UK: If a General Election was called, which way would you swing?

[edesignuk]

I think I recall reading yesterday that the government only have about another year or so in which to call a General Election.

Right now, who would get your vote?

[firestarter]

An interesting question.

I would have to vote tactically unfortunately, so I'd be voting Lib-Dem.

I want the Tories to win though. In my borough the Lib-Dems got in a couple of byelections ago (took the seat from Labour) and the Tories are a very distant third, so me voting Tory would actually increase the chance of the seat returning to Labour.

[toontra]

I would have to vote tactically unfortunately, so I'd be voting Lib-Dem.

I'll be voting LibDem because they have the best policies and because I want an end to this 2-party cr@p.

[Eraserhead]

Lib Dem, due to their speed in replying to communications (http://matthewhutton.com/2009/03/uk-democracy-still-functions/) with them (http://matthewhutton.com/2009/04/copyright-reform/), and because I think they have good policies.

[Jaffa Cake]

No way would I ever vote Conservative – I'm just old enough to remember Thatcher and the carnage she caused, and the prospect of a Tory Government is one I find deeply unsettling.

However, the prospect of voting for Labour holds little appeal for a variety of reasons, including Iraq and Afganistan. Which really leaves the Liberal Democrats, who in actual fact are the only alternative to Labour in this part of the world with the Tories a distant third. I think they're pretty ineffective though, at local level all they seem to want to do is squabble with Labour. They represent the lesser of three evils, I guess.

To be honest, I wish there was an option along the lines of 'None of The Above' on the voting form so people can register their dissatisfaction with the options that are presented to us – certainly, I've spoilt my ballot before. Any chance you could add 'None of The Above' or 'Spoiled Ballot' or something to the options for those of us who want to register our disapproval of our politicians, e?

[arkitect]

Lib Dems for me.
Do they have a chance? Alas…

[edesignuk]

Any chance you could add 'None of The Above' or 'Spoiled Ballot' or something to the options for those of us who want to register our disapproval of our politicians, e?That's really what the other/undecided options were for. Plus now I can't edit my own Poll.


I'm also very much undecided. I have no love for Labour and the path they seem to have lead us down, but equally I remember the days of the Tories and they weren't too hot either. The Lib Dems don't stand a hope in hell, and to be honest they're so quiet I have no idea what they're about anyway.

British politics: Crap.

[Jaffa Cake]

That's really what the other/undecided options were for. Plus now I can't edit my own Poll.Honestly. See what happens when you stop being a Mod? :D

Right, I've voted 'Other' then.

[iBlue]

...
To be honest, I wish there was an option along the lines of 'None of The Above' on the voting form so people can register their dissatisfaction with the options that are presented to us – certainly, I've spoilt my ballot before.

I think that is a great idea.

I can't vote in this fine country yet but if I could I think I would likely vote Lib-Dem, no matter how futile a vote that may be. From what little I know of british politics, Lib-dem is probably the closest to what I would look for in a politician. Frankly I think they're all pure evil though.

[firestarter]

A LibDem vote is a wasted vote (apart from where it's tactical)

They're not going to win, and the most likely outcome of a LibDem winning a seat will be to stop the Tories from getting a majority, and therefore keep Gordon Brown in.

The LibDems talk a good game, but a lot of their policies are nuts. If you're single, check out their local income tax plans - this redistributes the cost of local council taxes really unfairly towards single people.

[peskaa]

I would never, ever, ever vote Tory. I'm old enough to have seen the impacts of Tory government, and if you look back into history you can see further evidence of the damage they've done. I'm certainly not fooled by David Cameron's "touchy-feely" image, and his attempts to be cool and hip - he's a blithering idiot.

We have one Tory in a position of power right now, and that's Boris Johnson. Wow, what a good choice was made there. I'm so proud I voted for Ken Livingstone, and that the Borough I used to live in was one of the few Labour Boroughs left. That said, I left London to avoid his policies (banning alcohol on the Tube was your first policy? Great priorities...).

Liberal Democrats on the other hand is a wasted vote, unless you're playing the tactical game. They have no experience of power, and squabble constantly at the local level.

So who does that leave? Labour. They get bad press right now, but they've made some good (and bad I might add) choices over their time in power. I personally believe that the current "war" was something we'd be in regardless of government, as the US has too much power/influence due to our "special relationship". The economy isn't their fault, and gosh darn it, they're trying. Gordon Brown may not be the most attractive man in the world, but at least he doesn't want to hug a hoodie.

[edesignuk]

It's just so tricky.

As we've said, a vote for the Libs is pointless.

I don't know if I can bring myself to vote Conservative.

So that leaves Labour. Given how much I hate many of the things they've brought in to place (especially the invasion of all of our privacy, supposedly for our own safety), I don't know if I can back them either.

What to do!? :confused:

[OllyW]

No way would I ever vote Conservative – I'm just old enough to remember Thatcher and the carnage she caused, and the prospect of a Tory Government is one I find deeply unsettling.


However, the prospect of voting for Labour holds little appeal for a variety of reasons, including Iraq and Afganistan. Which really leaves the Liberal Democrats, who in actual fact are the only alternative to Labour in this part of the world with the Tories a distant third. I think they're pretty ineffective though, at local level all they seem to want to do is squabble with Labour. They represent the lesser of three evils, I guess.

Thanks Jaffa, you've saved me the bother of typing out my feelings on this matter. :D

And peskaa and edesignuk.

[iBlue]

...
What to do!? :confused:

? (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=688929) :D - "For when everything just sucks and there's nothing you can do about it." Maybe that could be the new Lib-dem slogan too.

[BoyBach]

Here's hoping that it's a hung parliament with the Lib Dem's cast in the role of King Makers who ensure that the Conservatives reassert our now lost civil liberties.

I won't be casting my usual spoilt vote, instead I'll be voting to return our Independent MP to help ensure that there's no chance of Labour regaining what was supposed to be one of their safest seats in the country.

But all I really want is for this wretched government to have lots of Portillo Moments™ the night of the election (especially in the borough of Redditch!)

[Mord]

!clue, they're all twunts as far as I'm concerned.

Labour: **** NO, putting the national back into socialism >_<

Tories: Slimey ***** I wouldn't touch with a bargepole

Lib dem: I'd be shooting myself in the food due to the fact that I have no desire to breed. Their policies seem far too in favour of propping up the nuclear family.

If anything i'd probably swing lib dem, I just couldn't bring myself to feel responsible when they'd inevitably disappoint. I think they could do very well given how disillusioned people are with labour.

[djellison]

I couldn't vote Labour. They got us into this mess, and they've been lying about it, and handling it very badly.

If the Lib Dems looked even slightly realistic in their proposals - if they looked like they'd have half a clue what to do once in power, I might vote for them - but they look like a bunch of amateurs.

