Poll: The official I voted/election results thread

[Armageus]

Moses, why exactly should they be taxed more? Do you not think that 45% is more than enough to take from the money someone has earned?

Because in true Labour fashion, everyone should have the same right to nice things, whether they contribute to the country in a meaningful fashion, or just stay at home.

By that fashion maybe OcUK should add another couple of hundred quid onto Titans, as obviously only the wealthy can afford them, and give out free 970s to the poor, to make sure everyone has the right to reasonable graphics cards, regardless of your background

 

[robfosters]

Simon Hughes seems like a very decent fella.

 

[thebennyboy]

Look at the forum poll at the top of this page, do you think everyone here fits into those categories? Not even close.

You and others won't admit it but even poorer people have voted Conservative because they believe it's the best thing to do.

63% of the voting population didn't want the tories, pretty sure nobody relying on food banks or any form of benefits would have voted for them! Near 2/3 of the country now has to put up with the decision that 1/3 of the country made! I would NEVER vote conservative, horrible party, terrible policies and goes against everything that makes this country what it is.

2/3 of the voters now have to live with the NHS being driven into the ground and benefits being cut to nothing. Anyone who voted Tory has NO right to complain when their beloved NHS is pulled out from under them, i give it no more than 2 years for the NHS.

 

[D.P.]

The exit poll was pretty accurate wasn't it?

For some parties but even that had it fairly wrong for Labour and Tories. It had an error of 22 seats difference between the 2 parties, if that error was the other way Millband would likely be PM due to an overall anti-tory majority.
To be fair the exit poll warns of errors of 20 seats so the end result was within their stated error but it is still relatively poor, much worse than the 2010 exit poll.
So event eh exit poll failed to properly sample the shy tories.

 

[Wink]

Well, there is information available! And I think assuming the worst is counterproductive and leads to scare stories. Surely a careful assessment of the facts and proceeding with caution is better? Why assume when you can rationally examine with due rigour?



I didn't say anything about tax!

Apologies Moses I quoted the wrong person it was joey!

 

[do_ron_ron]

So... got any detail? Other than a relatively small soundbite from one man (as nice as he is - I used to be his student ).

Eg. is the EU actually going to scrap its rules over food safety which it has developed over a long period, or is that just a technical possibility which people latch onto, even though it's not going to happen because it's part of the negotiation that the EU won't budge on?

Otherwise it's just meaningless scare stories.

Another example quoted is that the advertising ban on cigarettes and the measures to try to stop people smoking, the packaging, graphics etc, etc would challenged as a bar to free trading and compensation demanded. The above measures would also have to be removed.

 

[Robbo]

pc gaming isn't a poor persons hobby so what do you expect

But you don't have to be a wealthy executive, or similar, as he said.

63% of the voting population didn't want the tories, pretty sure nobody relying on food banks or any form of benefits would have voted for them! Near 2/3 of the country now has to put up with the decision that 1/3 of the country made! I would NEVER vote conservative, horrible party, terrible policies and goes against everything that makes this country what it is.

2/3 of the voters now have to live with the NHS being driven into the ground and benefits being cut to nothing. Anyone who voted Tory has NO right to complain when their beloved NHS is pulled out from under them, i give it no more than 2 years for the NHS.

From a government perspective, if anyone has made this country what it is, it's the Tories.

 

[Scania]

The exit poll was pretty accurate wasn't it?

It was predicting a hung Parliament and was enough to have Harriet Harman initially at least claiming Milliband could still form a government (how she kept a straight face, I don't know)

It was semi close but nobody at 10pm last night was predicting 331 Seats to the Conservatives and 232 to Labour....

And Ashdown needs to get that hat eaten!

 

[C64]

Lets be real here the grey vote won them the election.

The grey vote always decides elections the reason blair got in was because younger people came out to vote for once.

 

[George Hincapie]

Moses, why exactly should they be taxed more? Do you not think that 45% is more than enough to take from the money someone has earned?

It's almost as though their grasp of maths doesn't allow recognition that 30% (random flat tax rate) of £1 Million is more than 30% of £20,000.

 

[McGray]

For some parties but even that had it fairly wrong for Labour and Tories. It had an error of 22 seats difference between the 2 parties, if that error was the other way Millband would likely be PM due to an overall anti-tory majority.
To be fair the exit poll warns of errors of 20 seats so the end result was within their stated error but it is still relatively poor, much worse than the 2010 exit poll.
So event eh exit poll failed to properly sample the shy tories.

