2015 Election

[MatthewL]

Sorry for the ones I missed, I am not a big follower of it all and they were the ones off the top of my head. Some good points raised, especially along lines of locally they are good but nationally they are pants type issue.

 

I'm torn as none of them seem to be winning me over but unless we vote things won't change and some of the stuff that goes on can't say I agree with. Difficult one and undecided to say the least.

[sted]

Unfortunately our constituency is dyed in the wool Tory so due to our system any vote for another party is meaningless. I'll still go as I always do and hope for a miracle.

 

As usual our fate is in the hands of a few swing voters in the marginal seats. Shame the campaign for PR was handled so badly.

 

On the upside, it looks like there's a genuine fight for Nick Clegg's seat

 

what would happen if a party leader lost their seat would they still be elligable to be pm?

 

I know who I'm going to be voting for.

 

The one thing I will say is that I'm suspicious of any view along the lines of "I'm voting x because y will screw us/me" - I think that's overly simplistic. I think that all the main 3 (lab/lib/con) do have the best interests of the country at heart, just very different ideas about what that actually means and how to go about things. I'm less convinced by the other choices.

 

But ultimately, politicians will end up screwing someone. It's impossible to make everyone happy; just think of how many pixels have been spent bemoaning how difficult that is in just one school here, and it can't be any easier when you're trying to make everyone in an entire country happy. When we vote, we're not voting as to whether or not we're going to get screwed, just trying to choose which party will at least let us be the big spoon when its time to go to sleep afterwards (pardon the crudity of my phrasing here but I think its important).

 

I think Ed Milliband said it best...All MPs and Parties have the countries best interest at heart, but they have radically differing views on how to achieve it.

 

i dont think any of them have the countries best interests at heart. Take for instance the post office sell of who could possibly gain from that but the people who bought shed loads of shares in what way is having a privatised post office for the good of the country (has public transport for example got better since the last tory lot sold it off (excluding london which is a special case)) or how has selling off the east coast rail franchise a franchise that was widely liked and brought money into the countrys coffers to a pricate company for the good of the country?

 

I honestly think the tories want to sell everything to their mates so they can make money from us, Labout seem to be a bunch of people who dont have a strong respected leader or direction and lib dems after being in a coalition with the tories are doomed to be a 4th party for years to come

[JRowley]

I have taken part in the poll but as the area I live in has been a conservative safe seat since 1918 with them holding around 50% of the votes it is less than pointless me voting until the electoral system is reformed (remember when that was a big deal in 2010?).

[Diello]

Anyone who works in the public sector and does not vote for Labour really doesn't know whats good for them.

 

1) Well, the last Labour Government tried to take my public sector job away from me by selling off education services to the private sector... So actually I'd be a turkey voting for Christmas (yet people conveniently forget that... but we'll bash the Tories for allowing private companies into the NHS, even though Labour did that too.)

2) I don't vote based *just* on the fact I work in the public sector.

3) I don't believe the world owes me a living, and I don't believe that tax payers should fund a life-style I can't afford.

4) I believe the welfare state should be a safety net for those in a dire situation through circumstances beyond their control. Not a career choice.

[MkII]

Locally it's conservatives here...and it's been brilliant. We've seen change since they got into power. Dilapidated areas now have rejuvenation. Ghost high streets have businesses opening up in them.

 

Dilapidated areas were caused by the failed austerity measures bruought in by the conservatives that were quickly ditched. The recovery has been in no way thanks the their influence more than it would have been under anyone elses. The right wing policies fuelled by the previous labour government facilitated the crash. Right wing policies support making things worse for disabled people by not sharing the wealth. I personally don't want to be part of a society that doesn't believe in sharing but champions selfishness, and I'll be voting that way.

[Diello]

I personally don't want to be part of a society that doesn't believe in sharing but champions selfishness, and I'll be voting that way.

 

I personally don't want to be part of a society that doesn't believe in pulling its weight, but champions laziness and the idea that someone else will work hard and pick up the tab for me, and I'll be voting that way.

