The General Election

[grimsby mackem]

I'll be voting labour, the torries plans to cut public spending massively regardless of the cost to society are reckless in the extreme having already cut spending to a bare minimum in a lot of areas the cuts are going to have to come within social care or the NHS at some point, with an ageing population that is a recipe for disaster. I'm not a big supporter of Labour, they will still make cuts but will have the sense to know when enough is enough.
What this country really needs is a party with the core beliefs of old Labour to get behind because all we have at the minute is posh boy torries, UKIP who are nothing more than a more extreme slightly racist version of the torries, lying lib dems, the day dreaming greens and a labour party which doesn't appear to lean to the left at all.

 

[Mackem-Tiz]

With all the opinion polls more or less saying the same thing it's quite clear the Conservatives will not be a part of the next government. You need 326 seats to form a majority government and the Cons are predicted to get around 285. UKIP are expected to get 2 or 3 and the Libs around 10. Falling way short of what is required for a coalition of sorts. Labour will also get around 285 and with the 45 the SNP are expected to get will be enough to "lock the tories out" in Sturgeons words.

 

[John Cardew]

I think I'd give her my vote if she vowed to club that slut from the Green Party, right in the grid, out cold style, at least I'd get value for money.

The morning of the 8th, where I assume we are all waking up to a new Labour Gov't, me and my mates will be making our way to Prague for a messy weekend, so I ain't gonna give a ****.

Can't knock that like, she is one intolerable woman. The Plaid Cymru representative, whilst less "in your face", is also completely thick. Hate Sturgeon and hate the SNP but at least she is a credible politician who knows what she's talking about.

Labour, Tory, majority, minority, coalition. It will overall have a relatively small impact on the working class which I assume is the category most on this board fall into. It's a few percentages each way, none of our lives will be changed whatever the outcome.

 

[MrRAWhite]

Disagree completely. In the formative years of nuclear uncertainty, yes. Now so many countries have nuclear capability it's little more than posturing in my opinion. We have very well established allies and lines of trade now and I can't imagine that those would be in any way affected if we decided to jack in our nuclear weapons.

We will have to disagree then, because in my opinion our non-nuclear capability is already a standing joke due to the massive cut backs, and we surely can't be reliant on the likes of the French to defend us against nuclear attack..

 

[John Cardew]

I'll be voting labour, the torries plans to cut public spending massively regardless of the cost to society are reckless in the extreme having already cut spending to a bare minimum in a lot of areas the cuts are going to have to come within social care or the NHS at some point, with an ageing population that is a recipe for disaster. I'm not a big supporter of Labour, they will still make cuts but will have the sense to know when enough is enough.
What this country really needs is a party with the core beliefs of old Labour to get behind because all we have at the minute is posh boy torries, UKIP who are nothing more than a more extreme slightly racist version of the torries, lying lib dems, the day dreaming greens and a labour party which doesn't appear to lean to the left at all.

Whilst I won't be voting Tory, there are some people who would seemingly want us to carry on spending the way we have been for the last few decades. Absolute insanity. Cuts are essential and if they don't come from the NHS they will come from somewhere else.

 

[John Cardew]

We will have to disagree then, because in my opinion our non-nuclear capability is already a standing joke due to the massive cut backs, and we surely can't be reliant on the likes of the French to defend us against nuclear attack..

If we ever were reliant on the French to have our backs, I'm not sure I'd be comfortable either. However, nuclear war is something I don't envisage any time in our lifetimes and long after, and if it does happen the entire civilised world would be there standing against the perpetrator. I'd keep Trident if we weren't so heavily in debt, but the difference that money could make in people's day to day lives makes scrapping it worth it. IMO of course.

 

[John Cardew]

Out of interest @MrRAWhite , you have said you are involved with the labour party. But surely as an individual, you can't agree with every single labour policy? Would you be willing to flag up any that you maybe don't go along with, or as an interested party do you see it as your duty to defend every single labour policy whether or not you personally agree with them yourself? Genuine q.

