Must be honest, I have always voted as I see the right to vote as important. But I'm so indifferent to it all now and really don't care. I find it staggering / baffling / amusing how other people are so blinkered with their political viewpoints (like The Hague thread for example)
If I'm honest, I genuinely don't think my life would be impacted in any way whatsoever whether we had a Labour or Conservative government over the next five years. Of course they have differing idealisms, but the reality of decision making when in government means virtually nothing would be different imo.
I understand that point of view and at certain times in all our lives other things than who's running the country clearly take priority. Like family, work, running your own excellent internet forum :-) ...but it does matter.
For example the Tories are currently rumoured to be considering limiting child benefit to the first two children and applying tax to disability benefits. Now neither of those policies effect me directly, (in fact I am in favour of the first policy actually), but they will have a massive impact on some households.
To me that's just two very small examples of the policy differences between the parties having an effect at a day-to-day level and that's why I would encourage everyone to use their vote.
TBH, I can see no reason for paying people to have children, in a country increasing by 250k pa, where we cannot adequately house, the existing population, let alone all the other issues that go alongside.
If The Tories were to limit child benefit, I'm confident it would be for children born in the future, as they have said. So, no unfairness and personally a non issue, imo.
As for taxing disability benefits. I've not heard this rumoured.
But in any case I think we should be dealing with facts/pledges, even if they are not kept, rather than rumours.
Anyone can put down rumours they've heard.
Both options for benefits cuts were contained in a leaked civil service document prepared for the Tories this weekend. bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32084722
I agree that rumour and speculation are unhelpful but when those responsible are unwilling to disclose even when we will find out what their plans are let alone any detail it's inevitable.
Fair enough. You should have posted the link, although IDS has said this isn't true.
However, I do believe that they should say where the cuts will come.
I don't think Labour are saying either.
Labour are too busy inventing fictitious Tory policies for scaremongering to actually come up with their own policies.
It came from this guy, who spends much of his time analysing US public spending
Web Site Creator: Christopher Chantrill blogs at www.roadtothemiddleclass.com.
Christopher Chantrill is an American writer and conservative, and author of Road to the Middle Class. He runs usgovernmentspending.com, the go-to resource for government finance data, is a frequent contributor to the American Thinker. He lives in Seattle, Washington.
Is it the state of the economy or the provision of a decent social system ?
Most voters want and expect both . They support public services like Nye Bevan's free at the point of use NHS . However they do not want to pay for it through direct taxation. When Neil Kinnock put this proposition to the British people in 1987 and 1992 he was firmly rejected .
This meant Blair had to reassess the party's position and created New Labour . In my opinion the mistake of the Blair / Brown years was that they craved respectability and one example was the deregulation of the financial world . This had been launched by the Thatcher government and rather than resisting it they embraced it . Indeed until the crash It became the consensus orthodox political view . Another Tory policy which New Labour accepted and extended was PFI as a way of funding essential projects . The motive was noble ie renewing crumbling infrastructure .The problem is that the overall bill has increased and much of the public sector is now riddled with debt .
In my view this is why the parties are seen as broadly similar. To increase interest in politics I believe we need to change the electoral system because 80% of us live in 'safe seats' for either of the main parties so our votes have little value other than symbolically . It is clearly democratically unfair that as much as I dislike them , UKIP will possibly get double the amount of the votes as the Lib Dems but be lucky to have half of the number of MP's.
"For example the Tories are currently rumoured to be ...... applying tax to disability benefits"
An example of the stereotyping the nasty uncaring Tories.
Under Labour 1m additional people began claiming disability living allowance almost doubling the number of claimants to over 3m. We are not talking about Invalidity benefit for people with serious mobility problems, it is a benefit more accurately described as a reduced capability rather than disability benefit. If you have a back pain and your capability is assessed as reduced you are entitled to benefit. The fact that it might have no impact on your earning ability makes it an incongruous benefit. If you are earning £50k a year why shouldn't it be taxed.
