Poll: General election voting intentions poll

[Mr Jack]

Germany was also in a somewhat better position prior to the crash than we were so weathered it better as it could afford the spending needed. However that investment seems have delayed problems rather than solved them as their economy is struggling (relatively).

Germany has sunk the whole eurozone with its pointless brutal approach to Greece and the other PIGS. Austerity is just as bad a policy over the channel as it is here.

I am not sure things would have been as rosey as you think. Worst case we could have had just as much stagnation but with an even higher deficit and higher borrowing rates.

To be clear, I don't think Labour's plans would be 'rosy' - they were far too much austerity-light for that - but we would be in a better place now than we are. Darling was a vastly more competent chancellor than Osborne is. The really sad thing is that the coalition has been sitting there with the best chancellor of the last forty years or more right there in cabinet twiddling his thumbs while Osborne trashes our economy.

 

[Destination]

Who?

 

[RDM]

Who?

Ken Clarke.

 

[Destination]

Ken Clarke.

hmm indeed.

 

[Christmas themed thank]

Killed the economy recovery they inherited leading to three long years of near stagnant growth; laid the groundwork for privatising the NHS; raised tuition fees; presided over the lowest period of house building since the war; tried (and failed) to balance the books by targeting the poorest and most vulnerable in society through the bedroom tax, the welfare cap, the freeze on benefits, the freeze on in-work benefits, the targeting of increased sanctions against claimants whilst at the same time cutting the highest rate of taxation for the rich and increasing spending on pensioners; led to the longest period of sub-inflationary income increases in recorded history; favoured their voters to the extent that pensioners know earn more on average than workers; most of the omnishambles budget; and on and on and on.

This has been the worst government of recent times. I can think of just four good things they've done: gay marriage, scrapping id cards, stamp duty reform and the capital gains tax increase.

The economy is better; not worse.

The NHS cannot support our population - something must be done in order to sustain it. They can raise taxes which I'm sure you'd also complain about.

Ahh the old taxation argument. The richest people still pay the most tax out of any group. What about all the benefit scroungers, they're being paid for by who, the rich? No? Who then.

 

[Dolph]

The economy is better; not worse.

The NHS cannot support our population - something must be done in order to sustain it. They can raise taxes which I'm sure you'd also complain about.

Ahh the old taxation argument. The richest people still pay the most tax out of any group. What about all the benefit scroungers, they're being paid for by who, the rich? No? Who then.

Mr Jack has never met a tax on other people that he doesn't like...

 

[Christmas themed thank]

Mr Jack has never met a tax on other people that he doesn't like...

 

[Narj]

Must say my stance has now changed seeing as the conservatives have been absolutely ruthless on local issues around my way, using their majority over LAB/UKIP to force through hugely unpopular cuts and service charges in the borough.

I feel like I don't have anyone to vote for now. Yes, I know council and national issues are separate.

 

[elmarko]

Ahh the old taxation argument. The richest people still pay the most tax out of any group. What about all the benefit scroungers, they're being paid for by who, the rich? No? Who then.

Wow, you mean the group who amassed the most income pays the most tax?.

 

[elmarko]

Mr Jack has never met a tax on other people that he doesn't like...

You can't talk on the subject of being in favour of punitive changes which impact on others.
It's pretty much the entire basis of everything you suggest.

"More for me, less for everyone else". Hardly impressive.

 

[Dolph]

You can't talk on the subject of being in favour of punitive changes which impact on others.
It's pretty much the entire basis of everything you suggest.

"More for me, less for everyone else". Hardly impressive.

Damn my respect for equality under the law.

 

[Dolph]

Must say my stance has now changed seeing as the conservatives have been absolutely ruthless on local issues around my way, using their majority over LAB/UKIP to force through hugely unpopular cuts and service charges in the borough.

I feel like I don't have anyone to vote for now. Yes, I know council and national issues are separate.

We have a labour local council, they have deliberately cut popular services while refusing to tackle waste, excess and unpopular services so they can blame the government for the cuts and highlight the impacts they have chosen to make as the government's fault.

