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

Which party will get your vote in the General Election?

  • Conservative

    Votes: 704 38.5%

  • Labour

    Votes: 221 12.1%

  • Liberal Democrat

    Votes: 297 16.2%

  • British National Party

    Votes: 144 7.9%

  • Green Party

    Votes: 36 2.0%

  • UK Independence Party

    Votes: 46 2.5%

  • Other

    Votes: 48 2.6%

  • Don't care I have no intension of voting.

    Votes: 334 18.3%
  • Total voters
    1,830
Status
Not open for further replies.
meghatronic said:
You're being deliberately inflammatory or disingenuous here.
Yearly salay £11,136
Personal allowance is £6,475.
Therefore tax on £4661 is £77 a month, NOT £186 as you claimed.

That's an extra £28 a week you miscalculated by - more than most of my bills.
Click to expand...

I did say it was a rough figure (after all, I don't work for the inland revenue)

Does this make sense?

£928 pcm income gross - £77 tax pcm (that's the figure you gave per month based upon minimum wage income/taxable allowance) = £851 pcm

£851 pcm income net - £822.96 (some bills/living expenses) = £28.04

By my understanding that's £28.04 per month better off than the figures I initially gave. Not per week. Unless I am missing something. And even if it is an extra £112.16 per month as you say, it still does not go far enough for a full time job to pay for everything and leave enough to save for the future/retirement (forget the state pension, it won't be worth a damn in 30 years time) or anything else meaningful.

I've worked hard for a living in my chosen career, only for it all to evaporate in the recession and be reduced to minimum wage rubbish. See how you feel about the same happening to you in ten years time when you have lost just about every prospect you previously had for a modest income/existence, and it's all wiped out by something beyond your control.
I did not want to be made redundant, nor did I expect to not be able to get work that I am qualified to do. It's a major setback, one which will take a long time to fully recover from, with implications that go beyond mere financial concerns.

But calculations and figures aside, I think you are deliberately missing the meaning of my post and selectively concentrating on the numbers and avoiding the issue that for most people, who have to do crappy jobs to exist from day to day, it matters little who is in government.

The point is that most people who have to live on minimum wage struggle to break even. That's why it's called 'minimum wage', not 'satisfactory income' or 'cushy salary' :p And for anyone who lives like that it makes no difference who is elected, because your daily worries will be the same, if not worse. So is it any wonder there is voter apathy and a sense of resignation and cynicism regarding politics? As I have already said.

I'll freely admit that I'm pretty annoyed at the whole situation over the last 18 months to 2 years.
If the industry you worked in took a sudden nose-dive, leaving you with less than half of the means to live and build a future for yourself and your family that you had before, you'd be pretty annoyed too. And as it's those who run the country who have more of a say in what is done than I have, some measure of complicity and accountability goes with the job, surely? It is their own fault that many people in the UK (myself included) see politicians as largely self-serving; whoever wins, we loose. This is relevant to the two horse system we have here today and how people have to choose to vote. The reality is it makes little difference one way or another, tory or labour, when you're treading water.
 
Last edited:
starfighter said:
That is the problem really, all these weird laws that affect one another. It needs to be simple.
Click to expand...

I don't consider that a weird law, it's a very old one, and it makes perfect sense right until the tax breaks were removed by Labour.

Why should marriage have anything to do with the government or law anyway.

Just scrap the whole damn thing imho and leave it as an agreement between 2 people and perhaps God.
Click to expand...

Because the history of marriage shows it co-opted by the church from the state, not the other way around. A marriage, traditionally, is a contract between two individuals and the state, asking the state to treat them as a single unit, and setting certain obligations between the two as any other contract does.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage#History

But then problems would occur with divorce settlements etc "If I hadn't been married I would have been working and a multi billionaire so I deserve 3/4 of the stuff".
Click to expand...

That some of our outdated divorce laws need reform isn't under debate.

Just be responsible for yourself and the almost inevitable relationship breakdown as it happens 90% of the time. A successful relationship is the unusual outcome so why is it a shock?
Click to expand...