Is the country really experiencing an increasing number of people becoming "disabled" or is the system out of control? Was a Labour policy of finding ways of spending tax payers money perhaps a rash and unfair way of providing another non-means tested benefit?
Labour as usual create the problem leaving others to take the difficult decisions to sort it out to be accused of being nasty to disabled people creating images of invalids having their wheelchairs taken away.
If they've got to save £12bn on the welfare budget, I think stopping Child Benefit after the first two children and taxing those benefits as if they were income is pretty fair to be honest.
Surely it's also time we looked at means testing certain benefits. It can't be that difficult. It can't be right that millionaires are receiving winter fuel payments and free bus passes.
It came from this guy, who spends much of his time analysing US public spending
Web Site Creator: Christopher Chantrill blogs at www.roadtothemiddleclass.com.
Christopher Chantrill is an American writer and conservative, and author of Road to the Middle Class. He runs usgovernmentspending.com, the go-to resource for government finance data, is a frequent contributor to the American Thinker. He lives in Seattle, Washington.
“I love this guy.” — Steve Ballmer
Steve Ballmer was the CEO of Microsoft for years and now owns the LA Clippers. Bloody lefties fixing the books to suit their agenda!
"For example the Tories are currently rumoured to be ...... applying tax to disability benefits"
An example of the stereotyping the nasty uncaring Tories.
No. It was an example of something that's been in all the mainstream media this weekend and therefore a topical example of the sort of thing that could have a direct impact on many voters which was the point I was responding to. I was very clear not to say it was definitely happening.
Out of interest Bournemouth, how differently do you feel those percentages would have looked over the last five years under a Labour government? Genuine question from a non-party person.
Like you, most public sector workers have been on pay freezes for the majority of this government term, and there has been a huge amount of cuts. Yet those figures have still kept rising (mainly I guess through the interest of the astronomic debt).
So how, even with the benefit of hindsight, would Labour have done things differently over the last five years that would have impacted less on the average joe than what the government have done and made those percentages look better?
Personally, I believe that instead of cutting £12 billion from the welfare budget we could stop the £12 billion we give away instead, in the form of overseas aid.
We should then look to offer aid when it is actually required for disasters and the like.
I know it's difficult, but why are we so keen to help the rest of the world before our own welfare dependents ? If we can afford both, then fair enough, but we can't.
Personally, I believe that instead of cutting £12 billion from the welfare budget we could stop the £12 billion we give away instead, in the form of overseas aid.
We should then looked to offer aid when it is actually required for disasters and the like.
I know it's difficult, but why are we so keen to help the rest of the world before our own welfare dependents ? If we can afford both, then fair enough, but we can't.
I am afraid I don't agree for historical, practical and moral reasons. Britain was able to tramp and trash around the world with the creation of colonies, and suck the resources from the countries it occupied to fuel it's industrial development. Many of those places now are incredibly poor, and the west still gains because the children of those poor make our Primark clothes, and Nike Trainers on the cheap. If we abandon support for the poorest countries, unrest and the desperation of a lot of people will impact on us one way or another. I also believe we can afford it whatever the argument about our struggles as a nation. One cup of Costa Coffee represents a couple of days wages for a lot of workers around the world, I also believe that it represents a small percentage of our annual wealth. I also like to think that as a country, governed by whichever party, that we would want to help if we can. I do know there is an argument that a lot of aid is siphoned off by dodgy characters, but that is something we can try to tackle.
It is ironic that the Republic of Ireland is the 'goodest' country in the world
when Ireland has largely taken the hit in the Eurozone without whinging, and tried to find ways to climb back. If a tiny state like the Republic of Ireland, itself a previous British Colony, can still reach out to try to do good in the world, then I reckon Britain can continue with it's overseas aid.
Personally, I believe that instead of cutting £12 billion from the welfare budget we could stop the £12 billion we give away instead, in the form of overseas aid.
We should then looked to offer aid when it is actually required for disasters and the like.