Still, can't expect any different from them.

 

[platypus]

In the year following the election? France and Germany spring to mind. It's hard to blame the Eurozone mess when countries with higher exposure to it - such as France and Germany - saw vigorous growth while we did not.

This does not appear to be the case in France at all.

 

[Destination]

You can't argue with his facts, he used a one year period, and suggested nothing else would have happened in the manner it did, when it did, if we'd borrowed loads more money and pumped it into our economy when we did, despite the amount of quantitative easing that the badger had already done, and then amount that continued anyway.

This might be similar to labours new trick on borrowing, say they will reduce the deficit each year in the coming parliament, excluding capital projects from the debt total, which are exempt for reasons they cannot explain. They seem to think if you call it a capital project then you never have to pay for it, it isn't debt, and the conservatives can pay for it later when they get back in.

Wow, you mean the group who amassed the most income pays the most tax?.

No. You are incorrect. There are groups in society that pay an amount, and lets not water down this argument with 'he who can afford to pay and rubbish such as that' as 'he who can afford to pay' is already doing so, he is funding those who can't.
The highest earners have a higher tax rate on their higher income than anyone else. No matter what drivel you spout, they do. This assumes PAYE. Which doesn't happen.

Yet the group who earn the more, are companies, such as Apple. Who pay next to nothing. You should stop this rant against the rich you are so fond of, and start the rant against the avoiders, those with umbrella companies, those who setup share dividends to pay corporation tax, rather than income tax. Conceptually this process is legal, normal and used by a great many at all levels of society.

You want to balance society, vote in a party willing to alter the tax structure of the country. It isn't labour. It isn't anyone from what I can see.

 

[Xordium]

Damn my respect for equality under the law.

That would be so clever if it wasn't for the fact the laws on equality are quite clear that does not mean you treat people the same ...

 

[Dolph]

That would be so clever if it wasn't for the fact the laws on equality are quite clear that does not mean you treat people the same ...

Still arguing for discrimination then?

 

[Bear]

Yet the group who earn the more, are companies, such as Apple. Who pay next to nothing. You should stop this rant against the rich you are so fond of, and start the rant against the avoiders, those with umbrella companies, those who setup share dividends to pay corporation tax, rather than income tax. Conceptually this process is legal, normal and used by a great many at all levels of society.

People that work under an umbrella company are doing so because they are working for themselves but don't want the hassle of setting up a company. Whilst working under an umbrella company you pay employers NI, employees NI and income tax. What part of that of that avoids tax? In fact, under and umbrella company, you pay more tax as you are treated as an employer and employee at the same time which is ridiculous.

I work as a ltd company and can tell you that I pay corporation tax and income tax under self assessment, so you are potentially wrong on that as well and on top of that, HMRC also get VAT from my labour. Not very good way of tax avoidance is it?

 

[Mr Jack]

This does not appear to be the case in France at all.

France's economy declined in growth long after ours did. In fact, it's only very recently that it has changed.

 

[Mr Jack]

The economy is better; not worse.

Not by anywhere near as much as it should do. The economy was recovering nicely under Labour's stewardship and that recovery was killed off by the coalition. Just look at the figures and compare this recession to previous ones.

The NHS cannot support our population - something must be done in order to sustain it. They can raise taxes which I'm sure you'd also complain about.

No, I've long supported higher taxation. I'd much rather we moved to a Danish style social democracy with higher taxes and better services for all.

Ahh the old taxation argument. The richest people still pay the most tax out of any group. What about all the benefit scroungers, they're being paid for by who, the rich? No? Who then.

The richest get by far the most benefit out of the setup of our society that people who are on benefits - the poorest and most disadvantaged in the current setup - get a few crumbs from the table is hardly of huge impact.

 

[Dolph]

The richest get by far the most benefit out of the setup of our society that people who are on benefits - the poorest and most disadvantaged in the current setup - get a few crumbs from the table is hardly of huge impact.

The richest make the most of the setup of our society, they don't get the most from it.

Net recipients of benefits get most from the setup, there is a world of difference between earning money and being given money.