Poll: Gordon Brown - yeh or ney

[The_Dark_Side]

LOL looks like gordon is an adorable person in the UK

we should petition for Prescott to be put forward.

 

[Joe42]

Edit:How does Labour Remain in labour over there if they are so bad?

Theres only one alternative and they are considered by many, me included, to be worse.

You can't get a cigarette paper between the current main parties so he's basically right... I really don't believe that Cameron is the answer to our nation's problems. Nor is anyone in the current parliamentary Labour party that I know of. Another election where I don't vote coming up, I feel.

Same.

 

[AJUK]

we should petition for Prescott to be put forward.

Oh good god, NOOOOO!

Even if Brown was made leader of Labour and by default PM, he will only last until the next election as the people of the UK will reject him and Labour will lose. Which is a good thing.

 

[Visage]

That is quite a vague question. From the point of view of the taxpayer, I believe that people should be forced to take any job they are capable of, rather than languish on generous benefits for many years. I know that there is a widespread resentment among people who work, that others do not have to - yet their standard of living is equal to or better than those who do work. This is morally wrong - and it is most certainly not what Labour envisaged when they introduced the benefits system (60 odd years ago). Benefits are supposed to help people on hard times, not provide a comfortable living and an alternative to work.

Im not sure I accept the thesis that people on benefits are somehow living in the lap o luxury compared with those who work.

While im sure that there are some circumstances where those on benefits can bring in significant sums, I think that those are the exception, rather than the rule, and that for most people, a life on benefits is far from the champagne and caviar lifestyle that some would have us beleive.

 

[cleanbluesky]

That is quite a vague question. From the point of view of the taxpayer, I believe that people should be forced to take any job they are capable of, rather than languish on generous benefits for many years.

But this can be potentially be inconvenient to an employer. If a person were to take a job that they were way over-qualified for it may result in that employer having to re-recruit in 6 months when their employee leaves for a better job.

I know that there is a widespread resentment among people who work, that others do not have to - yet their standard of living is equal to or better than those who do work.

I wasn't aware that there was an obvious widespread resentment. My only concern is that some people may be better off working than on benefits. Also, I do not believe that people are 'equally well off' in benefits, unless they work for minimum wage.

This is morally wrong - and it is most certainly not what Labour envisaged when they introduced the benefits system (60 odd years ago). Benefits are supposed to help people on hard times, not provide a comfortable living and an alternative to work.

If it is the case that some have to work harder than others then there is a lot more 'morally wrong' with the economy in general than could be righted with a benefits overhaul

 

[Goldy]

Nay.

Although I can't see how things could get much worse.

Gordon Brown is just so boring. No charisma, unlike Blair who for all his shortcomings does come have some charismatic appeal. Brown should not be given PM after all the tax he has put on us.

 

[cleanbluesky]

While im sure that there are some circumstances where those on benefits can bring in significant sums, I think that those are the exception, rather than the rule, and that for most people, a life on benefits is far from the champagne and caviar lifestyle that some would have us beleive.

I think that those on benefit who bring in a 'massive sum' only do so because they support a large family and I do not believe it can be used to maintain an expensive lifestyle, merely to maintain a lifestyle just above the poverty line for a large family.

 

[Zip]

All this Complaining about no one decent to vote for

Maybe you should just put the Queen back in Control for awhile

 

[dirtydog]

But this can be potentially be inconvenient to an employer. If a person were to take a job that they were way over-qualified for it may result in that employer having to re-recruit in 6 months when their employee leaves for a better job.

Well that's up to the employer. If the 'job seeker' genuinely tries and cannot get any job (which I doubt but still) then so be it - at least they are actively seeking work rather than sitting on their arse and having benefits cash deposited into their bank accounts for doing sod all Why do single mothers not have to trudge down the jobcentre and sign on, like dole claimants have to?

I wasn't aware that there was an obvious widespread resentment. My only concern is that some people may be better off working than on benefits. Also, I do not believe that people are 'equally well off' in benefits, unless they work for minimum wage.

In the more expensive parts of the country you need to earn way above minimum wage before you would be any better off than being on benefits, due to the high cost of living in this country. This is what I meant before when I said that the minimum wage hasn't really helped people - because (in the southeast) you still need to claim benefits on top anyway, so you've gained nothing.

 

[Joe42]

All this Complaining about no one decent to vote for

Maybe you should just put the Queen back in Control for awhile

I'd vote for her. I think the Queen should have more involvement in the running of the country.

 

[AJUK]

All this Complaining about no one decent to vote for

Maybe you should just put the Queen back in Control for awhile

I would be up for that, perhaps we should ressurect Edward I and then he can lay waste to Scotland again as revenge for having to put up with all the jocks in the government. Or Henry VIII or Elizabeth I so that we can upset the Europeans again.