That leaves the Torys. It's so easy to cite Maggie as a reason to avoid them. If we simply measure all political parties by what their stance was 25 years ago, there isn't a single party that has ever been worth voting for. But is Cameron the right man to lead us out of this mess. I don't know.

When the time comes, I'll email each leading candidate and ask them about a few key national and local issues, and make up my mind based on their response, and the rapidity and honesty it infers.

But basically - I'm with the vocal majority - I don't really 'want' to vote for any of them.

The US got to have a bold, strong election campaign, and chose between a white man, and a black man.

All our politicians are grey.

[MOFS]

I couldn't vote Labour. They got us into this mess, and they've been lying about it, and handling it very badly.

...



My issue with everything ATM is the Tories wouldn't have done anything very much differently financially over the last 12 years to prevent this. On the other hand, they would have ignored the NHS and lower classes to "cut taxes". As someone who works in the NHS, it is not difficult to see the improvement in the service users' (patients!) overall experience. As a northerner, it is clear to see the urban regeneration happening in the North that I fear would have been neglected by the London-centric Tories. Just look at Liverpool: I've lived there for 15 years and the work done there to bring it up to a stunning standard is unbelievable.

[Mord]

My issue with everything ATM is the Tories wouldn't have done anything very much differently financially over the last 12 years to prevent this. On the other hand, they would have ignored the NHS and lower classes to "cut taxes". As someone who works in the NHS, it is not difficult to see the improvement in the service users' (patients!) overall experience. As a northerner, it is clear to see the urban regeneration happening in the North that I fear would have been neglected by the London-centric Tories. Just look at Liverpool: I've lived there for 15 years and the work done there to bring it up to a stunning standard is unbelievable.

^quoted for truth, the tories *massively* **** things up for very little actual taxpayer benefit, I know people who work for the NHS and council services which have directly experienced conservative wrath.

[stomer]

Cameron may or may make a good prime minister but I don't think I could ever vote Tory after how Thatcher treated Scotland. And plus, the Tories have a real bad habit of pushing 'family values' on the UK population. They didn't really do a great job at managing the economy either.

I don't think Brown is doing a great job at the moment and the whole war debacle would mean that I wouldn't vote Labour. So that just leaves the Lib Dems.

I think the Tories will win the next election, Brown isn't electable.

[robbieduncan]

Last election I voted for the party I wanted (Lib Dem) and ended up with the single worst MP possible, George Galloway. Whilst she was a Labour MP and partially responsible for a lot of stuff I didn't like I was happy with my previous MP Oona King. I won't make this mistake again. I will vote tactically for whoever is most likely to get rid of the stupid Respect party.

[Eraserhead]

If you're single, check out their local income tax plans - this redistributes the cost of local council taxes really unfairly towards single people.

Given that council tax unfairly affects the single, I'm not sure how this will make it worse for them...

[peskaa]

My issue with everything ATM is the Tories wouldn't have done anything very much differently financially over the last 12 years to prevent this. On the other hand, they would have ignored the NHS and lower classes to "cut taxes". As someone who works in the NHS, it is not difficult to see the improvement in the service users' (patients!) overall experience. As a northerner, it is clear to see the urban regeneration happening in the North that I fear would have been neglected by the London-centric Tories. Just look at Liverpool: I've lived there for 15 years and the work done there to bring it up to a stunning standard is unbelievable.

Amen.
I too work in the NHS (do you work at Aintree?), and it has changed in a good way under Labour. For the staff, Agenda for Change has regulated pay into a more logical system rather than a totally random lottery, and it is clear where you're headed on the scale. For the patients...well, miles better. I may think PFI is a bit dodgy if badly managed, but it has enabled the first new hospitals for decades to be built (the new Queen Elizabeth in Birmingham is a prime example) and Foundation Trust status is making a massive difference financially, and hence in treatment. Waiting lists are dropping rather than rising as they did under Tory control, and there is actually money in the system rather than crippling deficits. My Trust made a surplus last year, despite extensive new building works and expansion of services - despite being in a part of the UK where we get one of the lowest payments "per head" from the government to the PCT.

Our healthcare system is the best in the world, and that is where it needs to stay. The media may want to tarnish it on a constant basis with slander and spin, but gosh darn it, it's far better than private healthcare all round which is what we'll end up with if the Tories get in power for a long stretch.

[kastenbrust]

I would have voted Lib Dem until i saw an interview with their leader Nick Clegg today which was cringeworthy, now im going to spoil my vote paper because i dont like any party or what they stand for.

The BNP is ridiculous and im sure you dont need me to explain why, just look at their site.
Economic Policies: Leave the EU :rolleyes: Genius clap clap
Immigration Policy: Oppose Mass Immigration (technically everyone in the UK is an immigrant, i dont care if you came over with the Romans, Vikings or Polish)

The Conservaties are probably my preference but they dont seem to actually have any concrete policies :confused: It was interesting when i read a BBC article recently though which showed that during Margret Thatchers reign less miners lost their jobs than any Prime Minister before or since, infact most miners lost their jobs under Labour leaderships. Also fundamentally im not a very conservative person, i would say im socialist but new labour have tained that word and made it sound like something to be embarrassed of.

Lib Dems, well as i said in the interview Nick Clegg is promoting a £700 income tax deduction for every person which isnt going to happen, i dont like people who make promises they know they cant keep just to make headlines and get votes. The economy is in £160billion of debt and we need to get real, only tax is going to pay that off, and it needs paying off before anything else, before tax cuts, before public service spending, everything. He thinks he's going to be able to achieve it by taxing rich people more, but he forgets one thing, its called offshore bank accounts and leaving the country.

Labour, well they lied too much for me to trust them anymore with the leadership. I'm not happy about the pay rises the MP's are getting of around 6% when nurses for example are getting less than 2%. I dont like their terrorism laws, i dont like the fact they increased the length of time a criminal suspect can be held up to 42 days and then it gets used in cases that have nothing to do with terrorism. I dont like the fact that members of the police and other public services cant be members of the BNP too, not because i support the BNP as i find the notion of the BNP abhorrent, but i believe its anyone's absolute right to be completely free to believe in whatever political ideal they desire. Its as if Labour wants to tell you how to think politically, and thats wrong. Also their idea of socialism is fundamentally flawed and needs fixing due to being based around jealousy among other things, but im not going to start a philosophy lecture here. At the end of the day labour is the party in power and they have to be held accountable for their actions, they cant keep blaming other people and previous administrations, children do that.

I honestly believe its time for a new party, one where the MP's get weekly independent lie detector tests so we know whats really going on, and where MP's pay rises are based on teachers and nurses pay rises, but hey, power corrupts so thats never going to happen. I dont even feel proud to say im British anymore, and that saddens me

[firestarter]

The LibDems talk a good game, but a lot of their policies are nuts. If you're single, check out their local income tax plans - this redistributes the cost of local council taxes really unfairly towards single people.

