The General Election Thread

[CityStu]

Not asking you to write an essay but which of his policies are 'madness' ?

I have absolutely no faith that he can cut the deficit whilst not increasing taxes and not cutting to the extent the Tories plan to. In his audience questions in the recent televised show and Lucy Powell on Daily Politics this week, they outlined a 3 pronged plan. The first was an increase to the 50p tax rate for the highest earners. The IFS have predicted that that will bring in between bugger all and £2bn. The second prong was to make efficiencies in government departments. The IFS estimated that that would bring in at most £1bn on top of what the Tories were already doing (and I have no confidence that Labour will be more efficient in public departments than the Tories). So far, that's £1-3bn of a £75bn deficit. Their last prong revolved around getting people off zero hours contracts and into tax paying jobs - increasing their tax base. Given that there are 700k people on zero hours contracts in the country and around a third of those will want the flexibility of zero hours contracts, they seem to be estimating that each person moving from zero hours to a full time contract is going to be paying £150k of tax. It simply doesn't add up.

Considering that they can't carry out any of their admittedly good plans in the NHS and education without a strong economy, I simply don't consider them worthy of my vote at the moment. Balls doesn't seem nearly as sharp as Osbourne, slimy as he is.

Red Ed Balls endorses The Budget

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/budget/11482141/Budget-2015-Ed-Balls-admits-Labour-would-not-reverse-George-Osbornes-flagship-measures.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/budg ... sures.html</a>

Why on Earth wouldn't you choose the guy who wrote the budget over the guy who said "well done George, that's an excellent budget - couldn't have done a better job myself".

Sums Labour up for me. They've spent this entire parliament disagreeing with the government at every turn saying the country would be in ruin with the planned cuts. Now it comes to the time when they can use all they've learnt and gauged from public opinion to create a viable alternative to the budget that appeals to their core voters and all they can do is point at George Osbourne and say "what that guy said". Pathetic.

 

[TCIB]

Paul Lakes Left Knee gave me a good mental slap the other day when he joked he thought i would be voting green.
With that my genuine and honest view is i feel totally ignored and that my vote will count for very little.
The big parties that have a chance have a plan of action and will try and steamroller anything and everything that gets in their way...including our concerns, i feel.

My one rule in life is do not impose on others i hate it so much. Especially when those under imposition do not have it in them to do much about it.
I just moved hotel because i could not look at porn, fuck that, 5* hotel and im treated like a naughty kid, gtfo macdonald hotels. I considered that a kind of imposition considering here at the radisson i/we can if we wish.

 

[DelToro]

Paul Lakes Left Knee gave me a good mental slap the other day when he joked he thought i would be voting green.
With that my genuine and honest view is i feel totally ignored and that my vote will count for very little.
The big parties that have a chance have a plan of action and will try and steamroller anything and everything that gets in their way...including our concerns, i feel.

My one rule in life is do not impose on others i hate it so much. Especially when those under imposition do not have it in them to do much about it.
I just moved hotel because i could not look at porn, fuck that, 5* hotel and im treated like a naughty kid, gtfo macdonald hotels. I considered that a kind of imposition considering here at the radisson i/we can if we wish.

Are the Green Party advocating free porn?

Where do I sign up?

 

[Lucky13]

I have absolutely no faith that he can cut the deficit whilst not increasing taxes and not cutting to the extent the Tories plan to. In his audience questions in the recent televised show and Lucy Powell on Daily Politics this week, they outlined a 3 pronged plan. The first was an increase to the 50p tax rate for the highest earners. The IFS have predicted that that will bring in between bugger all and £2bn. The second prong was to make efficiencies in government departments. The IFS estimated that that would bring in at most £1bn on top of what the Tories were already doing (and I have no confidence that Labour will be more efficient in public departments than the Tories). So far, that's £1-3bn of a £75bn deficit. Their last prong revolved around getting people off zero hours contracts and into tax paying jobs - increasing their tax base. Given that there are 700k people on zero hours contracts in the country and around a third of those will want the flexibility of zero hours contracts, they seem to be estimating that each person moving from zero hours to a full time contract is going to be paying £150k of tax. It simply doesn't add up.

