Poll: General election voting intentions poll

[Narj]

I don't support them but I'm getting fed up of the way the media are constantly trying to smear UKIP. It just feels a bit too obvious.

How about a bit more on the dodgy activities and kiddy fiddling cover ups of past Con/Lab/Lib members? How about exposing how completely barmy the Greens are? Let's have a bit more balance...

I'd vote for Lord Sutch right now - he had far more integrity than any of the current lot.

 

[estebanrey]

I don't support them but I'm getting fed up of the way the media are constantly trying to smear UKIP. It just feels a bit too obvious.

UKIP get far more publicity from the media that their numbers deserve to be fair. I'd say most of UKIP's growth in the last 5 years has been due to the all the media attention they've been given.

How about a bit more on the dodgy activities and kiddy fiddling cover ups of past Con/Lab/Lib members? How about exposing how completely barmy the Greens are? Let's have a bit more balance...

I think you maybe suffering from confirmation bias, all parties are being constantly bashed my the media. The Green Party leader's car crash radio interview a few weeks back was headline news on the BBC.

I'd vote for Lord Sutch right now - he had far more integrity than any of the current lot.

Can't argue with that

 

[Narj]

UKIP get far more publicity from the media that their numbers deserve to be fair. I'd say most of UKIP's growth in the last 5 years has been due to the all the media attention they've been given.

Thing is, all the "negative" publicity is probably backfiring. People love an underdog.

Can't argue with that

Actually, I'd vote for another Con/Lib coalition as I think the more nasty policies have been kept at bay by the Libs (and Nick Clegg has taken all the flak for it).

I still think people have shockingly short memories. Letting Labour back in so soon would be an utter disaster.

Personally, I still might protest vote when it comes to the ballot box because I'm genuinely disenfranchised with UK politics as it stands, especially given all the negative campaigning that happens around election time. I have no clue which independents are standing yet.

 

[Mickie]

http://voxpoliticalonline.com/2015/02/10/how-many-deaths-have-tory-evidence-free-policies-caused/

 

[joeyjojo]

Which makes more sense here than there - the UK PM has more power within our political system than the USA President has within theirs.

I don't think so. E.g. the US president can veto any bill. Only the monarch can do that here (last used in 1708 apparently).

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepresidentandcabinet/a/presveto.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veto#United_Kingdom

 

[joeyjojo]

So it's more like how the Lords can stop legislation, but then the Commons can force it through because of the Parliament Acts.

No, because Obama has used the veto several times without Congress having a vote to push it through. I can't imagine Cameron single-handedly blocking bills from the Commons, can you? This is the kind of executive power I associate more with the USA and less with our PM.

Agree with your point on the monarch, no way the queen would step in these days.

 

[V F]

 

[robgmun]

Lib Dem executive committe member has meltdown on Twitter and wants all men to die

https://hequal.wordpress.com/2015/0...-scum-says-lib-dem-executive-committe-member/

 

[V F]

Trans dyke, feminist, @LGBTLD executive member, @NUS_LGBT committee member-elect, sex work and equality campaigner, Yorkshire devolutionist, chilihead.

A trans, feminist, atheist, and progressive-minded student, and her writings on how that stuff all intersects together.

 

[McBain]

******* weirdo.

 

[estebanrey]

Your typical millitant feminist. Pig ugly woman who obviously ain't getting attention from the Julian Grey/David Beckham looking-type men she wants so blames the whole gender for it.

 

[Danthus]

Not sure which is worse, the fact that the Tories think people are stupid enough to believe it or the fact that people will believe it.

 

[estebanrey]

http://i.imgur.com/Uwin4Yh.jpg[/im]

Not sure which is worse, the fact that the Tories think people are stupid enough to believe it or the fact that people will believe it.[/QUOTE]

Love their use of the term "middle incomes" as if it's an average. The average wage in the UK is around £26,500, which is over £15k LESS than what you can earn before paying the 40p rate.

Another way of looking at it is anyone on £42k (the minimum you have to earn before paying the 40p rate) is in the top 14% of earners. They're hardly 'in the middle', they're at the top. Even then, at £42k you're paying the 40% rate on a tiny amount of your income. Someone on say £65k and is thus paying a significant amount in the 40% bracket is in the top 10%.