Given that council tax unfairly affects the single, I'm not sure how this will make it worse for them...

Council tax is unfair for the single. I'm paying for a lot of services I never use, and I only get 25% discount compared to a large family using local schools, playgroups etc.

On the LibDem income tax based scheme I calculated that my council tax would increase by over THREE TIMES what I currently pay.

Last election I voted for the party I wanted (Lib Dem) and ended up with the single worst MP possible, George Galloway. Whilst she was a Labour MP and partially responsible for a lot of stuff I didn't like I was happy with my previous MP Oona King. I won't make this mistake again. I will vote tactically for whoever is most likely to get rid of the stupid Respect party.

You should vote for George next time 'round. Even though he's clearly a prize twunt, helping to vote another Labour politician in won't help anyone.

It's just so tricky.

As we've said, a vote for the Libs is pointless.

I don't know if I can bring myself to vote Conservative.

So that leaves Labour. Given how much I hate many of the things they've brought in to place (especially the invasion of all of our privacy, supposedly for our own safety), I don't know if I can back them either.

What to do!? :confused:
e - I respect your thoughtfulness on the issue. It's difficult in the 2 1/2 party system we have to find a party that truly represents you. Although I've always leant towards the Conservatives, as a libertarian Europhile they haven't made it easy for me. I guess my leaning is mainly due more to my ideological beliefs - I'm more for personal responsibility than state responsibility.

I'll also admit that the last Tory government ran out of ideas and needed to be ousted. Perversely many of their worst traits were then taken on by Blair, along with a lot of expensive social baggage. He and Brown have also presided over an unpleasant corrupt, controlling insidious state that's trampled our civil liberties and squandered our money. They need to go as soon as possible.

I do actually believe that there's some goodness in politicians. I don't believe that you enter politics to do harm, I think a lot of these people really want to make a positive difference. Once in power though they become corrupted and afraid of being voted out - their principles go out the window.

Whatever your politics, I don't think we've yet seen a political party that can hold power over a very long period (>10 years) without compromising themselves. The conclusion is that we need a change every couple of elections, whichever direction that change has to take us.

[Eraserhead]

Council tax is unfair for the single. I'm paying for a lot of services I never use, and I only get 25% discount compared to a large family using local schools, playgroups etc.

Such is the nature of taxation.

On the LibDem income tax based scheme I calculated that my council tax would increase by over THREE TIMES what I currently pay.

So then either you are rich, or you have an average salary and you live in a poor area - giving yourself a high disposable income. So really you should be able to afford the extra.

[robbieduncan]

So then either you are rich, or you have an average salary and you live in a poor area - giving yourself a high disposable income. So really you should be able to afford the extra.

Such is the idealistic viewpoint of youth! Whether or not it could be afforded is not necessarily the issue. Whether it is something that people will vote for (clearly if you are suddenly going to be asked for another £2000 a year for no improvements to your own situation you probably won't) or is even fair is another.

I personally find the council tax situation infuriating. I pay about £1000 a year for almost nothing. Now I understand that local services need paying for, but I do think that those who use more of them should be expected to shoulder more of the burden. It is entirely just and fair that larger households should pay more rather than single people who do not use many of the services.

[iBlue]

I personally find the council tax situation infuriating. I pay about £1000 a year for almost nothing. Now I understand that local services need paying for, but I do think that those who use more of them should be expected to shoulder more of the burden. It is entirely just and fair that larger households should pay more rather than single people who do not use many of the services.

Couldn't agree more. We find this hugely infuriating as well.

[Eraserhead]

Such is the idealistic viewpoint of youth!

Robbie, obviously everyone will pay the same total tax as before and on average people will pay about the same. But there have to be some winners and losers by any system.

It is entirely just and fair that larger households should pay more rather than single people who do not use many of the services.

And as long as they are earning enough money they *will* pay more for the services they use with local income tax. Though under the new system the rich will pay more than the poor as they do under the current system (if they have expensive houses).

[firestarter]

Such is the nature of taxation.

So then either you are rich, or you have an average salary and you live in a poor area - giving yourself a high disposable income.

Well, I get by cash-wise (or I have in the past) and I live in a moderately poor area.

The problem with local income tax is that it completely breaks the link between the recipients of local services and those that pay for them. I'm happy to pay an income based tax (and the government already wanders off with well over 40% of my earnings) but at a local level there needs to be some sort of feedback reflecting the cost of local services and the efficiency of the local council to their electorate. An income tax breaks that.

So really you should be able to afford the extra.

Thus speaks the socialist. It's my money, and I'd quite like to hang onto a bit more of it thanks very much. There's plenty of bloat that can be cut from local council expenditure.

[Eraserhead]

Thus speaks the socialist.

If you aren't a "socialist" like me, maybe you should be voting Conservative. Then you don't have to worry about this when you're deciding who to vote for.

The problem with local income tax is that it completely breaks the link between the recipients of local services and those that pay for them. I'm happy to pay an income based tax (and the government already wanders off with well over 40% of my earnings) but at a local level there needs to be some sort of feedback reflecting the cost of local services and the efficiency of the local council to their electorate. An income tax breaks that.

Except that as Robbie points out, that link is already broken.

[robbieduncan]

Robbie, obviously everyone will pay the same total tax as before and on average people will pay about the same. But there have to be some winners and losers by any system.

And as long as they are earning enough money they *will* pay more for the services they use with local income tax. Though under the new system the rich will pay more than the poor as they do under the current system (if they have expensive houses).

Everyone will not pay the same total tax as before. Under the Lib Dems proposals some will pay a lot more than before. I am yet to see any tax change billed as "on average people will pay about the same" actually work out that way. Every tax change I have seen billed as this has resulted in more people paying more tax than there are people paying less tax.

I think the "as long as they are earning enough money" is telling. The so-called rich already pay more in income tax. Asking them to pay yet more for what are purely local services is simply not reasonable. The council tax is a very unfair way of working out a reasonable and equitable way of paying for local services as it is. Moving to a less fair system does not seem like a good idea to me.

Council tax pays for what? This appears to tell us (http://www.nottinghamshire.gov.uk/home/your_council/financeandthebudget/counciltaxandbusinessrates/whatdoescounciltaxpayfor.htm). All of these items scale with people: so a household with more people should pay more towards this particular tax. Now I can see that this would be seen as penalising families so I am willing to concede that some discount should be applied to children (thus distributing the cost of the across society as seems fashionable). I'd suggest 25% discount for a child as opposed to an adult in line with the current discount for single people.

[firestarter]

If you aren't a "socialist" like me, maybe you should be voting Conservative. Then you don't have to worry about this when you're deciding who to vote for.
Maybe you've misunderstood my posts so far.
- I want the Conservatives to win
- I'll be voting LibDem tactically. Frankly they stand no chance of winning nationally so I have no qualms about doing this, although I do think that a LibDem vote in a Tory marginal WOULD be a dangerous and wasted vote as it risks Labour getting in.
- I definately know what I'm doing and I don't have any worries...