[featured_spectre]

Actually...the dilapidated areas in my locality were caused by Labour...Overspending meant that public services were boosted like NHS but local services like youth centres, youth clubs and community centres which were council funded, and other such schemes were closed because the money was syphoned away to fund other things. The end result was that the kids had no outlet or places to socialise, so turned to graffiti and the like, which made the area less desirable, and then less wanted to be there, and then more graffiti spawned, rinse and repeat. Conservatives pumped money into the area to get it back to how it was, and whilst its not fully there, it has seen a vast improvement since it had the cash injection.

[featured_spectre]

As for how I vote, I will be voting based on these principles.

 

Welfare is a safety net for a brief period, NOT a way of life.

People should be working where possible.

Taxes should be measured out properly, not just tax the rich because they're rich, but conversely, shouldn't penalise the poor either.

Public services should have a reasonable budget, and not be over spending (like when I was working in a school, they had to spend £100k because they'd lose it otherwise and couldn't bank it for the next year).

 

That is how my vote shall be spent.

[LeMarchand]

As for how I vote, I will be voting based on these principles.

 

Welfare is a safety net for a brief period, NOT a way of life.

People should be working where possible.

Taxes should be measured out properly, not just tax the rich because they're rich, but conversely, shouldn't penalise the poor either.

Public services should have a reasonable budget, and not be over spending (like when I was working in a school, they had to spend £100k because they'd lose it otherwise and couldn't bank it for the next year).

 

That is how my vote shall be spent.

 

When you find the party that supports all that, please can you let the rest of us know?

[CAM]

Lib Dem atm because I don't like the other two. Locally I vote Residents Association because they've been in power for decades.

[DaveJ2717uk]

There is no none of the above option so didn't vote

[JRowley]

My area has been begging for redevelopment for the last 20 years, under the conservative leadership nothing has been done despite multiple plans being drawn up and put out to the public. We have an area which consists of a burnt shell of a paint factory which was destroyed 10 years ago, the Tesco next door wanted to expand their store to bring people back to the town rather than going out of it to a big shopping centre about 10 miles away. Part of that plan involved building a new bigger store on that plot of land, closing its two other stores and redeveloping the local area to provide shops for third party independent shop owners and amazingly that was rejected. So now we are stuck with this hideous site for the foreseeable future, probably another 10 years to be honest.

 

I know people don't like Tesco but this plan was just a win all over.

Edited March 30, 2015 by JRowley

[Gardinho]

1) Well, the last Labour Government tried to take my public sector job away from me by selling off education services to the private sector... So actually I'd be a turkey voting for Christmas (yet people conveniently forget that... but we'll bash the Tories for allowing private companies into the NHS, even though Labour did that too.)

2) I don't vote based *just* on the fact I work in the public sector.

3) I don't believe the world owes me a living, and I don't believe that tax payers should fund a life-style I can't afford.

4) I believe the welfare state should be a safety net for those in a dire situation through circumstances beyond their control. Not a career choice.

 

It's not about voting for whichever party I personally would benefit from, it's what the entire country, rich AND poor would benefit the most.

 

NHS, I'm very proud that the UK has the NHS. Look at America and the state of their health system. They literally have people dying on the street because they can't afford insurance. Even if they can, the insurance companies try to wriggle out of paying out for anything. There's a documentary called 'Sicko' by Michael Moore, which really is an eye-opener and makes you proud to be British.

 

There is a national crisis here at the moment for beds etc in hospitals. The NHS needs a government who can back them.

 

Each to their own. That's the beauty of democracy. I can only speak about my own experiences, and as a working-class lad from Northern England I don't have much positive to say about the Tories.

 

Right now, I live in the South West. The local MPs are currently in the news quite a bit about the incinerator in Gloucestershire, which unsurprisingly Labour are fighting against & the Tories are pushing through. What are your thoughts on the local MPs @mrbios?

[clockend25]

I personally don't want to be part of a society that doesn't believe in pulling its weight, but champions laziness and the idea that someone else will work hard and pick up the tab for me, and I'll be voting that way.