 

[delta0]

Love their use of the term "middle incomes" as if it's an average. The average wage in the UK is around £26,500, which is over £15k LESS than what you can earn before paying the 40p rate.

Another way of looking at it is anyone on £42k (the minimum you have to earn before paying the 40p rate) is in the top 14% of earners. They're hardly 'in the middle', they're at the top. Even then, at £42k you're paying the 40% rate on a tiny amount of your income. Someone on say £65k and is thus paying a significant amount in the 40% bracket is in the top 10%.

Depending on where you live in the country that can be an average or even below average income and this directly impacts purchasing power. It's all relative.

 

[estebanrey]

Depending on where you live in the country that can be an average or even below average income and this directly impacts purchasing power. It's all relative.

Aye, but [I'm guessing] that is a nationwide poster and to vast majority of people in the UK (basically everyone outside the centre of London) would not regard £42k as a "middle income".

So given 86% of the population are on less than that (most of whom on significantly less), do you think they regard a few hundred quid in the pockets of people with already enough to live relatively comfortably as being an important issue?

I'm no crazy left loon, hell bent on communism but I'd rather see less cuts to Council Care budgets than a small tax break for fairly well-off people.

 

[estebanrey]

That's their point, no? If they're not going to raise the 40% rate (which would affect the higher earners), they'll need to get the money from the middle earners (those below the 40% threshold/the people earning closer to the average wage). It says they're not raising the 40% rate, rather than saying they are going to do that - it's highlighting they're not going to be hitting the people above the current 40% threshold.

That's not my interpretation at all. When they say "middle incomes" they mean people on more than £42k (they're using a median average to justify the term 'middle income').

The Tories are saying they will raise the threshold at which you pay the 40% rate and that Labour won't, so the opposite of your perception and meaning higher earners will pay less in tax. So by not raising the threshold, Labour would be gaining money (or more accurately keeping the current income) whereas the Tories would have to find that money elsewhere (most likely from further cuts in Welfare).

 

[delta0]

Aye, but [I'm guessing] that is a nationwide poster and to vast majority of people in the UK (basically everyone outside the centre of London) would not regard £42k as a "middle income".

So given 86% of the population are on less than that (most of whom on significantly less), do you think they regard a few hundred quid in the pockets of people with already enough to live relatively comfortably as being an important issue?

I'm no crazy left loon, hell bent on communism but I'd rather see less cuts to Council Care budgets than a small tax break for fairly well-off people.

Full time income is a bit more than the average. Also many parts of the UK outside of London have large amounts of people affected by this, Edinburgh and Aberdeen for example. You have to consider not only the people affected by the tax but also those aspiring to earn more. Work hard in many professions and you can easily get into that tax band which is a bit painful, more of a punishment on working hard and achieving. Earning more shouldn't be punished.

 

[Nitefly]

In other words, a statement of unknown consequence followed by the inference of MIDDLE GUYS GUNNA GET IT,

 

[McPhee]

Not really. Have you noticed that game of Cat and Mouse that's been going on around Tax this week? The Tories announce that they're not going to increase VAT, Labour follow suit. The Tories announce that they won't increase NI, Labour follow suit. The Tories announce that they won't increase income tax, Labour get vague. Ed Balls is asked whether a Labour government will lower the 40p tax threshold, Ed says 'I'm not saying no'. It might be a bit of a stretch to suggest that £40-50k+ is 'middle income', but the point is still very much the same; Labour have all but confirmed they will be increasing the tax paid by those on £40k+.

 

[Bear]

Aye, but [I'm guessing] that is a nationwide poster and to vast majority of people in the UK (basically everyone outside the centre of London) would not regard £42k as a "middle income".

So given 86% of the population are on less than that (most of whom on significantly less), do you think they regard a few hundred quid in the pockets of people with already enough to live relatively comfortably as being an important issue?

I'm no crazy left loon, hell bent on communism but I'd rather see less cuts to Council Care budgets than a small tax break for fairly well-off people.

I think the point of it is to ease the burden on a section of society which are the ones that actually pay for anything.

If you accept the figures of about £45k which are bandied about to be a net contributor then only about 12 to 13% of the working population pay for all the services. Everyone else is a net drain on the country to varying degrees.

The Tories it would seem, think, you shouldn't bite the hand that feeds them. Labour think its ok so screw the group of people that pay for everything.