I know it's difficult, but why are we so keen to help the rest of the world before our own welfare dependents ? If we can afford both, then fair enough, but we can't.
I am afraid I don't agree for historical, practical and moral reasons. Britain was able to tramp and trash around the world with the creation of colonies, and suck the resources from the countries it occupied to fuel it's industrial development. Many of those places now are incredibly poor, and the west still gains because the children of those poor make our Primark clothes, and Nike Trainers on the cheap. If we abandon support for the poorest countries, unrest and the desperation of a lot of people will impact on us one way or another. I also believe we can afford it whatever the argument about our struggles as a nation. One cup of Costa Coffee represents a couple of days wages for a lot of workers around the world, I also believe that it represents a small percentage of our annual wealth. I also like to think that as a country, governed by whichever party, that we would want to help if we can. I do know there is an argument that a lot of aid is siphoned off by dodgy characters, but that is something we can try to tackle.
It is ironic that the Republic of Ireland is the 'goodest' country in the world
when Ireland has largely taken the hit in the Eurozone without whinging, and tried to find ways to climb back. If a tiny state like the Republic of Ireland, itself a previous British Colony, can still reach out to try to do good in the world, then I reckon Britain can continue with it's overseas aid.
Firstly, I think it speaks volumes of the type of person Cameron is by the fact he refuses to budge on the overseas aid budget. Something that I fully support because of the relative wealth of our nation compared with the rest of the World. It's about duty.
I still don't accept the modern view of the evils of the British Empire. Generally we did what we believed was right. I'm not supporting some of the horrors that occurred, but generally we have helped some countries become truly strong democracies around the World.
The Commonwealth is seen as as a shining example of how true friendship, trust and respect works. I'm also not surprised that no other Colonial Empire has achieved anything close to it. It's something we should be rightly proud of.
The Irish have done remarkably well to begin to pull out of an enormously deep recession. But who has helped them? Who has provided significant investment into their economy when no one else would?
No matter some of the bilge and rhetoric that comes out against the current Tory Government - and to be honest some of it is justified - I get so pissed of with the constant negativity of what the Government has achieved in the most difficult of circumstances over the passed five years.
Cameron in particular has fought tooth and nail against some of the extremists of his own party and is probably the most 'left' wing Tory leader since Heath.
I made my point about overseas aid in relation to whichever government is in power. My point is not party political. There is a different discussion to be had about the British Empire and it's aftermath.
Voted Conservative all my life and will again. Living in west Surrey there is probably more chance of us beating Millwall with a last minute Mike Small winner than there is of Labour getting in.
The thought of Labour going back to wreck the economy again is too much to take. Every time they get in, the Tories have to make unpopular decisions to clean up the mess. But the mess is currently in the process of being cleaned up. Why take a step back (and probably give the SNP power in a coalition) beggers belief.
Very broadly speaking I don't think it is right that people who work hard and are successful should give up more of what they have earned to fund others. There is a balance to be found, rather than the 'I hate rich posh people' that I have heard from Labour voters before. Or the assumption that all Labour voters are lazy people claiming benefits.
As this is the first time I've lived abroad through a general election, what's the situation regarding my wife and I voting? Do we get to vote? If so, how do we establish a borough of residence? (I'd assume we would be Bexley as we own a house there that we rent out, but we surely can't claim to live there as our tenants do?) I'm sure it's not too difficult, but I've never had to consider this before, so any advice gratefully received. Cheers.
Damo word for word other than swapping Surrey for Essex
There are certain parts of the country where it is hardly worth bothering to vote as that party will win whatever happens - Barnsley, Sunderland, Southend, Basildon..
I vote Tory because I believe they look after the hard working, entrepreneurial working family man so that's where my X will be going, plus I think they have done a tremendous job on recovering the economy that labour would inevitably cock up again.
I'm sure there are plenty of things that labour and other parties do better but you can only vote for one.
Why should we shell out on overseas aid at the expense of closing down police stations, hospitals and cutting the Armed Services to the bare bones ? Just for historical reasons ? Why should that be a priority over the areas I've mentioned above - particularly when the country is meant to be "skint" ?