Except that as Robbie points out, that link is already broken.

It's broken so it doesn't matter if it becomes more broken isn't an argument that appeals. Sorry.

[OllyW]

All of these items scale with people: so a household with more people should pay more towards this particular tax. Now I can see that this would be seen as penalising families so I am willing to concede that some discount should be applied to children (thus distributing the cost of the across society as seems fashionable). I'd suggest 25% discount for a child as opposed to an adult in line with the current discount for single people.

So you want to bring back the Poll Tax ?

That's going to be a vote winner :D

[robbieduncan]

So you want to bring back the Poll Tax ?

That's going to be a vote winner :D

I knew that was what I was suggesting when I wrote it! Fundamentally I think that it's the fairest option.

If people really want a local income tax then I would say it should be capped at the level it will apply (like NI is/was as I think this is being removed as a money-grab by the current cash-strapped government) so, say it would drop to 0% on all earnings above £40k. Otherwise this is yet another punitive tax on success. Or perhaps it would not have to be a flat rate. Say 1% for people with no children with 0.5% added for each child?

[OllyW]

I knew that was what I was suggesting when I wrote it! Fundamentally I think that it's the fairest option.

But even Thatcher didn't charge anything for children under 16.

[robbieduncan]

But even Thatcher didn't charge anything for children under 16.

Well, I suppose I want to force people to consider the cost that having children imposes on society as a whole and decide whether or not they are in a position to bring them up well (part of this has to be a financial decision) before having them.

I think too many people view children as a choice that they should not be financially responsible for: that the state should make it possible for them to have children, and as many as they want. I view that as a lifestyle choice and I'd not expect that the state would fund my dream lifestyle of millionaire playboy, so I see no reason for the continued funding of theirs.

[northy124]

Conservative :) i love Blue :D

[JG271]

Lib Dems, without a doubt. No vote is pointless, why compromise with two very disappointing main parties?

I'd favor a conservative government over a Labour government however... if what they say on civil liberties they would actually act upon, repealing some government laws and such.

The margin of votes was about 400 in my constituency.

[firestarter]

Lib Dems, without a doubt. No vote is pointless, why compromise with two very disappointing main parties?

I'd favor a conservative government over a Labour government however... if what they say on civil liberties they would actually act upon, repealing some government laws and such.

The margin of votes was about 400 in my constituency.

Is your seat marginal Labour/LibDem or LibDem/Tory?

If you are marginal LibDem/Tory then you're risking a Labour re-election if you vote LibDem, and it looks like that's definately not what you want!

If you're in a marginal Labour/LibDem then it's all fine - you have a chance of getting your favoured local representitive into parliament, and you get to remove a government you dislike.

[Queso]

Although it adds absolutely nothing to the thread, I can honestly say I haven't a clue how I would vote tomorrow. I actually fear the Tories getting back in, but still want the current government out of power before they further compound the damage they're doing.

The Lib Dems talk the talk, but how much of that is just because they have the luxury of doing so? Greens are a wasted vote, even in my constituency where they managed 8% in 2005. Who does that leave? Mostly parties that makes one's skin crawl.

So the decision is basically to vote for the one you hate the least. What a choice! :(

[scotthayes]

It's going to be a tough decision come the next election.

On the whole I'm pretty happy with my MP (Ian Pearson - Labour) and I'd be happy to vote for him again. However, on a national level. I really do think that Labour have lost their way. The Tories don't seem to have any polices at the moment and seem to be happy with ever what is the opposite to Labour. Lib-Dems, they are still nowhere near ready for national government and have very poor MPs.

So I guess I will vote at a local level and just wait to see what happens.

[SpaceMagic]

That's really what the other/undecided options were for. Plus now I can't edit my own Poll.


I'm also very much undecided. I have no love for Labour and the path they seem to have lead us down, but equally I remember the days of the Tories and they weren't too hot either. The Lib Dems don't stand a hope in hell, and to be honest they're so quiet I have no idea what they're about anyway.

British politics: Crap.

edesignuk - you summed up my thoughts exactly.

British politics is just so lost. It lacks direction and it's becoming a bit too much like the innards of Hello magazine. I feel people who are "strongly" supportive of a particular party haven't taken a good hard look at the politics being thrown about at the moment.

Not saying her in particular, but Britain needs a Thatcher. It needs someone, anyone, regardless of political ideals, to take the reins and give us some strong policies regardless of popularity. You can't please everyone.

[MOFS]

You should vote for George next time 'round. Even though he's clearly a prize twunt, helping to vote another Labour politician in won't help anyone.

I would disagree there. Oona King was a well respected politician, and as a rare black female politician got ousted because of a single issue campaign.

[arkitect]

Britain needs a Thatcher. It needs someone, anyone, regardless of political ideals, to take the reins and give us some strong policies regardless of popularity. You can't please everyone.

****** me…

Never thought I'd hear that! :eek:
Especially when you follow it up with:
regardless of political ideals

*shudder*
I am curious though, how well do you remember those oh so fondly recalled halcyon days?

[OllyW]

It's going to be a tough decision come the next election.

On the whole I'm pretty happy with my MP (Ian Pearson - Labour) and I'd be happy to vote for him again. However, on a national level. I really do think that Labour have lost their way. The Tories don't seem to have any polices at the moment and seem to be happy with ever what is the opposite to Labour. Lib-Dems, they are still nowhere near ready for national government and have very poor MPs.

So I guess I will vote at a local level and just wait to see what happens.

How long has Birmingham been part of Dudley South? :rolleyes:

Pearson is a yes man, he's got high ambitions and isn't going to rock the boat. The only time he seems to vote against the Government is when it's in his personal interest.

Even so, I'll probably end up voting for him again to try and stop the Tories taking the seat. It's bad enough with them running Dudley Council. :(

[Jaffa Cake]

But even Thatcher didn't charge anything for children under 16.When I was at school, Mrs Thatcher stole our milk. :(

[firestarter]

Coming out of the 70s the UK was completely *********. It had just been a downwards slide from the end of the War/loss of Empire and the country was frankly an embarassment.

There's always a lot of whining about Thatcher, but she had the backbone to actually make the tough decisions and give the country a good clear-out. She set us up for an extended period of growth and actually instilled a bit of pride back into the country.

She defeated the unions who had been dragging us down for years and also completely destroyed 'Old Labour'. New-Labour re-created themselves in her image. Both Blair and Brown have invited her back to number 10 for tea and crumpets.

Sure - she ran out of ideas in the end, stopped listening to those around her and set the party on a disasterous course of unnecessary and unpopular legislation. It was high time for her to go when she did.

To pretend that we were living in some sort of pleasant halcyon days in the 70s though is completely false.

[OllyW]

When I was at school, Mrs Thatcher stole our milk. :(

I didn't say she wasn't evil.