Considering that they can't carry out any of their admittedly good plans in the NHS and education without a strong economy, I simply don't consider them worthy of my vote at the moment. Balls doesn't seem nearly as sharp as Osbourne, slimy as he is.

Red Ed Balls endorses The Budget

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/budget/11482141/Budget-2015-Ed-Balls-admits-Labour-would-not-reverse-George-Osbornes-flagship-measures.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/budg ... sures.html</a>

Why on Earth wouldn't you choose the guy who wrote the budget over the guy who said "well done George, that's an excellent budget - couldn't have done a better job myself".

Sums Labour up for me. They've spent this entire parliament disagreeing with the government at every turn saying the country would be in ruin with the planned cuts. Now it comes to the time when they can use all they've learnt and gauged from public opinion to create a viable alternative to the budget that appeals to their core voters and all they can do is point at George Osbourne and say "what that guy said". Pathetic.

Every prediction Beaker has made has been wrong , he admitted this on the debate with Paxman and when he promised a price freeze on Energy prices , the prices were lowered.

Why anyone would vote for the Red Eds is beyond me.

 

[Len Rum]

Can only see a majority or some sort of coalition including the torys again. The UKIP share will likely not translate into seats so factor in a lot of them will probably go tory. Ed came across well the other week but his policies are just madness.

Not asking you to write an essay but which of his policies are 'madness' ?

I have absolutely no faith that he can cut the deficit whilst not increasing taxes and not cutting to the extent the Tories plan to. In his audience questions in the recent televised show and Lucy Powell on Daily Politics this week, they outlined a 3 pronged plan. The first was an increase to the 50p tax rate for the highest earners. The IFS have predicted that that will bring in between bugger all and £2bn. The second prong was to make efficiencies in government departments. The IFS estimated that that would bring in at most £1bn on top of what the Tories were already doing (and I have no confidence that Labour will be more efficient in public departments than the Tories). So far, that's £1-3bn of a £75bn deficit. Their last prong revolved around getting people off zero hours contracts and into tax paying jobs - increasing their tax base. Given that there are 700k people on zero hours contracts in the country and around a third of those will want the flexibility of zero hours contracts, they seem to be estimating that each person moving from zero hours to a full time contract is going to be paying £150k of tax. It simply doesn't add up.

Considering that they can't carry out any of their admittedly good plans in the NHS and education without a strong economy, I simply don't consider them worthy of my vote at the moment. Balls doesn't seem nearly as sharp as Osbourne, slimy as he is.

Hang on, there are also big holes in the Tories plans, particularly on the 12 bn cuts in welfare, and how they propose to fund 7 bn of tax cuts.
Your last sentence I take to be praise of Ed Balls, being more honest than Osborne?

 

[Len Rum]

Red Ed Balls endorses The Budget

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/budget/11482141/Budget-2015-Ed-Balls-admits-Labour-would-not-reverse-George-Osbornes-flagship-measures.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/budg ... sures.html</a>

Why on Earth wouldn't you choose the guy who wrote the budget over the guy who said "well done George, that's an excellent budget - couldn't have done a better job myself".

Sums Labour up for me. They've spent this entire parliament disagreeing with the government at every turn saying the country would be in ruin with the planned cuts. Now it comes to the time when they can use all they've learnt and gauged from public opinion to create a viable alternative to the budget that appeals to their core voters and all they can do is point at George Osbourne and say "what that guy said". Pathetic.

Every prediction Beaker has made has been wrong , he admitted this on the debate with Paxman and when he promised a price freeze on Energy prices , the prices were lowered.

Why anyone would vote for the Red Eds is beyond me.

