Poll: Which party will get your vote in the General Election?

[britboy4321]

It would be a real terms cut in incapacity benefits, but it probably won't happen. It is not a Conservative policy. It is against Human Rights legislation. There is no current indicator to suggest this will happen, nor is there a historical precedent that pertains to modern day.

OK. Following on from my last example, I would argue therefore that if someone said EVERYONE gets no 'incapacity benefits' apart from those in a coma, OR those with downs syndrome' would ALSO be described as a 'real terms cut in incapacity benefit'.

And on and on and on until we reach the current 'harder criteria introduced by the tories so less people are officially described as 'disabled and can't work'', which I'd argue can also come under the banner of 'real terms cut in incapacity benefit'.

Therefore to argue about whether it is right or wrong, one would have to have a thorough understanding of currently what qualifies as 'ok mate, you're disabled and can't work' and what the tories propose we should use as the official yardstick for 'ok mate, you're disabled and can't work'.

Would you not agree? I'm not attacking within this post at all, just trying to find common ground. read again, I'm not asking you to compromise on anything, just trying to reach an initial point of agreement on the discussion ..

 

[robgmun]

So someone with downs syndrome, the mental age of a 3 year old, and no arms or legs (but NOT in a coma), you'd describe getting them off incapacity benefit as 'just getting ***** scroungers back to work'?

Wow you really are the true traditional tory blue. Thanks for your honesty actually seriously I do appreciate it. Most tories daren't even answer the question with how they actually feel (of course).

It would never go that far, you are mental if you think that's the case. Typical spin to make tories sound heartless, try again. By the way, the car is usless, you didn't ***** out for the MOT

 

[britboy4321]

It would never go that far, you are mental if you think that's the case. Typical spin to make tories sound heartless, try again. By the way, the car is usless, you didn't ***** out for the MOT

Read back -- I said 'and the CHANCE to win a car'. I rolled a die for you here as you'd earnt the 'chance'. You lost. It was a brand new Ferrari Enzo by the way

My scenario WAS it going that far (read it again). You answered honestly the exact question I aksed. I thanked you. job done - move on. Don't worry - plenty of tories think like you, it's not even uncommon (it's called the 'nasty party' for a reason you know!). As I said, thanks for the honesty ..

 

[robgmun]

My scenario WAS it going that far (read it again). You answered honestly the exact question I aksed. I thanked you. job done - move on. Don't worry - plenty of tories think like you, it's not even uncommon (it's called the 'nasty party' for a reason you know!). As I said, thanks for the honesty ..

OK moving on, now answer this question with out dogding, yes or no

Do you honestly think that the conservatices will go that far?

Yes or no

Council house up for grabs

 

[britboy4321]

OK moving on, now answer this question with out dogding, yes or no

Do you honestly think that the conservatices will go that far?

Yes or no

Council house up for grabs

Oh no definately not. But they'll go a distance in their reclassification which I believe will be beyond just getting '***** Thieving Peter' back to work, and well into hurting 'Legitimately knackered up Larry' by effectively saying 'Oh come on, a slipped disc with trapped nerve in it isn't that bad, now go shift those 120 bags of concrete to earn your bread no matter how much it hurts, as your incapacity benefit is OFF.'.

 

[robgmun]

You honestly believe that?.........


....please tell me the basis of this thought, i am geneuinely interested now. Why do you sincerely believe this?

 

[robgmun]

Well?









(it would be nice if no-one else posts until britboy answers my question)

 

[britboy4321]

You honestly believe that?.........


....please tell me the basis of this thought, i am geneuinely interested now. Why do you sincerely believe this?

Well my answer really annoys others but hand on heart I'll try and say this without being inflammatory and being as absolutely honest as I can. Oh , it's also an essay!

I am old enough to remember a lot of different governments. Furthermore I have studied history A-level, and government & political studies A-level.

If there's one thing consistent throughout history, it's that right wing parties tend to go for lower taxes, lower benefits. Now of course this is a very VERY sinple rule, but generally it holds true. The thing is there is nothing wrong with voting for that, if you know what your voting for.