It's just that robbieduncan is more evil. ;)

[edesignuk]

It's interesting that so far there's been no one that has come out strongly favouring one party and arguing it's case to get others to follow.

Yes, our options really are all that s***.

[scotthayes]

How long has Birmingham been part of Dudley South? :rolleyes:

Since I moved to Dudley South 9 years ago... Just find it hard to admit.


Pearson is a yes man, he's got high ambitions and isn't going to rock the boat. The only time he seems to vote against the Government is when it's in his personal interest.

Even so, I'll probably end up voting for him again to try and stop the Tories taking the seat. It's bad enough with them running Dudley Council. :(


I'll agree with you about Pearson, but he does seem to do OK for the area.

Don't think the tories will win Dudley South. His margin is comfortable and the local tories seem like they have to drop an outsider in to the area (as they did in 2005)

[Blue Velvet]

Tough question.

I could write an essay about my disappointments in this government, and particularly Gordon Brown, which would probably be more marginally useful than casting a protest vote in one of the safest Tory seats in the UK.

Above all, as well as the war, it's the clumsy attempts to triangulate and keep the Mail on side that have eroded any personal sympathy for this lot:

British jobs for British workers, regrading cannabis to Grade B, ID cards etc.

But let's be honest. The Tories are playing their cards extremely close to their chest; no-one knows what their policies are. I guess I'd like to see a hung parliament just to send a clear signal to all the political classes.

I usually vote Labour because I believe in progressive politics and in its early days, the Labour government implemented the minimum wage as well as some other aspects of policy that have directly improved my life... but in both the Labour and Conservative parties exist an authoritarian streak that seem to piss me off equally. I see New Labour as largely a wasted eight years because they haven't emphatically made the case for whatever they once stood for.

[Cromulent]

I think I will either abstain or vote Tory. Doesn't really matter either way though as I live in one of the safest Tory constituencies in the country. Hell would freeze over before the Lib Dems or Labour got in round here.

[neiltc13]

I live in Gordon Brown's constituency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirkcaldy_and_Cowdenbeath_(UK_Parliament_constituency)) and it's pretty much a one horse race here. I most definitely want to see the Conservatives in Government next but my vote is wasted on them here.

I'll be voting for the Scottish National Party next time around - while it was close last time between them and the Liberal Democrats, they are always the ones people turn to when they don't like what they're seeing in Government.

I don't agree with any of their ideas, especially not the idiotic "independence!" one. However, a seat for them would not really give them any extra power (they are such a minority in the Commons) and it would help by removing a Labour MP.

[edesignuk]

Anything that's been said of late helped anyone in making up their mind?

I haven't seen Browns speech yet, but I still haven't a clue what way to go, even though I do think it's very important to do something.

[oscillatewildly]

When I was at school, Mrs Thatcher stole our milk. :(

Good policy - the milk was left in the sun or next to a radiator, horrible.

12 years is too long for any government, Labour have had their go and, like those before them, blown it. They do not deserve another term. Helping to double national debt! Was it 'Global' when they allowed people to lend and borrow recklessly, when they were taking the tax and thriving on the feel good factor flowing from over-inflated house prices? There is denial over the pain this debt is going to cause. Those in debt are being helped, whilst the elderly who have saved have seen their income and pension rates become zip, very moral Gordon. Then there is the rest ... Brown's speech was tired, Labour are tired. If you swallow the fear line, you will never get change.

Vote -

Hancock Country is a Liberal or Conservative constituency. I'd like the Personal Allowance set at GBP 20,000, and I think the Liberals have mentioned GBP 10,000, but they have shown a lazy 'bash the rich' leaning. The desire to see Labour hammered is strong, so I'm faced with doing something I thought I'd never do.

Whoever gets in, in 10 years it will be time for them to go.

Council Tax - Poll Tax is the fairest, but fair and vote winning aren't always the same.

Cheers,
OW

[Eraserhead]

Probably for the green party or the Lib Dems. Neither of the main parties excite me much or look too bad - their policies are too close together.

I want to hear what they all have to say first though.

[BoyBach]

The choice seems to be between New Tory, Old Tory or Liberal Tory?

I'd vote for Sir Vincent of Cable, but not for Clegg. So my vote will still probably go to our Independent MP.

[Eraserhead]

The choice seems to be between New Tory, Old Tory or Liberal Tory?

Which is which party? :p

[firestarter]

Liberal party is a wasted vote - they're going to loose.

The old Labour supporters may still whine about Thatcher - but there's no denying that Blair/Brown have been a fantastically illiberal disappointment - bringing the country to it's knees economically, joining wars all over the place, bringing in unwelcome 'nanny state' policies to police our every move and shifting the public outlook from a self-responsible one (what you earn is yours, less some sensible taxes) to a state-scrounging one (tax according to means, the government now provides through the benefit system).

Cameron is the only logical choice.

The choice seems to be between New Tory, Old Tory or Liberal Tory?

I'd vote for Sir Vincent of Cable, but not for Clegg. So my vote will still probably go to our Independent MP.

So a wasted vote, then?

Probably for the green party or the Lib Dems. Neither of the main parties excite me much or look too bad - their policies are too close together.

I want to hear what they all have to say first though.

Another wasted vote?

At least you have the benefit of being able to say 'I didn't vote for this!' for the next 5 years... although given that everyone knows a Liberal vote is a wasted one, you shouldn't be taken seriously if you make that claim.

[Eraserhead]

The old Labour supporters may still whine about Thatcher - but there's no denying that Blair/Brown have been a fantastically illiberal disappointment - bringing the country to it's knees economically,

Come on, they made some mistakes with banking, but actually managed the economy pretty well over the 12 years - much better than any previous Labour government.

joining wars all over the place,

True

and shifting the public outlook from a self-responsible one (what you earn is yours, less some sensible taxes) to a state-scrounging one (tax according to means, the government now provides through the benefit system).

Not really, the only time you can say they've done that is very recently with the 50% tax on the rich - but actually that is very low on a historical basis and seems reasonable.

[toontra]

Liberal party is a wasted vote - they're going to loose.


They are higher than Labour in the polls at the moment. By your logic we should only vote for who is likely to win, therefore we all vote tory. How about looking at the policies and voting for who you agree with most - is that such a radical idea?

[smwatson]

Probably Lib Dem.

I haven't really read up on what Labour plan, but I couldn't possible vote for Gordon Brown so unless he's replaced by Milliband or whoever within the next 6 months I won't be voting for them.
Conservatives just seem to be New Labour circa 1997, only Blair looks different and is called Cameron.

In the long run, sticking with what we've got and letting them sort it out might be wise. But only if Brown goes. And Darling. And most of the cabinet. Start again Labour.

[BoyBach]

So a wasted vote, then?


Not at all. This constituency has returned an Independent MP for the previous two elections, and whilst neither of them would've been able to form a government, they've concentrated on local issues.

