from the man who said you shouldn't tell someone not to throw cigarettes into children sand pits.
Poll: General election voting intentions poll
- Thread starter semi-pro waster
- Start date
- Status
from the man who said you shouldn't tell someone not to throw cigarettes into children sand pits.
That would have been true up until the last six months. Then the current government signed the largest private health contract in British history.
Stage one of the Tory plan was to under-fund the NHS, stage two is now pushing through emergency privatisation.
1) The conservatives require a lot more than 10 additional seats. They need 38 at current predictions.
2) How are UKIP going to get 10? 2-5 is the realistic predictions form professionals.
3) Why would a party want a coalition with the UKIP, even if there were10 seats when the libdems will have around 25 seats as expected and the SNP 55?
Labour must have signed lots more smaller ones as they privatised twice as much.
Conservative and Lib Dem will be the first call for forming a coalition.
Can you explain to me the "social arguments" please.
No. It's a pretty big break for middle-to-upper income households in both absolute and relative terms.
The idea that the personal allowance rise is a tax change targeted at the poor is complete spin. It's even worse when you consider the overall effect of the coalitions changes:
Sorry, why do I have to answer all your questions? All you do is ask questions, which you think is jolly clever of you and undermines the argument but it doesn't. How about you actually engage in the debate in good faith?
With Labour and SNP doing it in parallel, perhaps including libdems.
At current estimates the Conservatives + lib-ems would still fall short. the only possible majority given current estimates is with the SNP.
At this stage it look incredible likely that Labour and Conservatives will be within spitting distance and neither close to a majority. I don't know what the procedure is if no majority can be formed, I assume a new election but don't know when.
It's difficult to say. Someone has to form a government; who it would be if neither can deliver a coherent majority is unclear. Cameron can continue if Miliband can't show he's able to do that; however, when he can't get anything through parliament he'd essentially be forced to hold another election. How that interacts with the fixed term parliament act I'm not sure.
Most likely there'd be another election held later this year; it's happened before. There's a chance that a large number of voters would be scared back into supporting one or both of the main parties if that happened and one of them would have a working majority. The Tories would probably be best off as they have way more money than the other parties.
Lib Dem have already stated they will partner with Conservatives. At the moment it does look likely that there will be no majority. It seems Conversatives will get the most seats and that puts at least a minority government as a strong possibility. Everything could change over the next few weeks and what actually happens on voting day is often different to polls in the run up.
My assumption is that the current government are allowed to continue for a fixed period of time with a set election date, maybe mid-September. I also agree that if that were to be the case people will vote for the big 2.
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,457
Second time you've linked this.
Is it a graph for working families, the first one, or household income across the entire spectrum?
Including those where only one or none work?
You could go read the link and find out.... It's the full spectrum of household incomes.
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,457
Excellent, so it means the 'poorest' are the ones fully funded on benefits anyway, and doing no work.
They are not entitled to more of my money in my opinion, so I can happily discount your argument that the poorest in society do worse from a tax break.
When they are paying no tax and earning no income, then a tax break is not what they need.
The three year old graph means little to nothing.
Under this coalition government a married couple each working, has went from earning £6500 each before paying tax, to a total of £21200 (10,600 each) between them before they pay tax.
That's worth £1640 in income tax to that family.
Good.
Let that continue, onward sand slowly upwards, encouraging people to get into work.
-edited for figures
Last edited:
No. It's a pretty big break for middle-to-upper income households in both absolute and relative terms.
The idea that the personal allowance rise is a tax change targeted at the poor is complete spin. It's even worse when you consider the overall effect of the coalitions changes:
Well played sir. I was crafting my response although admittedly I was trying to get the kids down too.
A 3 year old report really has little to do with todays economy though. We are in a vastly different place to where we were then.
Anyway, what I like most about that graph is a single person on minimum wage, working full time, comes in at around 3 in that first graph. And as it's a per family thing, it doesn't even go high enough for a family of two adults working full time on minimum wage. As far as I can see, using the publications own data of a single person being £397 better off, then a two adult household being £796 better off doesn't even register in the graph. They must be beyond the richest there. And that is FAR from what I would call a rich household.
As for the gain as a % of income side of the graph, surely that's all wrong too? £397 per year is FAR more of a percentage of income for someone who is on £12k compared to someone who is on £70k. The result of this is a bigger REAL TERMS difference for the poorer in society. So not actually more beneficial to middle and upper income households then. Just a nice bonus for them, although the upper income housholds, not at all either, since they have NO personal allowance anyway.
Sure, the poorest don't see the benefit, as they are on benefits and not paying taxes. So rightly so that they don't see the benefit.
Now there are some groups out there that absolutely deserve every benefit they get. But equally there are many out there who simply do not. Something like 1,000 extra jobs a day were made with this government, and these people can't get one?
My sister in law has TWICE in the last year returned from overseas and had the CHOICE of full time job offers. And been back in employment within a week. The first time she came back from Italy where she had just lost her job and couldn't get another, the second time from Germany, where after 3 months of trying she couldn't get a job. Yet here in the UK, she had to pick which job she wanted. If people can't get jobs, I suspect there is more going on. Like they are too intoxicated, or simply don't want to work. if they did want to work, the jobs are there. How else can so many people come over here and get all these jobs?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...on-austerity-harmed-the-economy-10149410.html
I'm sure expert opinions don't matter though as long the Tories and their media donors keep repeating the mantra about how the economy is getting better under them.
I'm sure expert opinions don't matter though as long the Tories and their media donors keep repeating the mantra about how the economy is getting better under them.
- Status