No he promised a price freeze on energy prices which actually takes effect after the price reductions ( which were in fact pitifully low). Thereafter a review of the pricing policies would take place which would ensure that prices could only move fairly in line with cost increases, instead of consumers being ripped off by price increases above cost increases and as was the case recently, price reductions which did not go far enough.
Get a grip mate, don't believe everything you read in the Mail or the Sun.

 

[CityStu]

Not asking you to write an essay but which of his policies are 'madness' ?

I have absolutely no faith that he can cut the deficit whilst not increasing taxes and not cutting to the extent the Tories plan to. In his audience questions in the recent televised show and Lucy Powell on Daily Politics this week, they outlined a 3 pronged plan. The first was an increase to the 50p tax rate for the highest earners. The IFS have predicted that that will bring in between bugger all and £2bn. The second prong was to make efficiencies in government departments. The IFS estimated that that would bring in at most £1bn on top of what the Tories were already doing (and I have no confidence that Labour will be more efficient in public departments than the Tories). So far, that's £1-3bn of a £75bn deficit. Their last prong revolved around getting people off zero hours contracts and into tax paying jobs - increasing their tax base. Given that there are 700k people on zero hours contracts in the country and around a third of those will want the flexibility of zero hours contracts, they seem to be estimating that each person moving from zero hours to a full time contract is going to be paying £150k of tax. It simply doesn't add up.

Considering that they can't carry out any of their admittedly good plans in the NHS and education without a strong economy, I simply don't consider them worthy of my vote at the moment. Balls doesn't seem nearly as sharp as Osbourne, slimy as he is.

Hang on, there are also big holes in the Tories plans, particularly on the 12 bn cuts in welfare, and how they propose to fund 7 bn of tax cuts.
Your last sentence I take to be praise of Ed Balls, being more honest than Osborne?

Their holes aren't nearly as big as Labour's and, on their recent record, I trust them. I think they're doing pretty well with an economy they took on in an absolutely awful state (to the extent that I think they were very surprised and hence didn't hit the targets in their 2010 manifesto).

You are putting words into my mouth on that last part. Balls is probably a more amiable chap than Osbourne but that isn't to say he's honest. And, to tell the truth, honesty is well below competency on my list of criteria for what makes a good chancellor.

I haven't even mentioned the worst case scenario of Labour joining forces with the SNP to get some power. The SNP would like to end austerity and Alex Salmond would like to write the budget. If that happens, and the ensuing chaos I'd predict occurs, then I'll seriously consider emigrating. Remember too that Labour wanted to borrow their way through it in 2010, like France ended up doing. France are well up shit creek now and have recently turned to the right to sort things out.

 

[tidyman]

Given that there are 700k people on zero hours contracts in the country and around a third of those will want the flexibility of zero hours contracts.

Where has the information that a third of people on zero hour contracts are happy that way come from?

 

[CityStu]

Given that there are 700k people on zero hours contracts in the country and around a third of those will want the flexibility of zero hours contracts.

Where has the information that a third of people on zero hour contracts are happy that way come from?

Estimates from Daily Politics this week (the interview I mentioned). I think it's very believable considering a large number employed on them are students and the semi-retired.

 

[Len Rum]

I have absolutely no faith that he can cut the deficit whilst not increasing taxes and not cutting to the extent the Tories plan to. In his audience questions in the recent televised show and Lucy Powell on Daily Politics this week, they outlined a 3 pronged plan. The first was an increase to the 50p tax rate for the highest earners. The IFS have predicted that that will bring in between bugger all and £2bn. The second prong was to make efficiencies in government departments. The IFS estimated that that would bring in at most £1bn on top of what the Tories were already doing (and I have no confidence that Labour will be more efficient in public departments than the Tories). So far, that's £1-3bn of a £75bn deficit. Their last prong revolved around getting people off zero hours contracts and into tax paying jobs - increasing their tax base. Given that there are 700k people on zero hours contracts in the country and around a third of those will want the flexibility of zero hours contracts, they seem to be estimating that each person moving from zero hours to a full time contract is going to be paying £150k of tax. It simply doesn't add up.