(Thousands of votes were wasted, however, when it was one of the safest Labour seats in the country.)

[Macky-Mac]

They are higher than Labour in the polls at the moment. By your logic we should only vote for who is likely to win, therefore we all vote tory. How about looking at the policies and voting for who you agree with most - is that such a radical idea?

years ago I had a co-worker who believed exactly that.... some of the time he had to wait until election day before he could decide who was going to win so that he wouldn't "waste" his vote on a loser

[Zombie Acorn]

Come on, they made some mistakes with banking, but actually managed the economy pretty well over the 12 years - much better than any previous Labour government.



True



Not really, the only time you can say they've done that is very recently with the 50% tax on the rich - but actually that is very low on a historical basis and seems reasonable.

50% of your work going to the government sounds reasonable to you? damn. At what point does it become unreasonable?

[firestarter]

They are higher than Labour in the polls at the moment. By your logic we should only vote for who is likely to win, therefore we all vote tory. How about looking at the policies and voting for who you agree with most - is that such a radical idea?

I vote for whoever I need to to best further my political beliefs.

I have voted Liberal for the last couple of elections - but only because I'm confident they won't be able to make up a government - as I find their policies ridiculous. If there was a chance they might actually have some power I wouldn't vote the way I do.

I'm in a traditional Labour area which has had a Liberal MP for the last few years - and I'd perfer for her to remain in place and keep Labour out.

Voting Tory in my borough would be wasting my vote... even though I want them to win.

Come on, they made some mistakes with banking, but actually managed the economy pretty well over the 12 years - much better than any previous Labour government.

Well, that's certainly damning with faint praise isn't it? And I'm not sure whether I can agree with you that they've screwed up the economy less than the last time they were in.

Not really, the only time you can say they've done that is very recently with the 50% tax on the rich - but actually that is very low on a historical basis and seems reasonable.

Nonsense. There are many examples where they've removed tax breaks and shifted to a handout system. Check out what they've done with child benefit.

They're still at it! (http://www.hrmagazine.co.uk/news/942354/Prime-Ministers-proposed-phasing-tax-relief-childcare-vouchers-gets-hostile-reception/)

[Eraserhead]

Well, that's certainly damning with faint praise isn't it? And I'm not sure whether I can agree with you that they've screwed up the economy less than the last time they were in.

Really you think they were worse this time than: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_of_discontent?

Nonsense. There are many examples where they've removed tax breaks and shifted to a handout system. Check out what they've done with child benefit.

They're still at it! (http://www.hrmagazine.co.uk/news/942354/Prime-Ministers-proposed-phasing-tax-relief-childcare-vouchers-gets-hostile-reception/)

This seems like a pretty minor example. Its not as if they've declared all out war on the rich...

[firestarter]

This seems like a pretty minor example. Its not as if they've declared all out war on the rich...

It's not so much at the 'taking from the rich' end of things that Labour bother me.

It concerns me more that at the 'giving to the poor' (or anyone really), they always favour direct payouts from the state over tax cuts. I really think this encourages over reliance on the state, and fails to enforce the fact that a person's income must predominantly be made up of them getting out to work and earning it.

It's an inefficient way of working too. Taking in taxes, then giving back invariably means that a large amount of money gets creamed off by bureaucrats in waste.

[neiltc13]

Really you think they were worse this time than: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_of_discontent?



This seems like a pretty minor example. Its not as if they've declared all out war on the rich...

No, but they have constantly given hard working people with no children an extremely hard time. Child Benefit is just one example, but then there are child tax credits and child trust funds, as well as a whole host of smaller benefits (which add up) like free school meals for all children in some regions.

If people have children it should NOT be my responsibility as an employed single person to support them. That's what I hate about Labour more than anything - they try to convince everyone that the "vulnerable" require our money, but then give it to people who definitely don't need it at all. If you can't afford to have children then don't.

It's an inefficient way of working too. Taking in taxes, then giving back invariably means that a large amount of money gets creamed off by bureaucrats in waste.

I agree with this entirely. A good example is Vehicle Excise Duty or Road Tax as most people know it. The Government makes people pay to run their vehicles based on the amount of CO2 they produce and then use the money to maintain roads. Last time I checked the amount of CO2 emitted by a vehicle had no correlation to the amount of wear it caused to roads and indeed a person with a "gas guzzler" who uses it one day a week will always pay more road tax than someone who has a smaller car and uses it seven days a week. This should be abolished and the rate of duty on fuel should be increased. Then those who use the roads most would pay the most and the entire system of tax discs and chasing people for failing to renew could be scrapped, saving a huge amount of money.

[stomer]

No, but they have constantly given hard working people with no children an extremely hard time. Child Benefit is just one example, but then there are child tax credits and child trust funds, as well as a whole host of smaller benefits (which add up) like free school meals for all children in some regions.

If people have children it should NOT be my responsibility as an employed single person to support them. That's what I hate about Labour more than anything - they try to convince everyone that the "vulnerable" require our money, but then give it to people who definitely don't need it at all. If you can't afford to have children then don't.

I agree with you in principle. What you describe falls under personal responsibility. However, the government doesn't hand out child benefit because it's feeling particularly altruistic. It's the government's job to look after the economy and an ageing population does not help the economy. Also, child benefit no doubt brings certain families out of poverty and thus reduces crime.

IMO it'd be foolish to remove child benefit completely. I think you could however argue over the amount of child benefit paid.

[Eraserhead]

50% of your work going to the government sounds reasonable to you? damn. At what point does it become unreasonable?

More than 50%. And it only applies to income above £150k

I agree with this entirely. A good example is Vehicle Excise Duty or Road Tax as most people know it. The Government makes people pay to run their vehicles based on the amount of CO2 they produce and then use the money to maintain roads. Last time I checked the amount of CO2 emitted by a vehicle had no correlation to the amount of wear it caused to roads and indeed a person with a "gas guzzler" who uses it one day a week will always pay more road tax than someone who has a smaller car and uses it seven days a week. This should be abolished and the rate of duty on fuel should be increased. Then those who use the roads most would pay the most and the entire system of tax discs and chasing people for failing to renew could be scrapped, saving a huge amount of money.

This is a good point.

[firestarter]

More than 50%. And it only applies to income above £150k

Of course income tax is only part of the story when it comes to total taxation.

VAT, fuel, council, TV, capital gains, NI, road, inheritance, betting, import duty, stamp duty.

Good luck holding onto that remaining 50%...

[Bennieboy©]

certainly wouldnt vote labour, in the donkeys years they've been in power most things have only gotten worse, not better,

[oscillatewildly]

No, but they have constantly given hard working people with no children an extremely hard time. Child Benefit is just one example, but then there are child tax credits and child trust funds, as well as a whole host of smaller benefits (which add up) like free school meals for all children in some regions.