 

[grimsby mackem]

Whilst I won't be voting Tory, there are some people who would seemingly want us to carry on spending the way we have been for the last few decades. Absolute insanity. Cuts are essential and if they don't come from the NHS they will come from somewhere else.

I don't have a problem with cuts mate, I agree they are a necessary evil in our position but we still have to cut responsibly which is what Labour propose we do, while the Torries are hell bent on wiping out the deficit on their new timetable regardless of how hard it will impact the most vulnerable within society. I get the impression Osborne couldn't give a **** how many kids are in poverty living off of food banks so long as he can gloat about cutting the deficit on budget day.

 

[John Cardew]

I don't have a problem with cuts mate, I agree they are a necessary evil in our position but we still have to cut responsibly which is what Labour propose we do, while the Torries are hell bent on wiping out the deficit on their new timetable regardless of how hard it will impact the most vulnerable within society. I get the impression Osborne couldn't give a **** how many kids are in poverty living off of food banks so long as he can gloat about cutting the deficit on budget day.

Fair enough mate. I agree in the main. The thing with the tories is that they are unashamedly out to help the rich first and foremost. Cutting back the tax on the rich was a disgraceful, just disgraceful move. (And everyone who earns hundreds of thousands and year will tell you I'm wrong and they are being punished for hard work etc). Fact is the most fortunate among us should be doing the most to prop up the society that allowed such amassing of wealth in the first place. And if I had millions, I'd have no problem with the same being said to me as, even after my tax, I'd still be filthy rich. And would know I was helping people who were struggling to put food on the table. Definitely not a Tory man me, but I don't think Labour have the solutions either, if there was an inbetween party it would get my vote.

 

[Tel (they/them)]

Fair enough mate. I agree in the main. The thing with the tories is that they are unashamedly out to help the rich first and foremost. Cutting back the tax on the rich was a disgraceful, just disgraceful move. (And everyone who earns hundreds of thousands and year will tell you I'm wrong and they are being punished for hard work etc). Fact is the most fortunate among us should be doing the most to prop up the society that allowed such amassing of wealth in the first place. And if I had millions, I'd have no problem with the same being said to me as, even after my tax, I'd still be filthy rich. And would know I was helping people who were struggling to put food on the table. Definitely not a Tory man me, but I don't think Labour have the solutions either, if there was an inbetween party it would get my vote.

I don't get that stance at all...

Rich person A employs 50 working class people for example.

50 working class people paying taxes propping up society in the process.

Then bring in a policy to heavily tax the rich person, he moves his labour abroad, or worse still, ****s off with the lot and those 50 people can go get ****ed.

If I work hard for my money, I want to feel like I am the main benefactor of my hard work, not seeing filth, fat ****ing pigs and illiterate pieces of **** thriving because of my hard work.

**** that, interfering with natural selection is where I draw the line.

 

[John Cardew]

I don't get that stance at all...

Rich person A employs 50 working class people for example.

50 working class people paying taxes propping up society in the process.

Then bring in a policy to heavily tax the rich person, he moves his labour abroad, or worse still, ****s off with the lot and those 50 people can go get ****ed.

If I work hard for my money, I want to feel like I am the main benefactor of my hard work, not seeing filth, fat ****ing pigs and illiterate pieces of **** thriving because of my hard work.

**** that, interfering with natural selection is where I draw the line.

Well, that's in some ways bringing it round to a whole new argument, and I completely see and mostly agree with what you're saying.
Firstly, yes, 50 people may be employed by the rich person, but that is ultimately for the benefit of the rich person. It's not some philanthropic move, it's business. As soon as one of those workers was costing more money than they brought in, they'd be out on their arse.

The second part I fully agree with but is moving to the argument of benefits etc. It's disgusting that people can't be arsed to get to work as they can live perfectly comfortably on their benefits and never lift a finger. It's the hard working families who genuinely do struggle to do much more than put a roof over their head and food on the table, who should be reaping the tax rewards.