Considering that they can't carry out any of their admittedly good plans in the NHS and education without a strong economy, I simply don't consider them worthy of my vote at the moment. Balls doesn't seem nearly as sharp as Osbourne, slimy as he is.

Hang on, there are also big holes in the Tories plans, particularly on the 12 bn cuts in welfare, and how they propose to fund 7 bn of tax cuts.
Your last sentence I take to be praise of Ed Balls, being more honest than Osborne?

Their holes aren't nearly as big as Labour's and, on their recent record, I trust them. I think they're doing pretty well with an economy they took on in an absolutely awful state (to the extent that I think they were very surprised and hence didn't hit the targets in their 2010 manifesto).

You are putting words into my mouth on that last part. Balls is probably a more amiable chap than Osbourne but that isn't to say he's honest. And, to tell the truth, honesty is well below competency on my list of criteria for what makes a good chancellor.

I haven't even mentioned the worst case scenario of Labour joining forces with the SNP to get some power. The SNP would like to end austerity and Alex Salmond would like to write the budget. If that happens, and the ensuing chaos I'd predict occurs, then I'll seriously consider emigrating. Remember too that Labour wanted to borrow their way through it in 2010, like France ended up doing. France are well up shit creek now and have recently turned to the right to sort things out.

"Their (Tory) holes are not as big as Labour's" dearie me.
"They took on an economy in an absolutely awful state" - that was due to the global financial crisis not Labour, but you're one of the many who have bought into the Tory lie, which they've done very successfully and deserve credit for.
" They didn't hit the targets in the 2010 manifesto because the economy was in a worse state than they thought" , every incoming government says this , and you've fallen for this as well. They certainly haven't met all their targets, in particular government borrowing , which they deliberately chose not to meet as it meant they wouldn't have been able to engineer the 'recovery'. We will all have to pay for that in the next three years.
Still despite the reality at least you believe them and trust them. Osborne has definitely done a good job in that respect.

 

[Paulpowersleftfoot]

Given that there are 700k people on zero hours contracts in the country and around a third of those will want the flexibility of zero hours contracts.

Where has the information that a third of people on zero hour contracts are happy that way come from?

Estimates from Daily Politics this week (the interview I mentioned). I think it's very believable considering a large number employed on them are students and the semi-retired.

Presume it's this interview
She was appalling

Labour's Lucy Powell Loses Her Cool During 'Sunday Politics' Interview With Andrew Neil

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/03/29/lucy-powell-interview_n_6963826.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/03 ... 63826.html</a>

 

[tidyman]

Given that there are 700k people on zero hours contracts in the country and around a third of those will want the flexibility of zero hours contracts.

Where has the information that a third of people on zero hour contracts are happy that way come from?

Estimates from Daily Politics this week (the interview I mentioned). I think it's very believable considering a large number employed on them are students and the semi-retired.

Well I can't argue with an estimate. Or a wild guess as you could call it.

I personally would estimate an awful lot lower. This ideal two way flexibility that is spoken of, to suit both sides often masks the reality that the flexibility is all a one way street and it isn't in the employee's favour.

 

[CityStu]

Hang on, there are also big holes in the Tories plans, particularly on the 12 bn cuts in welfare, and how they propose to fund 7 bn of tax cuts.
Your last sentence I take to be praise of Ed Balls, being more honest than Osborne?

Their holes aren't nearly as big as Labour's and, on their recent record, I trust them. I think they're doing pretty well with an economy they took on in an absolutely awful state (to the extent that I think they were very surprised and hence didn't hit the targets in their 2010 manifesto).

You are putting words into my mouth on that last part. Balls is probably a more amiable chap than Osbourne but that isn't to say he's honest. And, to tell the truth, honesty is well below competency on my list of criteria for what makes a good chancellor.

I haven't even mentioned the worst case scenario of Labour joining forces with the SNP to get some power. The SNP would like to end austerity and Alex Salmond would like to write the budget. If that happens, and the ensuing chaos I'd predict occurs, then I'll seriously consider emigrating. Remember too that Labour wanted to borrow their way through it in 2010, like France ended up doing. France are well up shit creek now and have recently turned to the right to sort things out.