The majority of marriages don't end in divorce :confused: Indeed the trend has started to reverse as people are beginning to think about marriage a lot more than they did in the 70's and 80's.

Assuming married couples get the same as unmarried couples benefits wise? So unless as a single person I get more benefits for my increased tax it is purely on the basis that a couple will look after their partner and claim less benefits.
Click to expand...

That largely depends, it's massively beneficial to live separately (or own/rent separate properties) for unmarried couples, as the benefits that can be claimed increase dramatically. The same benefit does not apply to married couples.

Back in non tory reality married or not, people are going to claim all they can. Because everyone wants money and we all feel we deserve it. (even if it is just a vein attempt at clawing back some of the petrol tax etc)

I can't see someone taking their husband or wife to court really so while in theory it makes sense in reality it is just an unfair tax break for people that probably are better off than those without the break. (just thinking on average people that are married are older and likely more wealthy.)
Click to expand...

Perhaps, perhaps not. In a fully reformed and fair benefits system, I would see no reason for tax breaks for marriage to be given because it would make no difference to the government contribution either way. As it is though, the tax system actually punishes marriage (and civil partnership incidentally, the same issues apply, and the tax benefit being proposed would apply to both) despite all the evidence and research showing benefits to society of marriage.

Most agree tax in general is bad and should be reduced, some agree that taxing the rich more than the poor is bad and this is debatable but taxing the poor more than the rich. what psycho thinks that is a good idea? Cameron.
Click to expand...

I'm far from convinced this taxes the poor more than the rich, you don't have to be anything approaching rich to get married.
 
I am kind of annoyed people don't actually follow the Lib Dems or listen in to what they say because of the age old joke that they're 'not worth a vote / have no policies'. if you look at a lot of the things they've outlined it makes a lot of sense.

They want us to be out of Afghanistan, would give a fairer and more truthfull look at Drug legislation and in all honesty would be an ideal vote for enraged labour voters.

Indeed other parties will suit other people more but theres so so many obvious Lib Dems out there who just don't realise as they've never given them time of day. Also the Lib Dems are the only one of the major parties out there seemingly interested in a fair democracy and trying to change the voting system so that if all three parties each got a third of the vote theyd have that many seats. At the moment the first past the post system means Labour would likley gain a majority of seats even if all of them gained near a third of the vote each

not to mention they opposed the digital economy bill, this is all proof that they do have policies so give them some time people!
 
Last edited:
lozzick said:
I am kind of annoyed people don't actually follow the Lib Dems or listen in to what they say because of the age old joke that they're 'not worth a vote / have no policies'. if you look at a lot of the things they've outlined it makes a lot of sense.
Click to expand...

Which is all a moot point because they cannot be trusted to commit to even the easy to do manifesto promises.
 
lozzick said:
I am kind of annoyed people don't actually follow the Lib Dems or listen in to what they say because of the age old joke that they're 'not worth a vote / have no policies'. if you look at a lot of the things they've outlined it makes a lot of sense.
Click to expand...
The Lib Dems are crackpot loonies with policies unworkable (free uni tuition for all), ludicrous (joining Euro) to the downright dangerous (scrapping Trident). That's why no one gives them the time of day. They will say anything to appease anyone. That is far from an ideal vote. I would rather vote Labour. And that's is saying something. They are neither Liberal nor Democratic and EU loving clueless wannabes. John Redwood has some good blogs about them.

Their own campaign guide advises: "be wicked, act shamelessly, stir endlessly". Given the petty name calling and verging-on-slanderous campaigns by some, they seem to be following it well.
 
Last edited:
meghatronic said:
The Lib Dems are crackpot loonies with policies unworkable (free uni tuition for all), ludicrous (joining Euro) to the downright dangerous (scrapping Trident). That's why no one gives them the time of day. They will say anything to appease anyone. That is far from an ideal vote. I would rather vote Labour. And that's is saying something. They are neither Liberal nor Democratic and EU loving clueless wannabes. John Redwood has some good blogs about them.

Their own campaign guide advises: "be wicked, act shamelessly, stir endlessly". Given the petty name calling and verging-on-slanderous campaigns by some, they seem to be following it well.
Click to expand...