As this is the first time I've lived abroad through a general election, what's the situation regarding my wife and I voting? Do we get to vote? If so, how do we establish a borough of residence? (I'd assume we would be Bexley as we own a house there that we rent out, but we surely can't claim to live there as our tenants do?) I'm sure it's not too difficult, but I've never had to consider this before, so any advice gratefully received. Cheers.
You can sign up online for a postal vote, takes less than 5 mins
As this is the first time I've lived abroad through a general election, what's the situation regarding my wife and I voting? Do we get to vote? If so, how do we establish a borough of residence? (I'd assume we would be Bexley as we own a house there that we rent out, but we surely can't claim to live there as our tenants do?) I'm sure it's not too difficult, but I've never had to consider this before, so any advice gratefully received. Cheers.
You can sign up online for a postal vote, takes less than 5 mins
As this is the first time I've lived abroad through a general election, what's the situation regarding my wife and I voting? Do we get to vote? If so, how do we establish a borough of residence? (I'd assume we would be Bexley as we own a house there that we rent out, but we surely can't claim to live there as our tenants do?) I'm sure it's not too difficult, but I've never had to consider this before, so any advice gratefully received. Cheers.
You can sign up online for a postal vote, takes less than 5 mins
Still undecided. Chelmsford is simon burns Tory and will remain so regardless... Meant to be a good mp, but I don't like the Tories much. Or labour. I normally vote lib dem or green, but they are both wasted votes and also low on credibility. Sod it, I'll decide on the day and go for who I most agree with.
Simon Burns is a good MP. In my two dealings with him he went above and beyond of what was reasonably expected of him.
My late grandparents were communist/labour voters (of the Dom perignon variety) and were governors of a school... They didn't have a bad word to say about him as an mp even though they were dead against his politics. I've never dealt with him, but if they can give him credit that's enough for me.
Im still unlikely to vote for him, but I wouldn't be that upset if he stayed in.
It's all credit to UKIP that they ban anyone who was a member of an extremist party or organisation. Labour would be more electable if they followed suit.
Well, if Labour did that they'd be short of quite a few candidates.
Len McCluskey, in his comments after the Ralph Miliband lecture at the LSE during the Q&A, was explicit in backing entryism to shift Labour to the Left. He said:
"In Unite we have said we have to reclaim the Labour Party for our values and the way to do that is to involve ourselves at the grassroots of the Labour. In Unite we have a very detailed and sophisticated political strategy to do just precisely that. To make sure that we have people who have our values are elected into Parliament. So that they know what our values are. We are beginning to make headway so much so that the reactionary forces in the Labour Party are beginning to squeal like pigs."
Ed Miliband himself employs a guy called Simon Fletcher as an adviser. Fletcher is ex Chief of Staff to Ken Livingstone and is a leading light of a group called Socialist Action. This is a self-proclaimed Trotskyist Group which currently has the following banner on its web site: "Kick out the Tories - Prepare to fight the Labour Right".
Comments
https://google.co.uk/publicdata/explore?ds=ds22a34krhq5p_&met_y=gd_pc_gdp&idim=country:uk:de:el&hl=en&dl=en
It came from this guy, who spends much of his time analysing US public spending
Web Site Creator:
Christopher Chantrill blogs at www.roadtothemiddleclass.com.
Christopher Chantrill is an American writer and conservative, and author of Road to the Middle Class. He runs usgovernmentspending.com, the go-to resource for government finance data, is a frequent contributor to the American Thinker. He lives in Seattle, Washington.
“I love this guy.” — Steve Ballmer
What is our priority as a society ?
Is it the state of the economy or the provision of a decent social system ?
Most voters want and expect both . They support public services like Nye Bevan's free at the point of use NHS . However they do not want to pay for it through direct taxation. When Neil Kinnock put this proposition to the British people in 1987 and 1992 he was firmly rejected .
