

Not everyone finds it easy to be altruistic. Most people will, however arrive at a time when they need care of some description. They will need home: given current policies on social care, how confident can any Tory voter be that his / her wealth won't be taken stealthily to cover these costs (to the further enrichment of already very rich carehome providers). It's every bit as much a tax as capital gains or inheritance tax. Altruism aside, it makes social and personal sense to share over the whole population, the costs which are most formidable to meet. I have paid quite high rates of tax. Despite not having children, I'm happy to help out with education costs. I don't visit libraries, have meals on wheels, need personal care nor the attention of the police. Again, I'm happy to contribute because I know these things help knit up a coherent, more stable society that doesn't waste its time in finger wagging homilies of self sufficiency: the biggest lie on the political map.

Vote Tory if you're short sighted. Look for alternatives if you've grown up enough politically to understand that, truly, no man is an island.

That's very nice and all, but it doesn't match with reality. The facts say that the 'rich' are paying much more income tax now than they were in the 70's when the top rate was at ridiculous levels. You may have paid a sizeable sum in your time, but it's likely that this was a mere drop in the ocean compared to what the very rich paid. The same is the case with corporation tax. The vast majority of corporation tax revenue is paid by a relative minority of companies.

I don't think the malnutrition thing in hospitals is at all relevant. Malnutrition occurs in hospitals not because there isn't any food available, but because there is often no one there to feed the patient (lets overlook the often awful nutritional value of hospital food). Half of the problem is that examples like this get used as political footballs. The reality is that nursing is now a pretty technical profession, and there are often a shed load of things that need doing. Spending half an hour with each patient to make sure they eat their meal often isn't an option on a busy ward. Maybe families could do that job? Maybe volunteers could do it? There's a debate on the latter on the Nursing Times below

http://www.nursingtimes.net/nursing.../should-volunteers-feed-patients/5036644.blog

You'll notice the stat about malnutrition in the NHS rising by 85% from 2001 to 2011. That covers both parties and underlines the folly in using issues like this as a political football. I'm not really sure how the tribalism that dominates politics helps anyone whatsoever.

 

[chicoazul]

What is it that the 'working' man wants exactly?

A party that isn't hell bent on crushing the unions & NHS and gives a general f about working class society?

 

[chicoazul]

That's very nice and all, but it doesn't match with reality. The facts say that the 'rich' are paying much more income tax now than they were in the 70's when the top rate was at ridiculous levels. You may have paid a sizeable sum in your time, but it's likely that this was a mere drop in the ocean compared to what the very rich paid. The same is the case with corporation tax. The vast majority of corporation tax revenue is paid by a relative minority of companies.

I don't think the malnutrition thing in hospitals is at all relevant. Malnutrition occurs in hospitals not because there isn't any food available, but because there is often no one there to feed the patient (lets overlook the often awful nutritional value of hospital food). Half of the problem is that examples like this get used as political footballs. The reality is that nursing is now a pretty technical profession, and there are often a shed load of things that need doing. Spending half an hour with each patient to make sure they eat their meal often isn't an option on a busy ward. Maybe families could do that job? Maybe volunteers could do it? There's a debate on the latter on the Nursing Times below

http://www.nursingtimes.net/nursing.../should-volunteers-feed-patients/5036644.blog

You'll notice the stat about malnutrition in the NHS rising by 85% from 2001 to 2011. That covers both parties and underlines the folly in using issues like this as a political football. I'm not really sure how the tribalism that dominates politics helps anyone whatsoever.

Bruce lid you can throw a thousand stats but they're mostly made up and skewed.

Working class people now are basing this on what they feel. Scarcity of jobs, erosion of pay and benefits in those jobs, an over stretched NHS. Not much opportunity, rising cost of living despite wages not going up.

I'm lucky enough to earn decent but around my family and mates it's very evident. Makes me really sad too.

So they release stats saying this or that but its out of touch with what the reality is. Just as the politicians are out of touch with the ordinary people in the country.

Try not to be an apologist for them lid.

 

[degsy]

"None of the above", or possibly Green.

'None of the above' tells a tale as does 'cheese on toast' @ 28%...on a small sample it must be said

Seems to me that unless you are a really, really, really, committed greenie and I'm talking using your own poo to power your methane generator type greenie, not just an; only eggs marked free range from ASDA, turn a few lights off and recycle type greenie and the japs are bells for still hunting whales etc type greenie.
That a green vote on it's own is a wasted vote and that most are using the green vote as... in the absence of an official abstain box to tick, is a defacto abstention.
But the trouble is, with so many people voting green, for this and many other reasons ( faux or not ) it's turned them into a viable party and not just a gang of 'Good Life' wannabe's.

Most people can't relate can't relate to any major party in meaningful numbers

#wewantanabstainbox

 

[chicoazul]

Do you reckon we could get cheese on toast on the ballot?

 

[Muggins]

The only thing that will get me to the voting booth is the formation of a cheese on toast party.

Did you just say there is no "Cheese on toast" party?

*calls off election

 

[zebedee]

The chances of a landslide victory are very slim indeed regardless of policies. There will be another lib dem/one other in office. So I'm with GOT Cheese on Toast party.

 

[roydo]

Labour/SNP coalition. Oh the irony.

 

[edge]

I don't get this 'looking after the working man' stuff. Those on low incomes barely pay any tax at all, with (for instance), someone on 28k a year paying four times what someone on 14k a year pays. That person on 14k a year would get education for their child for free (as someone else would be paying for it), their healthcare for free (same principle), and all of the various other things that tax pays for, for free.

As I pointed out above, the richest pay infinitely more of our total tax now than they did when the last 'proper' Labour government were in power, and remember we had a something like 70% top rate of tax in the 70's, and yet the wealthiest pay more in tax now than they did then (about twice as much).

What is it that the 'working' man wants exactly?

I know what you mean Bruce, while still married three kids, i was doing two jobs one full time 46 hrs a week one part time about 16 hours, part of a course i was on was to do with benifits and an advisor was brought in and i sat down and went through everything as if i were making a claim, it was a £12 diffrence, infact by the time had had put school uniforms/ dinners , transport ect it was a minus for working.
She said i know its not my job to say this but your working for nothing if you dont do overtime, i just said how much is self respect .(made me feel sh**e to be honest)
Cant speak for everbody what a working man wants but to me it is to work in a country that provides a chance for fair pay, treated with respect and a stable job that lets me through my own efforts strive to give myself and kids a decent future , and if it goes wrong i get a bit back that i have put in, nothing much i know but i dont think any of the last few goverments have helped to achieve those simple aims.