"Their (Tory) holes are not as big as Labour's" dearie me.
"They took on an economy in an absolutely awful state" - that was due to the global financial crisis not Labour, but you're one of the many who have bought into the Tory lie, which they've done very successfully and deserve credit for.
" They didn't hit the targets in the 2010 manifesto because the economy was in a worse state than they thought" , every incoming government says this , and you've fallen for this as well. They certainly haven't met all their targets, in particular government borrowing , which they deliberately chose not to meet as it meant they wouldn't have been able to engineer the 'recovery'. We will all have to pay for that in the next three years.
Still despite the reality at least you believe them and trust them. Osborne has definitely done a good job in that respect.

1) They're really not as big. The two you've mentioned add up to £19bn and Labour's deficit reduction plan is short by around 3 times that.

2) I never said it was Labour's fault. My point was that the Tories could conceivably have made their manifesto based on a rosier outlook of the country's finances than the reality. My secondary point was that Labour's plan to deal with the crisis would have monumentally fucked us up, as has been evidenced by France.

3) There are several targets which I believe they really should have hit, such as immigration. That certainly should have been in their control and they really messed up. However, I'm willing to cut them some slack on the economy.

I don't necessarily believe and trust them. I just trust them a whole lot more than Labour. Every prediction that Miliband and Balls made on the Tory policies introduced turned out to be way off the mark. They have no credibility when it comes to the economy.

If you believe differently, I'd love to know why.

 

[CityStu]

Where has the information that a third of people on zero hour contracts are happy that way come from?

Estimates from Daily Politics this week (the interview I mentioned). I think it's very believable considering a large number employed on them are students and the semi-retired.

Well I can't argue with an estimate. Or a wild guess as you could call it.

I personally would estimate an awful lot lower. This ideal two way flexibility that is spoken of, to suit both sides often masks the reality that the flexibility is all a one way street and it isn't in the employee's favour.

Fine. Let's go your way and assume that everyone on a zero hour contract would like a full time one. Then Labour only need them each to pay £100k tax a year bring the deficit down to 0.

I disagree with you. My girlfriend had a zero hours contract at a leisure centre whilst she was at university and the flexibility definitely suited her. She could reject hours if she had deadlines and could easily pick up extra hours if she needed the cash (like over summer) as the leisure centre was short staffed. I certainly don't think that's the case for every ZHC but I don't think it's uncommon exactly.

I actually agree with Labour's policy that people on ZHCs should be permitted permanent contracts if they so choose. However, I have humungous doubts that that addition to the tax base will go in any real way to cutting down the deficit, which is where my point came from initially.

 

[scotty123]

Im sick of it already, I feel like kicking the telly every time I see that smug dwarf from the SNP licking her lips at giving the English a good kick in
Politicians ppffftttt, bunch of wankers every single one of them

 

[Len Rum]

Their holes aren't nearly as big as Labour's and, on their recent record, I trust them. I think they're doing pretty well with an economy they took on in an absolutely awful state (to the extent that I think they were very surprised and hence didn't hit the targets in their 2010 manifesto).

You are putting words into my mouth on that last part. Balls is probably a more amiable chap than Osbourne but that isn't to say he's honest. And, to tell the truth, honesty is well below competency on my list of criteria for what makes a good chancellor.

I haven't even mentioned the worst case scenario of Labour joining forces with the SNP to get some power. The SNP would like to end austerity and Alex Salmond would like to write the budget. If that happens, and the ensuing chaos I'd predict occurs, then I'll seriously consider emigrating. Remember too that Labour wanted to borrow their way through it in 2010, like France ended up doing. France are well up shit creek now and have recently turned to the right to sort things out.