If people have children it should NOT be my responsibility as an employed single person to support them. That's what I hate about Labour more than anything - they try to convince everyone that the "vulnerable" require our money, but then give it to people who definitely don't need it at all. If you can't afford to have children then don't.

I agree with this entirely. A good example is Vehicle Excise Duty or Road Tax as most people know it. The Government makes people pay to run their vehicles based on the amount of CO2 they produce and then use the money to maintain roads. Last time I checked the amount of CO2 emitted by a vehicle had no correlation to the amount of wear it caused to roads and indeed a person with a "gas guzzler" who uses it one day a week will always pay more road tax than someone who has a smaller car and uses it seven days a week. This should be abolished and the rate of duty on fuel should be increased. Then those who use the roads most would pay the most and the entire system of tax discs and chasing people for failing to renew could be scrapped, saving a huge amount of money.


Yep, scrap Child Benefit except for those at the extremes - those with physical and/or mental handicap should get proper care, including home care where required. It is reasonable to expect parents to pay where the child is healthy and 'average'. Use some of the pot on schooling - music, sport, reading tuition and food. Save the rest.

VED on fuel - gets those who don't pay the current fixed fee, about one million people. The cost becomes related to the amount of CO2 produced, if you're into that thing. Two gallons burnt using a small car produces twice the CO2 as a 'gas guzzler' burning one gallon. Replace the tax disc with an insurance disc.

Cheers,
OW

[djellison]

I'm liking the words coming out of Manchester at the moment.

[edesignuk]

I'm liking the words coming out of Manchester at the moment....but do you believe them?

[robbieduncan]

I'm liking the words coming out of Manchester at the moment.

Me too

...but do you believe them?

No

So it's back to square one :(

[arkitect]

I'm liking the words coming out of Manchester at the moment.

Which words?

The proposed changes to benefits (admirable if unlikely to succeed)
or
the trainsmash the Tories call an EU policy?

...but do you believe them?
When politicians call for "Radical reforms"… I laugh.

[robbieduncan]

Which words?

The proposed changes to benefits (admirable if unlikely to succeed)
or
the trainsmash the Tories call an EU policy?

The first. The second sounds even less likely to succeed (and is a collection of bad ideas anyway).

[edesignuk]

No

So it's back to square one :(

When politicians call for "Radical reforms"… I laugh.
So, square one indeed.

More than ever I feel like the next election is an important one, but none of our options inspire the least bit of confidence or hope.

What a mess we're in :(

[BoyBach]

I'm liking the words coming out of Manchester at the moment.

Which words?

The proposed changes to benefits (admirable if unlikely to succeed)


Remember when a newly elected Prime Minister Anthony Blair charged Frank Fields to "think the unthinkable" about benefit reform - who came up with very much the same proposal that the Tories are now floating - but was blocked by a certain Gordon Brown? If only Anthony Blair had shown some courage, sacked his Chancellor and backed Mr. Fields, how different things could have been...

[djellison]

Which words?

The proposed changes to benefits (admirable if unlikely to succeed)
or
the trainsmash the Tories call an EU policy?


Benefit reform is clearly required and they seem to be the only guys talking about it. And the words 'referendum' ARE getting mentioned for which it's about damn time.

Do I trust them? No less or more than any other party frankly.

[Eraserhead]

And the words 'referendum' ARE getting mentioned for which it's about damn time.

Its far too late for that. It'll piss the other European countries off way too much for it to be worth holding one.

If we did do it we'll get marginalised on every EU issue the other countries don't have to give us any ground on for a decade - especially if we vote against the treaty.

They might even throw us out of the EU which would be terrible for our economy as 50% of our trade is with the EU, and we'd then have to comply with even more EU legislation like the Norwegians have to to be able to compete for international contracts.

And we don't get to vote on any other treaties that get signed, for example the general trade treaties/WTO treaties.

[oscillatewildly]

Is the UK a net exporter to the EU or is it a net importer?

Let them kick us out - Iceland can take our place, it is looking for handouts.

Cheers,
OW

[edesignuk]

I think I'm beginning to lean Lib Dem, simply because it feels like it's my only option.

Labour have taken away my privacy to a large extent and will no doubt continue to do so. They've taken us to war, and many many more things I can't stand.

I'm not too young to remember the previous Tory government, and they were no fun either, probably worse in their own way.

This leaves me with Lib Dems. ******* it huh, what's the worst that can happen?

I doubt they will win, but I just hope both Labour and Conservatives see big drops in their "support".

[Eraserhead]

Is the UK a net exporter to the EU or is it a net importer?

We are apparently a net importer (http://www.global-vision.net/facts/fact15_4.asp).

Let them kick us out - Iceland can take our place, it is looking for handouts.

The EU costs about 1% of GDP, the damage to the economy from not being in the EU is likely to be larger, even if it only affects a small amount of the trade with the EU.

[oscillatewildly]

Eraserhead's post split -

The EU costs about 1% of GDP, ...

...the damage to the economy from not being in the EU is likely to be larger, even if it only affects a small amount of the trade with the EU.

--------

Cost - apparently the Royal Family doesn't cost each of us that much, but ...

Damage - why?

Cheers,
OW

[paddy]

Eraserhead's post split -

The EU costs about 1% of GDP, ...

...the damage to the economy from not being in the EU is likely to be larger, even if it only affects a small amount of the trade with the EU.

--------

Cost - apparently the Royal Family doesn't cost each of us that much, but ...

Damage - why?

Cheers,
OW

Well I'll put it like this, what benefit could you possibly get from withdrawal?

EDIT: Oh, btw Lisbon actually provides the mechanism to withdraw from the EU.

[OllyW]

Well I'll put it like this, what benefit could you possibly get from withdrawal?

No more UKIP?

[firestarter]

Damage - why?


There's a large argument surrounding internal investment to the UK... and us being a favorable place for large foreign companies to invest in as an easy place to get going in Europe. Would this continue if we weren't members.

Personally, I'm a really strong Europhile. I think Europe's influence has tempered some of the policies of successive UK governments, I think the human rights act is a good thing in general and I think we need to be part of a very strong large trade group to compete (both commercially and culturally).

[Dagless]

Conservative here, as always.

[peskaa]

I'm pretty disgusted about the Public Sector pay freeze. Now, I have personal interest in this, being an NHS worker, but I truly believe it is being done wrong.

If you earn over £18,000 a year, you will have your pay frozen. No cost of living increase (which was 2.4% last year). So, I essentially get my pay cut, not frozen - the whole point of the CoI increase was to keep pay worth the same.

The thing is, £18,000? That's a very low threshold. I could understand if it was something like £50,000 or even higher, as its these high earners that actually don't rely on basically every penny of their income to live on (yes, I am generalising, but that is what politics is about). By doing this pay freeze, they'll be biting into the pockets of front-line staff - nurses, junior doctors, healthcare scientists etc. Not the big big earners, but those who actually make the system work. It could be that some of those staff can't afford to continue on that salary if it gets frozen.