Now the only examples I personally remember from my life are that of the conservatives. When they were last in they followed the same form of governance that I had read about and studied in 50 right wing governments all over the world. They did what they said they were going to - less government, lower taxes, less benefits. No problem .. the people got exactly what they voted for.

Similarly as a general rule the world wide, left wing government 'centre-pin' is 'higher taxes, more government, better public services'. So yes of course they are more guilty than the conservatives of 'nanny state' because that's kind of a cornerstone of what they do. In effect its what we vote for. When people moan about Labour putting up taxes I'm always kind of thinking 'But thats what left-wing parties do. Thats kind of the whole point. That's what we voted for .. to stop reading about long waiting lists for operations .. to stop reading about crime rates being high by paying public servants (called the police) to stop it happening'.

So going off all my own experience of what I can remember, as well as what I have been taught, right wing simply means lower taxes, less government, worse public services. I really do think that the people who think public services won't suffer if a load of money is whipped out of it are not being honest with themselves. It has to suffer. Everything suffers at least slightly if you whip a load of money out of it. If there is 1 legitimately disabled person who is incorrectly declared 'fit to work' by the conservatives new rules, the social state has VERY SLIGHTLY SUFFERED. And this is the most frustrating thing to me, when people here say it won't suffer at all. That's just not true. It will. Hell, it may be VERY WORTH IT as we stop 50,000 gypsy ****** from claiming incapacity benefit, that SOUNDS FINE - but to say 'the public service hasn't suffered at all' is simply wrong. It's suffered very slightly, but it was worth it.

People here are voting conservative for 'Lower tax, less government, SAME public services'. That is not an honest vote. If they said 'I'm prepared for public services to inevitably at least suffer a bit' 100% FINE WITH ME GOOD VOTE. Honest vote. Don't moan when it happens.

Basically if any party could offer 'lower taxes, same public services' every single person on this planet would vote for them! EVERYONE! It's a no-brainer. But I KNOW it just won't work like that in reality, because I've been here before ..

Do you get me? That took some time to type so don't just slate it!!

 

[robgmun]

First of all I’d like to thank you for posting without being inflammatory or attempt to be condescending, it really shows that you can hold an intelligent debate if you want, i will digest this now and reply in due course*. Thank you








*(works just got mental here, i'll read it properly when it's quite again)

 

[Dolph]

Well my answer really annoys others but hand on heart I'll try and say this without being inflammatory and being as absolutely honest as I can. Oh , it's also an essay!

I am old enough to remember a lot of different governments. Furthermore I have studied history A-level, and government & political studies A-level.

If there's one thing consistent throughout history, it's that right wing parties tend to go for lower taxes, lower benefits. Now of course this is a very VERY sinple rule, but generally it holds true. The thing is there is nothing wrong with voting for that, if you know what your voting for.

Now the only examples I personally remember from my life are that of the conservatives. When they were last in they followed the same form of governance that I had read about and studied in 50 right wing governments all over the world. They did what they said they were going to - less government, lower taxes, less benefits. No problem .. the people got exactly what they voted for.

Similarly as a general rule the world wide, left wing government 'centre-pin' is 'higher taxes, more government, better public services'. So yes of course they are more guilty than the conservatives of 'nanny state' because that's kind of a cornerstone of what they do. In effect its what we vote for. When people moan about Labour putting up taxes I'm always kind of thinking 'But thats what left-wing parties do. Thats kind of the whole point. That's what we voted for .. to stop reading about long waiting lists for operations .. to stop reading about crime rates being high by paying public servants (called the police) to stop it happening'.

So going off all my own experience of what I can remember, as well as what I have been taught, right wing simply means lower taxes, less government, worse public services. I really do think that the people who think public services won't suffer if a load of money is whipped out of it are not being honest with themselves. It has to suffer. Everything suffers at least slightly if you whip a load of money out of it. If there is 1 legitimately disabled person who is incorrectly declared 'fit to work' by the conservatives new rules, the social state has VERY SLIGHTLY SUFFERED. And this is the most frustrating thing to me, when people here say it won't suffer at all. That's just not true. It will. Hell, it may be VERY WORTH IT as we stop 50,000 gypsy ****** from claiming incapacity benefit, that SOUNDS FINE - but to say 'the public service hasn't suffered at all' is simply wrong. It's suffered very slightly, but it was worth it.