The thing is, none of the major parties seem to have a real plan for sorting out these benefit frauds that are running our country into the ground. The rhetoric they spout about it in every debate etc reminds me of nothing but this:

You must log in or register to see media

 

[Mackem-Tiz]

Why penalize the rich? Thats like saying to someone do well for yrself, do well in yr education, work damned hard and set up a business and employ people then we will take extra taxes off you and in certain cases give that extra money to people on benefits who dont want to work! I know most people do want to work but a signicant amount dont.
If there wasn't any rich people there wouldnt be any jobs. And i go back to what i said earlier...Labour were in power for 13 years and didnt exactly do much for the poor did they? They left the country in a right mess...AGAIN. But that wasn't their fault was it. It never is.

 

[grimsby mackem]

Fair enough mate. I agree in the main. The thing with the tories is that they are unashamedly out to help the rich first and foremost. Cutting back the tax on the rich was a disgraceful, just disgraceful move. (And everyone who earns hundreds of thousands and year will tell you I'm wrong and they are being punished for hard work etc). Fact is the most fortunate among us should be doing the most to prop up the society that allowed such amassing of wealth in the first place. And if I had millions, I'd have no problem with the same being said to me as, even after my tax, I'd still be filthy rich. And would know I was helping people who were struggling to put food on the table. Definitely not a Tory man me, but I don't think Labour have the solutions either, if there was an inbetween party it would get my vote.

Well that's what the Lib Dems claim to be but I don't think that anyone can trust a word that they say now, I think I agree with what you said above about Trident as well, no longer an absolute necessity and a huge cost to renew it which we can ill afford at the minute.

 

[John Cardew]

Why penalize the rich? Thats like saying to someone do well for yrself, do well in yr education, work damned hard and set up a business and employ people then we will take extra taxes off you and in certain cases give that extra money to people on benefits who dont want to work! I know most people do want to work but a signicant amount dont.
If there wasn't any rich people there wouldnt be any jobs. And i go back to what i said earlier...Labour were in power for 13 years and didnt exactly do much for the poor did they? They left the country in a right mess...AGAIN. But that wasn't their fault was it. It never is.

As I said earlier, surely the wealthy should do the most to prop up the society that ALLOWED THEM to get to where they are? And again, we all have issues with the benefit junkies, if that issue was sorted I wonder if people would be more willing to give back to the system.

 

[Tel (they/them)]

Well, that's in some ways bringing it round to a whole new argument, and I completely see and mostly agree with what you're saying.
Firstly, yes, 50 people may be employed by the rich person, but that is ultimately for the benefit of the rich person. It's not some philanthropic move, it's business. As soon as one of those workers was costing more money than they brought in, they'd be out on their arse.

The second part I fully agree with but is moving to the argument of benefits etc. It's disgusting that people can't be arsed to get to work as they can live perfectly comfortably on their benefits and never lift a finger. It's the hard working families who genuinely do struggle to do much more than put a roof over their head and food on the table, who should be reaping the tax rewards.

There's plenty of people who are employed by our company that could be replaced to a more cost effective advantage for our directors. There's a loyalty issue there as well. I don't think it's as cut and dry as 'cogs in a machine' sometimes, so punishing the rich is really something I'm not comfortable with, when it benefits those I highlighted above so much.

I don't believe those who don't earn it, but still get a high salary/bonus should be allowed such a free ride mind, that should be drilled down and scrutinised more. The bankers who ****ed up so bad should never reap rewards until they fix the mess they got into, yet they're happy for the working class to continue to pay for their mistakes.

There's two sides to every coin I guess, but that only goes to prove that you can't use one rule for all. The entire tax system needs an overhaul to make it fair for everybody, so you get out what you put in.

 

[John Cardew]

Well that's what the Lib Dems claim to be but I don't think that anyone can trust a word that they say now, I think I agree with what you said above about Trident as well, no longer an absolute necessity and a huge cost to renew it which we can ill afford at the minute.

The lib dems are just too...liberal...for me haha. They've had their chance in government and it has completely bypassed them, they won't be involved again for decades.