 

I think we'd all concur, however there's been an awful lot of work done over the last five years to turn the general public against people on benefits in general, whatever their circumstances. As a result, there's a massive appetite for dealing with 'scroungers', who in many instances are people looking for work who exist on the princely sum of £49 a week, while the apologists are soon queuing up to defend multi-national corporations paying no tax or chief executives of failing banks earning millions in bonuses.

 

Doesn't sit right. The proposed cuts to welfare under another Tory government don't look workable.

[Sagima]

My husband and I would prefer to vote SNP but as we live in the east of England and they aren't fielding any candidiates outside of Scotland (that I know of) that plan is foiled. They just seem to be a much better, more open and trustworthy version of the labour party which itself seems to have some nice ideals but is let down a bit by basing its plans on doing the same thing but in a different way than the Tories. Voting for either of them results in the same outcome just the way to it is different or at least on the surface it seems that way. We'd have probably voted for a Jon Prescott or Diane Abbot led labour party but Tony, Gordon and the two Eds have put us off it for years.

We were LibDem up until the coalition but with the exception of leaving the EU it would seem we have more in common with UKIPs plans as , with the exception of greater EU integration, there is little now that they offer us that we want.

[Gardinho]

I think there is a misconception about how many so-called 'scroungers' we actually have in this country. The vast majority of people on welfare need help.

 

The con-artists are definitely in a minority and should be dealt with accordingly.

[Gardinho]

Pleased that no members have voted BNP on the poll so far by the way!

[Diello]

It's not about voting for whichever party I personally would benefit from, it's what the entire country, rich AND poor would benefit the most.

 

NHS, I'm very proud that the UK has the NHS. Look at America and the state of their health system. They literally have people dying on the street because they can't afford insurance. Even if they can, the insurance companies try to wriggle out of paying out for anything. There's a documentary called 'Sicko' by Michael Moore, which really is an eye-opener and makes you proud to be British.

 

There is a national crisis here at the moment for beds etc in hospitals. The NHS needs a government who can back them.

 

Your original quote was "Anyone who works in the public sector and does not vote for Labour really doesn't know whats good for them."... surely that's about people voting for whichever party would personally benefit them? That said, I totally agree with your sentiment, it should be about what benefits the whole country, not just what you get out of it (and I've lost count of the number of people who've said they'll vote Labour because otherwise their benefits will be cut...) The problem is, I've yet to see a Labour policy that is aspirational and doesn't just benefit those who are living above their means. (Granted it also encompasses the genuine cases, and all parties should seek to do that).

 

Totally agree about the NHS, I used to live in the States, so I'm all too aware of the nightmare of their health system. The problem is no party has ever really given the NHS what it wants - quite honestly, until we get a party that gives the NHS as much funding as reasonably possible, based on what the experts say it needs, it'll always be doomed to struggle. I'd personally prefer to see health and education handed over to expert-led groups, rather than politicians... but until then...

 

I think we'd all concur, however there's been an awful lot of work done over the last five years to turn the general public against people on benefits in general, whatever their circumstances. As a result, there's a massive appetite for dealing with 'scroungers', who in many instances are people looking for work who exist on the princely sum of £49 a week, while the apologists are soon queuing up to defend multi-national corporations paying no tax or chief executives of failing banks earning millions in bonuses.

 

Agree - We need to clamp down a hell of a lot harder on Corporations and tax evaders... that doesn't mean we should turn a blind eye to other people milking the system though. We need to get them all.

 

I think there is a misconception about how many so-called 'scroungers' we actually have in this country. The vast majority of people on welfare need help.

 

The con-artists are definitely in a minority and should be dealt with accordingly.

 

Ahh... but there lays the rub... It depends on your definition of "scroungers" surely... Labour love pulling out the low rate of benefit fraud, and that's true... However the issue is with those who aren't committing fraud as far as the rules are concerned... they're not working and still claiming benefits. They're either 1) Perfectly capable of working, but go to extraordinary lengths to ensure they don't have too, or 2) Live above their means and have us pick up the tab. They don't go through the cognitive process of "We want a 4th child, so let's look at the finances and see if we can afford one", it's "Let's have the child, someone else will pay for them". If we want to subsidise people having children, that's fine, but can we just then say it please and let people vote on that basis? I struggle to see how a couple choosing to have a family of four, when their combined income has never been above £14,000, and getting a semi-detached house with a driveway, a car, and a holiday every year, should be part paid for by me working my backside off, not being able to afford that same semi-detached house with driveway and a holiday every year, just because I was brought up not to think the world owed me a living, and paid attention in sex-ed!