People here are voting conservative for 'Lower tax, less government, SAME public services'. That is not an honest vote. If they said 'I'm prepared for public services to inevitably at least suffer a bit' 100% FINE WITH ME GOOD VOTE. Honest vote. Don't moan when it happens.

Basically if any party could offer 'lower taxes, same public services' every single person on this planet would vote for them! EVERYONE! It's a no-brainer. But I KNOW it just won't work like that in reality, because I've been here before ..

Do you get me? That took some time to type so don't just slate it!!

This is the best post you've made so far, I don't agree with it all (as I'll get on to in a moment) but we finally have some substance to your argument. (reading back, I will apologise somewhat that I haven't fully expanded my position in this thread, it is fairly well known in SC and I sometimes forget that)

Firstly, with regards to the right wing/left wing economics idea (we'll leave the social position for a moment), it isn't quite as simple, at least in my mind, as right wing = lower taxes. It is more about who controls and plans the economy (of which services, production etc form a part).

At the extremes, right wing economics gives full, unfettered freemarket behaviour with no State intervention, control or planning in the economy. Left wing economics, on the other hand, at the extreme gives a completely state planned and managed economy.

Both Labour and the Tories are centre right parties on that sort of scale. Neither (these days) want either extreme.

Now, the big issue these days revolves around (a) whether the government should fund something, (b) if they should fund something, how the service itself should be provided, and (c) whether we are getting value for money with the service provided.

It is (c) that is the cause of your consternation about how parties can promise cuts with similar service levels. The Tories, currently, are asserting that our public services are not being run efficiently in terms of service provided vs costs, and are arguing with reform that similar service levels can be provided with less money if the efficiency is improved. This is a position that many people agree with currently, especially given that pouring large amounts of money (and employing a substantial number of extra employees) has not resulted in a meaningful increase in service levels (and indeed this is borne out by the data from various government agencies as posted by people including myself in this thread).

For myself, I also have issues with (a) and (b) with regards to our current setup. I think we fund too much through taxation that would be better provided without state intervention, and I also feel that the necessary services the state should be facilitating (such as education and healthcare) are not being provided in the best way with the current setup, and that they should be much more independent from the state in provision than they currently are, with the state taking only the role of ensuring access to these services, rather than centrally providing and closely managing these services, their budgets, their spending, their choices uniformly.

I also do not like the way our current setup treats people differently based on whether they are successful or not (at both ends of the income spectrum) and believe this needs to be changed to ensure everyone has a minimum income accounted for by the state, and that everyone pays an equal proportion of their income into taxation.

I don't consider voting conservative to take things away from people, but to ensure people are getting the best value for money (which isn't the same as the cheapest), and even then I'm not convinced their plans are the best, they just have a better track record at it than Labour. (I have also voted Lib Dem in the past before they became much more authoritarian to reach their current position).

Really, the entire choice boils down to whether you think the answers lie with the government or the people taking responsibility for their choices and the consequences. I personally believe the latter.

 

[Hatter The Mad]

Do you get me? That took some time to type so don't just slate it!!

I wish you took the same time to put into all your posts, as this was substantive and well written (in stark contrast to most of your others). I'll reply in full shortly

 

[Rich_L]

More comments from 'experts' - this time the IMF - contradicting the Tories plans to cut spending immediately

"A key risk is that a premature and incoherent exit from supportive policies may undermine global growth and its rebalancing," and ""the fiscal stimulus planned for 2010 should be fully implemented"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/stephanieflanders/2010/01/the_imfs_take.html

Are the Tories going to retract their plans and adopt a more sensible 'wait and see' approach like the Lib Dems are proposing, or are they inextricably wedded to their policy now?