Ahh, I see what you mean.

Is there explanation yet for getting it so wrong?

Always interested in these things...

 

[joeyjojo]

Nope. We need a flat rate of tax for all. That is 'fair'.

This attitude that the higher paid should pay a higher percentage in tax is nonsense. Why should they exactly?

Osborne has already flirted with the idea of a flat tax rate, I hope it gets implemented.

Wow we're going back to fundamentals here.

If life were fair and everyone had exactly the same prospects then it might be fair to tax everyone the same. In actual fact we have very low social mobility in the UK.

Britain has some of the lowest social mobility in the developed world - the OECD figures show our earnings in the UK are more likely to reflect our fathers' than any other country

Social mobility: the charts that shame Britain

The result of this is "the rich get richer and the poor get children", which leads us to require wealth redistribution to keep a lid on inequality for three reasons. First the obvious moral reason, that we should treat other humans with dignity and ensure a good quality of life for everyone. Second, it is better for the entire economy if inequality is kept small, because then markets have more purchasing power. Economies grow faster when inequality is small. Third, social problems are correlated with unequal societies.

Ours is now one of the most unequal in the developed world. Here's a patronising animation http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...lity-how-wealth-distributed-uk-animated-video

A progressive income tax system is a simple way of redistributing wealth, but in this era of high inequality it needs more bite, IMO.

 

[JohnnyG]

What this result has emphasised is that England doesn't like Scotland and Scotland doesn't like England.
FITE!!

 

[George Hincapie]

Because in true Labour fashion, everyone should have the same right to nice things, whether they contribute to the country in a meaningful fashion, or just stay at home.

What?! I hope you are taking the ****.

 

[George Hincapie]

What this result has emphasised is that England doesn't like Scotland and Scotland doesn't like England.
FITE!!

We've been there before. Several times. It didn't work out so well for them IIRC.

 

[thebennyboy]

From a government perspective, if anyone has made this country what it is, it's the Tories.

A haven for the rich is what they've made it. If you're earning under 150 grand your destined to be royally screwed by the tories.

 

[Spook187]

Can we close this thread now, all you right-wingers have said enough rubbish to last a lifetime.

 

[V F]

There’s a lot on whinging on the left, full of excuses blaming everything from the voting system, the public and whine that the next 5 years will see chaos and devastation. IMO labour lose in 2010 wasn’t as serve as it could and should have been, the country was in a pieces financially but I get the feeling the electorate didn’t trust Conservatives enough to put it right hence the hung parliament.

Fast forward 5 years the recovery is complete and the economy is on the up (whether people want to admit it or not) as a result people will look at their situation and will want more of the same. IMO Labour’s front bench looked all too familiar with the same faces appearing in opposition as they did in government. Add to that Labour’s arrogance and refusing to accept their record of profligacy, waste and near economic ruin while in charge just all came home to roost. I don’t accept if David Miliband were in charge things would have turned out different, he was an even bigger figure associated with the last Labour government and refused to stand up to Gordon Brown when he had the chance in 2008/2009 which would have acted against him.

I wonder if the Lib Dem’s will cease to exist in the long run, hard to imagine they can come back from this disaster even in 10 years’ time, nearly all their support where I live has gone to UKIP rather than Labour and their former stronghold of the South west is no more. Time for a new Liberal party I think.

How is it complete? If it was complete there wouldn't be more heavy cuts to come. The IMF already said the recession will still be ongoing in 2020.

 

[FoxEye]

Nope. We need a flat rate of tax for all. That is 'fair'.

This attitude that the higher paid should pay a higher percentage in tax is nonsense. Why should they exactly?

Osborne has already flirted with the idea of a flat tax rate, I hope it gets implemented.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax#Countries_that_have_flat_tax_systems

Assuming that list is correct, none of the major economic powers have a flat tax rate.

In principle - and in an ideal world - a flat tax rate could be described as "fair". However, in the real world, the privileged have greater ability to get creative with their money, avoiding (legally) much of the tax that they might be liable for.

If we reduce the tax payable, will we get tougher on legally avoiding tax, closing loopholes, or will we just push more of the tax burden to lower earners?

This world isn't fair (hardly ever). It's just a question of who you want to give preferential treatment. The wealthy few or the common man.

 

[do_ron_ron]

Have they decided that they'll be allowed here under the terms of the agreement, then? Link to that.

As the treaty is not signed yet, obviously American firms cannot start the process. For these firms they can standardise their products rather than having to find alternatives to the standard products.