Throw in the fact that this year I am expected to make a 15% saving, yet I get a pay cut? Go screw yourselves.

[oscillatewildly]

Well I'll put it like this, what benefit could you possibly get from withdrawal?

EDIT: Oh, btw Lisbon actually provides the mechanism to withdraw from the EU.

The old switcheroo.

Save a bit of cash, immigration, Brussels to Strasbourg, El Presidente, Fishermen/Post Office + Royal Mail ...

---

By firestarter - There's a large argument surrounding internal investment to the UK... and us being a favorable place for large foreign companies to invest in as an easy place to get going in Europe. Would this continue if we weren't members.

---

Provide the conditions and they will come.

I would want a referendum less if the EU was just trade. If we get one, the result is accepted, though I can't guarantee the EU will accept it.

Cheers,
OW

[iPhone 62S]

The Pirate Party. (http://www.pirateparty.org.uk/)

[paddy]

The old switcheroo.

Save a bit of cash, immigration, Brussels to Strasbourg, El Presidente, Fishermen/Post Office + Royal Mail ...

That's only true if you read The Daily Mail. Have a look at the real facts of the matter -



3.5 million jobs in the UK are linked, directly and indirectly, to the export of goods and services to the EU. The estimated employment gains from the single market amount to 1.4% of total employment in the EU in 2006 – equivalent to 2.75 million jobs.

57% of total British trade is with the EU. British companies exported approximately £150 billion worth of goods to the EU27 in 2006 – 62% of total exports, and a rise of 24% compared to 2005.


Economic analysts estimate that the recently agreed Services Directive could be worth approximately £5 billion annually to the UK economy, and could deliver around 600,000 new jobs. Approximately 70% of UK employment is in services.


British Nationals made 53 million visits to the rest of Europe in 2006 – a 50% rise since 1998. 5% - that’s 2.2 million – British Nationals now own property overseas. 4% are elsewhere in Europe.


With more than 490 million citizens, the EU is the largest multi-lateral trading bloc in the world, accounting for 20% of world trade.



Source (http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/global-issues/institutions/britain-in-the-european-union/quick-guide-to-the-eu/what-we-gain/eu-economic-benefits)

Provide the conditions and they will come.

Well surely barrier free access to around 500 million people is a fairly key condition?

I would want a referendum less if the EU was just trade.


Britain tried that, it was called the European Free Trade Association. It failed and most (all?) of its members joined what is now the EU.

[firestarter]

I'm pretty disgusted about the Public Sector pay freeze. Now, I have personal interest in this, being an NHS worker, but I truly believe it is being done wrong.

If you earn over £18,000 a year, you will have your pay frozen. No cost of living increase (which was 2.4% last year). So, I essentially get my pay cut, not frozen - the whole point of the CoI increase was to keep pay worth the same.

The thing is, £18,000? That's a very low threshold. I could understand if it was something like £50,000 or even higher, as its these high earners that actually don't rely on basically every penny of their income to live on (yes, I am generalising, but that is what politics is about). By doing this pay freeze, they'll be biting into the pockets of front-line staff - nurses, junior doctors, healthcare scientists etc. Not the big big earners, but those who actually make the system work. It could be that some of those staff can't afford to continue on that salary if it gets frozen.

Throw in the fact that this year I am expected to make a 15% saving, yet I get a pay cut? Go screw yourselves.

Well that certainly sucks - although you wouldn't be alone, since loads of private sector people have had pay cuts/freezes/lost their jobs.

The point about the £50k mark is yes, those people can probably afford this more - but as a proportion, most public sector workers aren't earning 50k.

So to reduce public expenditure, you need to sack people or cut everyone's pay. Just freezing those over £50k is a waste of time - it hardly saves any money.

[oscillatewildly]

That's only true if you read The Daily Mail. Have a look at the real facts of the matter -



Source (http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/global-issues/institutions/britain-in-the-european-union/quick-guide-to-the-eu/what-we-gain/eu-economic-benefits)



Well surely barrier free access to around 500 million people is a fairly key condition?



Britain tried that, it was called the European Free Trade Association. It failed and most (all?) of its members joined what is now the EU.



Don't read the Mail, but probably as credible as a government department.

All jobs will be lost, protectionism and all out trade war, the EU giving up their net exports?

What do the economic analysts at the next table say?

British nationals abroad - the business of the other countries. Controlling immigration is not the same as being against immigration.

EU countries unable to merely trade?

Cheers,
OW

[paddy]

EU countries unable to merely trade?


Like a said, the EFTA wasn't really a success. Anyway, I think Europe as a whole is better off than it ever has been before. Merely trading as sovereign and unconnected nations will not bind us in the way that we need and ensure peace for generations.

[remmy]

Like a said, the EFTA wasn't really a success. Anyway, I think Europe as a whole is better off than it ever has been before. Merely trading as sovereign and unconnected nations will not bind us in the way that we need and ensure peace for generations.

Couldn't agree more.

[peskaa]

Well that certainly sucks - although you wouldn't be alone, since loads of private sector people have had pay cuts/freezes/lost their jobs.

The point about the £50k mark is yes, those people can probably afford this more - but as a proportion, most public sector workers aren't earning 50k.

So to reduce public expenditure, you need to sack people or cut everyone's pay. Just freezing those over £50k is a waste of time - it hardly saves any money.

Beg to differ. To reduce public expenditure you need to cut out the people who have jobs doing nothing - namely the endless quangos draining millions from the pot, a lot of the middle/senior managers who are there to simply add red tape to any decision making - that way you will actually save money.

Sure, you can freeze every single public sector worker's income, and it will save money, but it will (rightfully) annoy the people further down the scale who actually do a lot of the work and may ultimately leave - fancy seeing less teachers, nurses, doctors, rubbish collectors, police, and who knows what else around?

[firestarter]

Beg to differ. To reduce public expenditure you need to cut out the people who have jobs doing nothing - namely the endless quangos draining millions from the pot, a lot of the middle/senior managers who are there to simply add red tape to any decision making - that way you will actually save money.

Sure, you can freeze every single public sector worker's income, and it will save money, but it will (rightfully) annoy the people further down the scale who actually do a lot of the work and may ultimately leave - fancy seeing less teachers, nurses, doctors, rubbish collectors, police, and who knows what else around?

Well, I didn't attempt to write an exhaustive list of actions that need to be taken - and obviously if there are functions that aren't needed then they need to go first, I agree.

You wouldn't be alone in loosing pay as part of this whole fiasco though... what makes your part of the public sector special? The public sector is a vast number of people - anything to cut this cost will help.

It's a bit unfair to blame Cameron for stating the obvious. Maybe if Gordon Brown hadn't pi***d our money up the wall for the last 10 years there would be less deficit, and less need for this sort of action.