There's plenty of people who are employed by our company that could be replaced to a more cost effective advantage for our directors. There's a loyalty issue there as well. I don't think it's as cut and dry as 'cogs in a machine' sometimes, so punishing the rich is really something I'm not comfortable with, when it benefits those I highlighted above so much.

I don't believe those who don't earn it, but still get a high salary/bonus should be allowed such a free ride mind, that should be drilled down and scrutinised more. The bankers who ****ed up so bad should never reap rewards until they fix the mess they got into, yet they're happy for the working class to continue to pay for their mistakes.

There's two sides to every coin I guess, but that only goes to prove that you can't use one rule for all. The entire tax system needs an overhaul to make it fair for everybody, so you get out what you put in.

Yeah hard to disagree with much of that. I know a couple who are millionaires now but who spent years and years living on the breadline working 20 hours a day to keep their company going. Obviously these kind of people have earned what they have. Then as you say, there are the people who have stumbled into good jobs with filthy bonus systems, or people who have inherited wealth. There's no perfect solution and that's why politics will always cause debate.

 

[Brian Storm]

There's plenty of people who are employed by our company that could be replaced to a more cost effective advantage for our directors. There's a loyalty issue there as well. I don't think it's as cut and dry as 'cogs in a machine' sometimes, so punishing the rich is really something I'm not comfortable with, when it benefits those I highlighted above so much.

I don't believe those who don't earn it, but still get a high salary/bonus should be allowed such a free ride mind, that should be drilled down and scrutinised more. The bankers who ****ed up so bad should never reap rewards until they fix the mess they got into, yet they're happy for the working class to continue to pay for their mistakes.

There's two sides to every coin I guess, but that only goes to prove that you can't use one rule for all. The entire tax system needs an overhaul to make it fair for everybody, so you get out what you put in.

But the rich are being rewarded not punished. Not giving them a tax break isn't punishing them is it? It's creating fairer playing field. They don't need a tax break, Business is the only area that's feeling the benefit of the recovering economy. The workers aren't, they've benefited from a measly 0.1% rise in living standards since the economy crashed. Poor board members, not needing food banks like some of their workers. 3rd world Britain. ****ing disgusts me.

 

[Tel (they/them)]

But the rich are being rewarded not punished. Not giving them a tax break isn't punishing them is it? It's creating fairer playing field. They don't need a tax break, Business is the only area that's feeling the benefit of the recovering economy. The workers aren't, they've benefited from a measly 0.1% rise in living standards since the economy crashed. Poor board members, not needing food banks like some of their workers. 3rd world Britain. ****ing disgusts me.

Why should rich people feel guilty about their success though, just because there are people unfortunate enough to have to rely on food banks there shouldn't have be a reaction to this whereby successful people are forced to share their wealth. In other countries, poor people don't have food banks to rely on, things get much, much worse.

Kids are leaving school and wondering why they can't get a job with 1 gcse in ****ing woodwork, they talk like they've been taught English by a pissed up pigeon and they're gormless as ****. I've had them sat in front of me, telling me they're confident and they can learn fast... it's the same **** from the entire population, just pure laziness, I'd be ashamed to call any of these idiots my son/daughter.

We live in an inherently lazy country, we outsource everything despite having access to some of the cheapest labour going, yet we choose to support these foreigners and reward them for nothing when they could be exploited and the funny thing is, most of them actually want to work.

A country full to the brim of moaning ****s who will do everything in their power to gain parity with the rich, apart from go out and work and earn it.

In millions of years of evolution, human kind has weeded out the weak, governments were introduced to keep order and keep people safe, yet it seems nowadays their only objective is to help the weak thrive. No ****ing way will I ever stand for punishing a person who has been prepared to go out and fight his/her way to the top.

 

[Mackem-Tiz]

I keep hearing about these food banks. Genuine question. Where are they and does anyone know of anyone that uses them? The homeless might? Apparently they are widespread?

 

[Tel (they/them)]

I keep hearing about these food banks. Genuine question. Where are they and does anyone know of anyone that uses them? The homeless might? Apparently they are widespread?

Homeless people just go to Waitrose, they earn about £150 a day begging in this city.