Sure. And the coalition have pretty much solved that with the wonderful alternative of 'zero hour contracts', haven't they? (thought I might as well humour you, seeing as I've already disappointed myself by arguing with you)
Which also existed under the last Labour government and still used today by some Labour MP's and Labour Local Councils.
And would be scrapped by a Labour government in the future. Am I right in thinking the Tories would keep them? Disclaimer BTW, JWM - I'm almost certainly not voting Labour this time around.
That means nothing to him. If you're not a Tory voter then your a dirty lefty Labour supporter in his eyes. It's this sort of closed minded approach that has left us with Politicians who care more about looking good in front of the camera than making policies and trying not to appear in anyway controversial or interesting.
Oh that's right, you're voting UKIP, right? Which is just the more racist version of the Tories, but with less policies.
It is an increasingly vitriolic campaign and very tiring. By the way, saw at the weekend that Salmond may not be a shoe-in for the Gordon seat. He is rather marmite like and the anti-Salmond coalition is apparently not rolling over as per the tartan script. I would love him to lose, just love it. Not sure but the main opposition candidate might be called Keegan!
Not since they've gone out of fashion. Remember, JWM only votes for those that are making the most noise at the time.
I've been a Tory Party member for nearly 30 years and I have always done my bit at election time. What do you do?
You have said that you're not voting Labour and I can't see you voting for a Right of centre party so I'm guessing you'll be a Lib Dem voter! Unless of course you want to vote for the Tree Huggers!
I said I'm ALMOST certainly not voting Labour. Still undecided. I live in one of the safest Labour constituencies in the country, so I have that to consider too.
Can anyone out there explain to me the logic of the flagship Conservative policy of selling off Housing Association properties to their tenants at massive discounts being anything other than an uber-cynical attempt to grab the votes of said tenants? I just cannot fathom how selling an asset at under-value will benefit the country as a whole and similarly how asset stripping the remaining higher value properties of the local Governments to fund it makes any form of economic sense. I am baffled by this policy coming from a party selling itself as the most economically savvy. If I were renting privately working alongside a bloke renting from a housing association I would not be hugely thrilled to see that person get the opportunity to buy a house at a frankly massive discount being funded by my taxes. Seems a bit unfair to me - if you are going to help renters buy then surely you should have a level playing field and help all of them or none of them.