"Their (Tory) holes are not as big as Labour's" dearie me.
"They took on an economy in an absolutely awful state" - that was due to the global financial crisis not Labour, but you're one of the many who have bought into the Tory lie, which they've done very successfully and deserve credit for.
" They didn't hit the targets in the 2010 manifesto because the economy was in a worse state than they thought" , every incoming government says this , and you've fallen for this as well. They certainly haven't met all their targets, in particular government borrowing , which they deliberately chose not to meet as it meant they wouldn't have been able to engineer the 'recovery'. We will all have to pay for that in the next three years.
Still despite the reality at least you believe them and trust them. Osborne has definitely done a good job in that respect.

1) They're really not as big. The two you've mentioned add up to £19bn and Labour's deficit reduction plan is short by around 3 times that.

2) I never said it was Labour's fault. My point was that the Tories could conceivably have made their manifesto based on a rosier outlook of the country's finances than the reality. My secondary point was that Labour's plan to deal with the crisis would have monumentally fucked us up, as has been evidenced by France.

3) There are several targets which I believe they really should have hit, such as immigration. That certainly should have been in their control and they really messed up. However, I'm willing to cut them some slack on the economy.

I don't necessarily believe and trust them. I just trust them a whole lot more than Labour. Every prediction that Miliband and Balls made on the Tory policies introduced turned out to be way off the mark. They have no credibility when it comes to the economy.

If you believe differently, I'd love to know why.

At the end of the day you make the valid point that you don't trust the Tories totally but you trust them a whole lot more than Labour.
Fair enough my views are the reverse.
I could elaborate but I've already bored the bollocks off the forum expounding my views on this.

 

[DelToro]

Im sick of it already, I feel like kicking the telly every time I see that smug dwarf from the SNP licking her lips at giving the English a good kick in
Politicians ppffftttt, bunch of wankers every single one of them

I'm enjoying it.

The rise of the minor parties makes it more interesting and my 2 eldest can vote for the first time so we are having conversations about something other than Call of Duty and mascara.

We also live in a marginal constituency so our votes genuinely count.

 

[Paulpowersleftfoot]

Im sick of it already, I feel like kicking the telly every time I see that smug dwarf from the SNP licking her lips at giving the English a good kick in
Politicians ppffftttt, bunch of wankers every single one of them

I'm enjoying it.

The rise of the minor parties makes it more interesting and my 2 eldest can vote for the first time so we are having conversations about something other than Call of Duty and mascara.

We also live in a marginal constituency so are votes genuinely count.

Just like our votes in the marginal seat of tatton

 

[mcfc1632]

I guess that as we are now into the run-in to the election it should not be a surprise that the 'blind' labour followers are out peddling the 'it was a global financial crisis - nothing to do with Labour' bollocks.

Thought that after the way this has been discussed on here not even the desperately blind would keep clinging to this crap.

IMO Labour would be better served by 'manning-up' and explaining what they have learned, particularly Ed Balls, and therefore would do different rather than just hope that people either can have very short memories or can be simply blinded with bollocks. That way they would earn more credibility. He should take the AA recommended approach and firstly admit that he has a problem - that way he can start the journey to recovery - at the moment he is utterly in denial.

In my best 'Spanish waiter' style - in 2010 the economy was utterly fucked and the direction was towards further doom - Fact

In 2015 we are in a polar opposite position and the direction is towards further strength - Fact.

Yeah - lets just hand back command to Ed Balls to run the economy without him explaining what he has learned - why is he suddenly qualified? - when previously he was proven to be incompetent? - that sounds like a strategy?

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Where has the information that a third of people on zero hour contracts are happy that way come from?

Estimates from Daily Politics this week (the interview I mentioned). I think it's very believable considering a large number employed on them are students and the semi-retired.

Presume it's this interview
She was appalling

Labour's Lucy Powell Loses Her Cool During 'Sunday Politics' Interview With Andrew Neil

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/03/29/lucy-powell-interview_n_6963826.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/03 ... 63826.html</a>

She was truly appalling there imo. Not the brightest. Shows the piss poor standard of politicians across all parties, I'm afraid.