 

As for the SNP - Hmm... I'd rather have a Labour government! "We have the right to vote on things that have nothing to do with us... O, and give us even more money per head than we already do because we say so"... just about as undemocratic as you can get.

[zag]

I do love a bit of politics, unlike some people I strongly believe in the good work politicians do in the country and appreciate their contribution to many aspects of my life.

 

I'll probably vote conservative as I believe in a free market creating the prosperous economy with tax revenue to build schools, hospitals ect. I've travelled all over the world and seen many different politcal systems and to me, the most successful ones are the free market economies. At the end of the day, that keeps me in a job even if I have to put up with minimal pay rises. Lets face it, if there wasn't public pay restraint, our country would be in even more debt.

 

But...

 

I agree with UKIP that there is too much uncontrolled immigration and power based in Europe.

 

I agree with the Green Party that we should invest much more in renewable energy to become a world leader in the technology.

 

I agree with the Lib dems that poor working people should get the majority of the social security, and people should be encouraged to seek work not live their lives sponging off the state.

 

I actually don't agree with many labour policies or like their current leader. I especially despise union activism and strikers, I think it gives the public sector a bad name.

 

There is a good website here to help you make the choice

 

Vote Match - take the quiz

Edited March 30, 2015 by zag

[Garacesh]

2) Live above their means and have us pick up the tab. They don't go through the cognitive process of "We want a 4th child, so let's look at the finances and see if we can afford one", it's "Let's have the child, someone else will pay for them". If we want to subsidise people having children, that's fine, but can we just then say it please and let people vote on that basis? I struggle to see how a couple choosing to have a family of four, when their combined income has never been above £14,000, and getting a semi-detached house with a driveway, a car, and a holiday every year, should be part paid for by me working my backside off, not being able to afford that same semi-detached house with driveway and a holiday every year, just because I was brought up not to think the world owed me a living, and paid attention in sex-ed!

 

I have to completely agree with this.. I don't want people destitute and I certainly don't want children to suffer because their parents were utter boobs.. But dear (Get-Random -InputObject $Diety -Count 1) there needs to be some kind of limit! If a family has, say, two children, and falls pregnant again, the country as-a-whole should not be picking up that tab. I'd suggest maybe a family that abused the benefit system and had too many children ought to have those children taken into care (as I'd consider having a child you can't afford to pay for to be neglect), but people just don't seem to want to adopt or foster any more so there's too many kids in care already, as it is.

Edited March 30, 2015 by Garacesh

[featured_spectre]

@zag according to that quiz...I am...

 

63% Labour

63% UKIP

54% Conservative

13% Lib Dem

 

I struggle to believe that the selection I made put me so high with labour and ukip and a bit below conservatives when I find conservatives the least bitter of the medicines to swallow.

[LeMarchand]

Pleased that no members have voted BNP on the poll so far by the way!

 

They were on my list as a "protest" (most ridiculous party on the list) vote in my last ward election but as the area is strongly Conservative there was a chance they'd actually get in. Luckily, on the ridiculously long list of candidates I found something like "The (name of small town) Knights of Justice".

 

They don't go through the cognitive process of "We want a 4th child, so let's look at the finances and see if we can afford one", it's "Let's have the child, someone else will pay for them". If we want to subsidise people having children, that's fine, but can we just then say it please and let people vote on that basis? I struggle to see how a couple choosing to have a family of four, when their combined income has never been above £14,000, and getting a semi-detached house with a driveway, a car, and a holiday every year, should be part paid for by me working my backside off, not being able to afford that same semi-detached house with driveway and a holiday every year, just because I was brought up not to think the world owed me a living, and paid attention in sex-ed!