 

[Visage]

In the more expensive parts of the country you need to earn way above minimum wage before you would be any better off than being on benefits, due to the high cost of living in this country. This is what I meant before when I said that the minimum wage hasn't really helped people - because (in the southeast) you still need to claim benefits on top anyway, so you've gained nothing.

But in the more expensive parts of the country, wouldnt a significant part of benefits be in the form of housing benefit and council tax benefit?

In orther words, benefits that dont directly aid the individual?

 

[cleanbluesky]

Well that's up to the employer. If the 'job seeker' genuinely tries and cannot get any job (which I doubt but still) then so be it - at least they are actively seeking work rather than sitting on their arse and having benefits cash deposited into their bank accounts for doing sod all

Don't know about you, but I do not have the tendency to waste time applying for jobs that are below me when I could be applying for jobs I want. Filling application forms takes time.

Why do single mothers not have to trudge down the jobcentre and sign on, like dole claimants have to?

The dole claimant is commanded on the principle that they have nothing better to do, this is not neccessarily the case with people who are sole carers for depedents. Single mothers do have to attend certian interviews, although these are usually less frequent.

In the more expensive parts of the country you need to earn way above minimum wage before you would be any better off than being on benefits, due to the high cost of living in this country. This is what I meant before when I said that the minimum wage hasn't really helped people - because (in the southeast) you still need to claim benefits on top anyway, so you've gained nothing.

But this would still not lead to a lavish lifestyle. I expect this happens a lot, I was in Southwark yesterday and it can easily be seen how immigration has turn a previous affluent area in one that is populated with poor people. The houses ar exquisite, yet the population likely poorly educated and on poor wages on the whole.

 

[dirtydog]

But in the more expensive parts of the country, wouldnt a significant part of benefits be in the form of housing benefit and council tax benefit?

In other words, benefits that dont directly aid the individual?

Yes they would be, but how do housing and council tax benefit not directly aid the individual? You've lost me Having a roof over your head is a pretty direct benefit isn't it?

 

[dirtydog]

Don't know about you, but I do not have the tendency to waste time applying for jobs that are below me when I could be applying for jobs I want. Filling application forms takes time.

Then that is your choice, but you are not fulfilling the terms of being on the dole so you shouldn't be allowed to claim it Under JSA rules you have a limited time to be 'fussy', after that you have to take any job you can.

 

[Zip]

I would be up for that, perhaps we should ressurect Edward I and then he can lay waste to Scotland again as revenge for having to put up with all the jocks in the government. Or Henry VIII or Elizabeth I so that we can upset the Europeans again.

I say Skip Charles and Put either William or Harry as King.

William because everyone would love him especially the Girls.(Well from down here and other countries)
And Harry Because hes a little **** And will **** all the Politicians and PC People Off

 

[cleanbluesky]

Then that is your choice, but you are not fulfilling the terms of being on the dole so you shouldn't be allowed to claim it Under JSA rules you have a limited time to be 'fussy', after that you have to take any job you can.

I do not believe that there is a requirement on the JSA that requires a person to apply either for EVERY available position that they MAY be qualified for, or to waste time applying for jobs that I am possibly unsuitable for due to being overqualified

 

[semi-pro waster]

{In relation to Brown being anti-royalist or otherwise}Should think so; most Scots are.

This isn't directly on topic but I'm a touch curious where this assertion comes from? Speaking personally I couldn't give a monkies about the Royal family, they don't (directly) impact on my life either positively or negatively so I don't see any need to alter the status quo that means they exist. I think this is a fairly common attitude around here, certainly amongst my mates(Scottish, English and otherwise). If by my not caring about them you count that as anti-royalist then fair enough but I don't think you can equate a lack of interest to being against them.

In response to the original question I don't particularly want to see Gordon Brown as Prime Minister because I don't think that Labour ought to remain in power for much longer but I'm rather conflicted about who I would then vote for. Do I vote pragmatically just to get Labour out and assume that the enemy of my enemy(so to speak) is my friend or do I register a protest vote for a party which has no realistic chance of winning e.g. Monster Raving Loony Party and accept I'm more or less wasting my vote - third option being not to vote at all again and don't complain about what the political parties are doing since I didn't vote to try and change it.

Basically I'm rather disillusioned with the 'options' that are available since I trust politicians to do nothing other than be self-serving - if their interests coincide with those of the country then that would be lucky but hardly expected.

 

[dirtydog]

I do not believe that there is a requirement on the JSA that requires a person to apply either for EVERY available position that they MAY be qualified for, or to waste time applying for jobs that I am possibly unsuitable for due to being overqualified

Your belief is wrong then

 

[Joe42]

I say Skip Charles and Put either William or Harry as King.

William because everyone would love him especially the Girls.(Well from down here and other countries)
And Harry Because hes a little **** And will **** all the Politicians and PC People Off

I think perhaps one of the reasons the Queen hasn't abdicated is because not many people like charles so she wants to wait for him to get too old.