This meant Blair had to reassess the party's position and created New Labour . In my opinion the mistake of the Blair / Brown years was that they craved respectability and one example was the deregulation of the financial world . This had been launched by the Thatcher government and rather than resisting it they embraced it . Indeed until the crash It became the consensus orthodox political view . Another Tory policy which New Labour accepted and extended was PFI as a way of funding essential projects . The motive was noble ie renewing crumbling infrastructure .The problem is that the overall bill has increased and much of the public sector is now riddled with debt .
In my view this is why the parties are seen as broadly similar. To increase interest in politics I believe we need to change the electoral system because 80% of us live in 'safe seats' for either of the main parties so our votes have little value other than symbolically . It is clearly democratically unfair that as much as I dislike them , UKIP will possibly get double the amount of the votes as the Lib Dems but be lucky to have half of the number of MP's.
An example of the stereotyping the nasty uncaring Tories.
Under Labour 1m additional people began claiming disability living allowance almost doubling the number of claimants to over 3m. We are not talking about Invalidity benefit for people with serious mobility problems, it is a benefit more accurately described as a reduced capability rather than disability benefit. If you have a back pain and your capability is assessed as reduced you are entitled to benefit. The fact that it might have no impact on your earning ability makes it an incongruous benefit. If you are earning £50k a year why shouldn't it be taxed.
Is the country really experiencing an increasing number of people becoming "disabled" or is the system out of control? Was a Labour policy of finding ways of spending tax payers money perhaps a rash and unfair way of providing another non-means tested benefit?
Labour as usual create the problem leaving others to take the difficult decisions to sort it out to be accused of being nasty to disabled people creating images of invalids having their wheelchairs taken away.
Surely it's also time we looked at means testing certain benefits. It can't be that difficult.
It can't be right that millionaires are receiving winter fuel payments and free bus passes.
NB Here's the budget deficit figures, which are more meaningful, than the overall debt. (A graph).
They can be argued either way, so I'll not comment.
http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/5922/economics/uk-budget-deficit-2/
It came from this guy, who spends much of his time analysing US public spending
Web Site Creator:
Christopher Chantrill blogs at www.roadtothemiddleclass.com.
Christopher Chantrill is an American writer and conservative, and author of Road to the Middle Class. He runs usgovernmentspending.com, the go-to resource for government finance data, is a frequent contributor to the American Thinker. He lives in Seattle, Washington.
“I love this guy.” — Steve Ballmer
Steve Ballmer was the CEO of Microsoft for years and now owns the LA Clippers. Bloody lefties fixing the books to suit their agenda!
FWIW here is the full data set ukpublicspending.co.uk/spending_chart_1997_2014UKp_08c1li101mcn_G0t_UK_National_Debt_As_Percent_Of_GDP
However in recognition that it's not necessarily an exact science here's another view looking at the same thing:
A bit older but covers the period in question and of course sources the data direct from the Treasury, more detail at economicshelp.org/blog/5962/economics/main-problems-of-uk-economy/
I could go on posting "nonsense" data like this all night tbf but it would be a waste of time...
Like you, most public sector workers have been on pay freezes for the majority of this government term, and there has been a huge amount of cuts. Yet those figures have still kept rising (mainly I guess through the interest of the astronomic debt).
So how, even with the benefit of hindsight, would Labour have done things differently over the last five years that would have impacted less on the average joe than what the government have done and made those percentages look better?
We should then look to offer aid when it is actually required for disasters and the like.
I know it's difficult, but why are we so keen to help the rest of the world before our own welfare dependents ?
If we can afford both, then fair enough, but we can't.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30843483
Britain was able to tramp and trash around the world with the creation of colonies, and suck the resources from the countries it occupied to fuel it's industrial development. Many of those places now are incredibly poor, and the west still gains because the children of those poor make our Primark clothes, and Nike Trainers on the cheap.
If we abandon support for the poorest countries, unrest and the desperation of a lot of people will impact on us one way or another. I also believe we can afford it whatever the argument about our struggles as a nation. One cup of Costa Coffee represents a couple of days wages for a lot of workers around the world, I also believe that it represents a small percentage of our annual wealth.