 

I agree with you about "those" people, but without either some serious social engineering (which no-one would do for fear of getting caught) or enforced sterilisation we are, unfortunately, stuck with them.

 

HMRC figures show that in 2013/2014 they estimate that £3.4bn was lost to benefits fraud/error (and they underpaid £1.5bn). In 2012/2013 the shortfall in tax collection was £34bn. I assume that the "benefits" figure doesn't include the sort of people you're unhappy with, but equally I suspect that the "tax" figure fails to account for all those that are using legal loopholes. The vast gulf between the two figures suggests to me that much more is lost to the public coffers by "hard working" people/corporations not paying their fair share than "scroungers" using more of the benefits system than they morally ought to.

[sonofsanta]

I'd suggest maybe a family that abused the benefit system and had too many children ought to have those children taken into care (as I'd consider having a child you can't afford to pay for to be neglect), but people just don't seem to want to adopt or foster any more so there's too many kids in care already, as it is.

 

First up: I agree that the attitude of "but the world owes me!" is infinitely frustrating and makes you wonder why you bother trying to do the right thing (saddled with a mortgage, we'll only have three kids even though we want more etc.), and it's a deep seated attitude problem that's two or three generations deep now, and I don't know how it can ever be fixed.

 

However, I don't think taking the child away can ever be the answer, because that is absolutely punishing the child, which should be allowed to grow up with its own parents and not in social care. Even saying "nope, no benefits for this one!" is problematic, because you're effectively denying the child the resources it needs to grow up. We may well strongly suspect that the money only goes on fags/fruit machines/iPhone contracts but letting even one child go hungry is too high a moral price, IMHO.

 

Perhaps a line is drawn in the sand saying from now on, fourth children and on aren't eligible for any benefits, so don't have them if you can't afford them, and any existing claimants continue under the old system. But would that really stop people? Do they people who need to know that information pay any attention to politics and news? I'm stereotyping, I know, but from what I've seen of the families round my (poverty-stricken) home town and all the children that go to the comprehensive there (where I used to work), the only way I think you'd get the message across would be ads during the X Factor.

 

I'm pretty solidly left wing these days, and we need a benefits system to help those less well off (I'm all for a 20x wage cap in public & private sector), but there is something fundamentally unbalanced in our benefits system at the moment. When I first moved in with my now-wife, bringing an extra £18k into the household where she was only on £11k (pro-rata TA salary), we were worse off by a significant margin every month thanks to the loss of benefits. The best answer for us in terms of money in our pockets would have been for me to quit my job. How can almost tripling the household income result in a couple being worse off? How is that sane?

[Garacesh]

However, I don't think taking the child away can ever be the answer, because that is absolutely punishing the child,

Perhaps a line is drawn in the sand saying from now on, fourth children and on aren't eligible for any benefits, so don't have them if you can't afford them,

'ang on, what?!

 

Taking a child away from a family that are clearly too irresponsible to do basic budgeting and placing them in the care of someone who can is punishing the child, but leaving them with said irresponsible family to possibly go hungry or not be very well clothed or any other number of 'compromises' isn't? I don't know about you, but blood's thicker than water*. Genetic family don't mean squat - family is the relationship you have with somebody, not a chemistry accident. I'd much rather call my mother's husband my Father than my genetic father because he actually acts like it. (I don't call him Dad because I'm 24, I don't need a father figure, and he's aware that he doesn't have to step in to the dad-role as I'm on my own feet and living my own life, but he's still a damn site more of a father than my genetic one has ever been)

 

I'm not keen on taking children in to care, admittedly. I really am not eager to see it done. I think you're right when you say there's no 'real' way to fix it.. We either overload the care system even more and have way too many orphans floating in the system without any parents at all, we leave the children in the custody of a family unable to pay for them, or we carry on handing out wads where they're asked for. Options 1 and 2 are at detriment to the child. Option 3 is at detriment to the country and its finances. Sucks, yo.

 

* The original use of the phrase being 'The blood of brotherhood is thicker than the water of the womb'

[CAM]

 

/6char