Ekona Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 It was, it's also why Labour remain neck and neck with the most unpopular government in my lifetime. They should be miles ahead in the polls, but they're not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetpilot Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 Worse than the last labour government who put this country into the worst recession we have probably ever seen dave has go us out of recession, ahead of most other eu countries, I think they have cleared up the mess quite well Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 I said unpopular, not rubbish. I agree with you, economically they've done an excellent job, it's just that a lot of people have very short memories and forget why things went belly up. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spursmaddave Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 Obviously personal appearance and mannerisms shouldn't make any difference to a politician but can anyone hand on heart say they see Milliband as a real leader and international head of state? Cameron is as smarmy and smug as they come, but he does have a certain presence and doesn't look out of place with other world leaders at least... Anyway I won't be voting, never have done and doubt I ever will, for me it makes no difference who is in power, politics & religion are both of no interest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ioneabee Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 I'm of a personal opinion that it should be compulsory to vote what you do with that vote when you get there / postal is up to you ie put a big line through the whole lot or choose one prick over another but you should vote 1. you can complain as much as you like (because you've voted) 2. the country gets a much more balanced opinion of who should be in charge 3. people died trying to make sure the common man/woman got the vote its a no-brainer as far as i'm concerned let the flaming begin 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stutopia Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 I said unpopular, not rubbish. I agree with you, economically they've done an excellent job, it's just that a lot of people have very short memories and forget why things went belly up. Indeed. The governments of the day and the toothless, brainless Financial Regulators on both sides of the pond. The amount of pointless crap that came out the FSA, as it was, when I worked in a small finance company back then was amazing, all that time they forgot to lock the big safe and someone ran off with the Crown Jewels! Though you could say catastrophic deregulation of financial markets was kicked off before that... Fortunately, with the Tories in, they can finish off the job of migrating wealth from the bottom up that Thatcher kicked off all those years ago. It's all gonna be different when I'm Supreme Allied Commander, I've already started on a "first against the wall list" and there's gonna have to be a bloody long wall 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 If you don't vote, you can't complain. That in itself is the most British reason ever to vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetpilot Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 I'm of a personal opinion that it should be compulsory to vote what you do with that vote when you get there / postal is up to you ie put a big line through the whole lot or choose one prick over another but you should vote 1. you can complain as much as you like (because you've voted) 2. the country gets a much more balanced opinion of who should be in charge 3. people died trying to make sure the common man/woman got the vote its a no-brainer as far as i'm concerned let the flaming begin In principal I agree, but pointless forcing someone to vote to only put a line through It, you still wouldnt get a balanced opinion on that basis. If your like smd who really doesnt want to vote, forcing them to make a vote isnt balanced either. Although i dont believe for anyone minute that if push came to shove and was forced to make a vote an educated man couldnt make a rational choice. I dont feel one party fully gets my vote, but, would prefer one over the other options. Most people dont vote rationally anyway, they vote on the party their parents voted for or just because they have been bought up to dislike the opposition. Its only when you get older your opinion perhaps changes. My vote wont be going its normal direction this year, first time in years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ioneabee Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 agreed ............. but you would catch those that can't be arsed, because its too much hassle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stutopia Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 I disagree with not voting, but I'll fight to defend you're right not to vote if you chose not to. Mandatory voting would just create a false belief that the people are engaged and have mandated the ruling party, which isn't really true if they've been forced to vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ioneabee Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 except the spoilt votes get counted too - so the statistics will be there 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stutopia Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 except the spoilt votes get counted too - so the statistics will be there If spoilt vote gets the most, do they get to be in charge? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ioneabee Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 absolutely 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tay Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 Don't forget to register folks... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wmr1980 Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 (edited) I'm completely lost as to where to vote. I'm not a fan of DC but neither am I wanting Labour... in fact I like some of policies of labour and some of the conservatives... I clearly need a coalition between those two! If anyone is interested this is quite a good quiz to help you understand where you stand on certain issues and where/how they line up with the party's policies. https://uk.isidewith.com Edited March 31, 2015 by wmr1980 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docwra Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 except the spoilt votes get counted too - so the statistics will be there If spoilt vote gets the most, do they get to be in charge? I think the idea is that if spoiled votes get the most, then all three parties need to take a serious look at what they are actually doing, sadly this isnt in the constitution though Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetpilot Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 I'm completely lost as to where to vote. I'm not a fan of DC but neither am I wanting Labour... in fact I like some of policies of labour and some of the conservatives... I clearly need a coalition between those two! If anyone is interested this is quite a good quiz to help you understand where you stand on certain issues and where/how they line up with the party's policies. https://uk.isidewith.com Well just did that little quiz, answered honestly and it probably didnt tell me anything i didnt know. Ukip, Tory, Labour right at the bottom I wonder how many people would be surprised by the outcome if they did it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docwra Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 What, if UKIP got in? Id be disgusted rather than surprised and would probably look to relocate. Horrible thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stutopia Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 I got Lib Dem , Labour, UKIP, Tory. The last two were some way behind Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetpilot Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 What, if UKIP got in? Id be disgusted rather than surprised and would probably look to relocate. Horrible thought. They wont get in, but think upset the apple cart, in the polls they are quite a distance ahead of the Lib Dems, cosying up to the Tories did them zero favours with their electorate imho. If we get a hung parliament again i see Ukip as the party to form a coalition with. Expect to see a lot of changes, If Labour dont get in, EM will be gone, same with DC & Tories, Nick Clegg will go whatever Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stutopia Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 What, if UKIP got in? Id be disgusted rather than surprised and would probably look to relocate. Horrible thought. It doesn't say much about where we've come since we last stood up against the persecution of minorities. I find it frustrating the one policy approach not only attracts people, it also attracts the media. So instead of talking about the creeping privitasion of the NHS or foodbanks or energy production or the roads or constant state interference in education, everyone seemingly gets distracted wondering if whether 3000 Eastern Europeans (in pot of 6 billion people) moving from place X to place Y are going to collapse the benefit system. The poor buggers have only come here to do jobs the indigenous population don't want, they'll probably go home once they realise how crap the weather is Something which costs a few million quid can be used to distract from the billions being diverted into pockets of companies who don't even feel the need to pay tax in the UK! But what can you do, the right always gets attention in a difficult economic climate, as it's something politicians (of all parties) can wave in front of the electorate to distract them from the really big stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetpilot Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 All very true, but the average man/woman probably isnt even aware of tax evasion (loosely speaking) and sees immigration as a big issue. Also very true that migrants come here to fill the jobs the lazy Brits dont want, absolutely fair enough good on them, but, what about the ones who have no intention of working and instantly receive benefits? There should be a massive shake up in the benefits system, not only for migrants but for the lazy UK apparent "job seekers", if there are jobs for migrants why cant they be filled by the uk unemployed, or should i say, why cant they be made to do these jobs? I have no issue with migrants, but do think, perhaps as outlined by the tories, no immediate benefits, if they havent got a job in 6 months they have to go and no claiming until they have paid into the system for a period of time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docwra Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 TBH I dont know why we dont do that already, most of the rest of Europe will not pay benefit until youve worked for 3/6 months, I believe the Torys are including something along those lines in their manifesto. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stutopia Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 Jobseekers allowance is actually rather far down the list of benefit bills, but don't tell the Mail or the Tories. It's those laxy pensioners who cost us all a fortune, sitting around watching cash in the attic, eating scones and doing scratch cards Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stutopia Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 TBH I dont know why we dont do that already, most of the rest of Europe will not pay benefit until youve worked for 3/6 months, I believe the Torys are including something along those lines in their manifesto. Probably because it's a bit of a myth they come here to sponge. Immigrants to the UK since 2000 have made a "substantial" contribution to public finances, a report says. The study by University College London said recent immigrants were less likely to claim benefits and live in social housing than people born in Britain. The authors said rather than being a "drain", their contribution had been "remarkably strong". The government said it was right to have strict rules in place to help protect the benefits system. Immigrants who arrived after 1999 were 45% less likely to receive state benefits or tax credits than UK natives in the period 2000-2011, according to the report by Prof Christian Dustmann and Dr Tommaso Frattini from UCL's Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration. They were also 3% less likely to live in social housing. "These differences are partly explainable by immigrants' more favourable age-gender composition. However, even when compared to natives with the same age, gender composition, and education, recent immigrants are still 21% less likely than natives to receive benefits," the authors say. 'Highly-educated immigrants' Those from the European Economic Area (EEA - the EU plus Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein) had made a particularly positive contribution in the decade up to 2011, contributing 34% more in taxes than they received in benefits. "Given this evidence, claims about 'benefit tourism' by EEA immigrants seem to be disconnected from reality. Immigrants from outside the EEA contributed 2% more in taxes than they received in the same period, the report showed. Over the same period, British people paid 11% less in tax than they received. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.