I also like to think that as a country, governed by whichever party, that we would want to help if we can. I do know there is an argument that a lot of aid is siphoned off by dodgy characters, but that is something we can try to tackle.
It is ironic that the Republic of Ireland is the 'goodest' country in the world
http://www.ted.com/talks/simon_anholt_which_country_does_the_most_good_for_the_world?language=en
when Ireland has largely taken the hit in the Eurozone without whinging, and tried to find ways to climb back. If a tiny state like the Republic of Ireland, itself a previous British Colony, can still reach out to try to do good in the world, then I reckon Britain can continue with it's overseas aid.
https://pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/inverness/533685/undefined-headline-956/
Fair play to him.
I still don't accept the modern view of the evils of the British Empire. Generally we did what we believed was right. I'm not supporting some of the horrors that occurred, but generally we have helped some countries become truly strong democracies around the World.
The Commonwealth is seen as as a shining example of how true friendship, trust and respect works. I'm also not surprised that no other Colonial Empire has achieved anything close to it. It's something we should be rightly proud of.
The Irish have done remarkably well to begin to pull out of an enormously deep recession. But who has helped them? Who has provided significant investment into their economy when no one else would?
No matter some of the bilge and rhetoric that comes out against the current Tory Government - and to be honest some of it is justified - I get so pissed of with the constant negativity of what the Government has achieved in the most difficult of circumstances over the passed five years.
Cameron in particular has fought tooth and nail against some of the extremists of his own party and is probably the most 'left' wing Tory leader since Heath.
What about Cameron and his support for same sex marriage? Hardly your typical Tory view of this type of issue.
Do you think he got an easy ride from his party in achieving this?
Voted Conservative all my life and will again. Living in west Surrey there is probably more chance of us beating Millwall with a last minute Mike Small winner than there is of Labour getting in.
The thought of Labour going back to wreck the economy again is too much to take. Every time they get in, the Tories have to make unpopular decisions to clean up the mess. But the mess is currently in the process of being cleaned up. Why take a step back (and probably give the SNP power in a coalition) beggers belief.
Very broadly speaking I don't think it is right that people who work hard and are successful should give up more of what they have earned to fund others. There is a balance to be found, rather than the 'I hate rich posh people' that I have heard from Labour voters before. Or the assumption that all Labour voters are lazy people claiming benefits.
I'm sure it's not too difficult, but I've never had to consider this before, so any advice gratefully received.
Cheers.
There are certain parts of the country where it is hardly worth bothering to vote as that party will win whatever happens - Barnsley, Sunderland, Southend, Basildon..
I vote Tory because I believe they look after the hard working, entrepreneurial working family man so that's where my X will be going, plus I think they have done a tremendous job on recovering the economy that labour would inevitably cock up again.
I'm sure there are plenty of things that labour and other parties do better but you can only vote for one.
Just for historical reasons ? Why should that be a priority over the areas I've mentioned above - particularly when the country is meant to be "skint" ?
https://www.gov.uk/register-to-vote
Len McCluskey, in his comments after the Ralph Miliband lecture at the LSE during the Q&A, was explicit in backing entryism to shift Labour to the Left. He said:
"In Unite we have said we have to reclaim the Labour Party for our values and the way to do that is to involve ourselves at the grassroots of the Labour. In Unite we have a very detailed and sophisticated political strategy to do just precisely that. To make sure that we have people who have our values are elected into Parliament. So that they know what our values are. We are beginning to make headway so much so that the reactionary forces in the Labour Party are beginning to squeal like pigs."
Ed Miliband himself employs a guy called Simon Fletcher as an adviser. Fletcher is ex Chief of Staff to Ken Livingstone and is a leading light of a group called Socialist Action. This is a self-proclaimed Trotskyist Group which currently has the following banner on its web site: "Kick out the Tories - Prepare to fight the Labour Right".