 

[Hatter The Mad]

More comments from 'experts' - this time the IMF - contradicting the Tories plans to cut spending immediately


http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/stephanieflanders/2010/01/the_imfs_take.html

Are the Tories going to retract their plans and adopt a more sensible 'wait and see' approach like the Lib Dems are proposing, or are they inextricably wedded to their policy now?

But read on a sentence or two, and there's a downside risk the Tories will appreciate as well: namely, that "rising concerns about worsening budget conditions and fiscal sustainability could unsettle financial markets and stifle the recovery by raising the cost of borrowing for households and companies".

 

[Rich_L]

Yes, hence the sensible 'wait and see' approach rather than naively (a seemingly common theme in the Cameron/Osborne-era Tories) committing to 'soundbite-friendly' spending cuts with little regard to the economic situation they might inherit.

 

[semi-pro waster]

Yet more evidence that social inequality has completely failed to be tackled by Labour...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8481534.stm

It is certainly worth noting where the last drop in the equality gap is and who was governing the country at the time...

I actually meant to post this article earlier but then got rather stuck with work. It's a bit misleading I feel in some of the premises it starts with such as "despite women up to the age of 44 having better qualifications than men, men were still paid up to 21% more per hour" - that would assume that qualifications were the governing factor in pay when there is no reason why it has to be. If the candidates are otherwise absolutely equal and it is only in qualifications that they differ then it might be a valid conclusion to draw, otherwise it is too simplistic a measure to be of use.

Then there are statements in the newspiece and report along the lines of "Every extra £100 a month in family income, put a child a month ahead of typical development aged five" - every extra £100 compared to what baseline? If there is an extra £12,000 in family income compared to the (mean/mode/median?) income then should a five year old child be on a level with a 15 year old? Is there limitless potential here? Statements like the one highlighted are fairly meaningless and if I can't read the report without questioning fundamentals then I struggle to accept the conclusions.

 

[scorza]

Yet more evidence that social inequality has completely failed to be tackled by Labour...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8481534.stm

It is certainly worth noting where the last drop in the equality gap is and who was governing the country at the time...

I thought your position was that the gap between rich and poor didn't matter? Today's figures are disappointing but not surprising given that for the last 20 years the country has been begging the super-rich to come and live here, believing in the myth that their wealth will trickle down to the rest of us.

People have short memories when it comes to the Conservatives. At a time when the equality gap is at its widest, Conservative policy is to raise the inheritance tax threshold and cut spending on state education - they haven't changed.

 

[Dolph]

I thought your position was that the gap between rich and poor didn't matter? Today's figures are disappointing but not surprising given that for the last 20 years the country has been begging the super-rich to come and live here, believing in the myth that their wealth will trickle down to the rest of us.

People have short memories when it comes to the Conservatives. At a time when the equality gap is at its widest, Conservative policy is to raise the inheritance tax threshold and cut spending on state education - they haven't changed.

The gap in earnings/wealth between rich and poor doesn't matter to me.

Social mobility/inequality is about more than that though... Things like access to good education etc matter to me, which is why I oppose the current setup which simply confines people to mediocre education instead unless they can afford better.

It is, however, relevant in terms of people suggesting they are voting labour because labour do better at social equality...

 

[Hatter The Mad]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/jan/26/uk-economy-debt-bob-gross

Bill Gross deals blow to government with warning to his investors that Britain's debt makes it a 'must to avoid'

The government's hopes of claiming credit for reviving the British economy suffered a severe blow today when the world's biggest buyers of bonds warned that the UK was a "must to avoid" for his investors as its debt was "resting on a bed of nitroglycerine".

 

[Dolph]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/jan/26/uk-economy-debt-bob-gross

Bill Gross deals blow to government with warning to his investors that Britain's debt makes it a 'must to avoid'

The government's hopes of claiming credit for reviving the British economy suffered a severe blow today when the world's biggest buyers of bonds warned that the UK was a "must to avoid" for his investors as its debt was "resting on a bed of nitroglycerine".

And yet some still claim that Labour have managed our economy well over the last 13 years...

 

[scorza]

Ah yes, if the co-founder of a California based fund management company says so it must be true /facepalm.