The lib dems have costed their policies, admitted joining the euro would have been a bad idea and not replacing trident means we'll save money in the long run, we need to be aiming for a nuclear (weapon, at least) free world!
 
Moses99p said:
Ideas such as scrapping Trident(/not bringing in a replacement) and getting rid of tuition fees (with the money saved from the former?) are worthy of discussion, no?
Click to expand...
Why should University tuition fees be scrapped?

At what point should the state stop paying for education (i.e. why can't be PhD be state-funded)?

(devil's advocate here:)

Why should I, as a tax-payer, pay for some rich kid to read English?

Why should I, as a tax-payer, pay for someone to bum around on a drama course at a low-rate institution?
 
brainiac ghost said:
we need to be aiming for a nuclear (weapon, at least) free world!
Click to expand...

Nuclear weapons are just an unfortunate side-effect of our understanding of one of the most important aspects of physics.

A nuclear free world would be a step-backwards not just in terms of medicine and energy but generally.

Do you think that the world would be a better place without Nuclear weapons to deter countries from ripping each other apart with other weapons ?
 
Hatter The Mad said:
Why should University tuition fees be scrapped?

At what point should the state stop paying for education (i.e. why can't be PhD be state-funded)?

(devil's advocate here:)

Why should I, as a tax-payer, pay for some rich kid to read English?

Why should I, as a tax-payer, pay for someone to bum around on a drama course at a low-rate institution?
Click to expand...

Why do Labour want people from working class and poorer backgrounds to go to University and then charge tuition fees which are effectively a huge obstacle.
 
Gideon Lorr said:
As much as I see their positions on the economy as being very important, I know what you mean here. Just on defence, I'd like to know what are their positions on Trident (Lib Dems aside), and how will any planned spending cuts affect projects such as the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers? Hopefully this should change over the next week as manifestos began to be published, and the media get tired of rehashing the same few scant facts about the planned NI rise.
Click to expand...
Nice to see someone else who values Defence as an election issue. Were it not for the Lib Dems approach to scrapping trident, eurofighters and more than likely the QE's I would consider them. Unfortunately I value the defence of my country too much to consider them, I would love to have them as an option but their defence position is just a big no no for me.
 
lucasade1 said:
Nice to see someone else who values Defence as an election issue. Were it not for the Lib Dems approach to scrapping trident, eurofighters and more than likely the QE's I would consider them. Unfortunately I value the defence of my country too much to consider them, I would love to have them as an option but their defence position is just a big no no for me.
Click to expand...
Quite. They are loonies. Similar things could be said about the Green party.

It truly is a Labour/Tory world, *maybe* UKIP. *maybe*.
 
meghatronic said:
Quite. They are loonies. Similar things could be said about the Green party.

It truly is a Labour/Tory world, *maybe* UKIP. *maybe*.
Click to expand...

Green Party? Haha as I said in the other thread they would leave the U.K with the same defence capabilities as countries like Iceland or Andorra. I love the UKIP defence policy, but I dislike the thought of leaving the E.U. Hurrah for having one party you could ever vote for :(
 
lucasade1 said:
Green Party? Haha as I said in the other thread they would leave the U.K with the same defence capabilities as countries like Iceland or Andorra. I love the UKIP defence policy, but I dislike the thought of leaving the E.U. Hurrah for having one party you could ever vote for :(
Click to expand...

Apparently, I'm:
Conservatives 33.33%
UKIP 33.33%
BNP 11.11%
Lib Dems 11.11%
Labour 11.11%

Not a bad mix!
 
Moses99p said:
It's true, they don't need money up front... but the prospect of "debt" DOES put people from lower socio economic backgrounds off going to university (this is coming from my first hand experience, when working with said people in my capacity as vice president [welfare and education] of a students' union last year...).
Click to expand...
Why? Most middle class kids (in my experience) pay off their own student debts once graduating, so it is no different.

Student loans are easy to pay off if you;

1) Get a good degree;
2) From a reputable institution;
3) Use it to get a reasonable job/graduate placement.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom