Who will you vote for?

[trev]

I'm voting conservatives. I've only voted once before and that was for conservatives last time, and they won. So I think they see my vote as important because they basically put in power who I vote for by the looks of things.

I think they've done a fairly good job of sorting out the benefits culture. Spoke to a few chavs who have been on it years that have said they've had them stopped unless they work for charities for free or whatever. Had to refrain from laughing in their faces. Just about managed that.

One of the problems with that is that it's often not charities that those percieved as workshy are forced to work for for free. Remember the woman who took her case to court? She was doing voluntary work in a museum in the line of work she wanted to get into, she was gaining experience which would stand her in good stead. Along come the DWP and try to force her to work in Poundland.
Now the last I heard, Poundland are a profit making company. If a job exists that can be filled by someone working for nothing then it exists for someone who should be properly recruited and paid the going market rate.
Thankfully she gave Iain Duncan Smith a bloody nose in court, incidentally I should probably add that the case made the news because of the DWP's appeals against decisions made in lower courts.
Many companies pay their staff ridiculously low wages so that they are kept under the employers NI threshold. This results in people needing in work benefits a situation which, imo, must be addressed as it is exploitative of all parties to the deal (apart from the employer)

 

[Silly Sausage]

Everyone keeps banging on about Dole bludgers and the like, this speaks volumes ...

https://straighttothesource.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/welfare-spending-2011-2012.jpg

Bearing in mind that fraud is only a small percentage of any one category.
OK, it may well be a lot of cash being fraudulently claimed, but in the big scheme of it all, it's knack all.

 

[Octopus]

Corrected that for you Mr Cameron.

So if your 1% is correct why are they getting the same number of people saying they are going to vote for them as Labour??

Utter tosh.

And I can see why you want to be a Labour Councillor - you simply haven't got a fxcking clue. Out of touch, like all the leaders of all the parties.

 

[Octopus]

Everyone keeps banging on about Dole bludgers and the like, this speaks volumes ...

https://straighttothesource.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/welfare-spending-2011-2012.jpg

Bearing in mind that fraud is only a small percentage of any one category.
OK, it may well be a lot of cash being fraudulently claimed, but in the big scheme of it all, it's knack all.

Who's that then??

 

[Octopus]

The conservatives=the party who has borrowed more in the last 5 years than labour did in 13, yet it is hardly mentioned, flucking disgusting propaganda which makes my blood boil.

A statistic I can't dsagree with, BUT if Labour had won in 2010 they would have borrowed more than the Coelition has.

 

[trev]

A statistic I can't dsagree with, BUT if Labour had won in 2010 they would have borrowed more than the Coelition has.

If my Auntie had been a man she'd have been my Uncle.

 

[Guest77]

A statistic I can't dsagree with, BUT if Labour had won in 2010 they would have borrowed more than the Coelition has.

HOW DO YOU KNOW? what qualifies you to suggest this? evidence please.

 

[Englishman]

HOW DO YOU KNOW? what qualifies you to suggest this? evidence please.

Maybe the fact that they were borrowing £150billion a year when they left number 10, and then opposed every attempt to cut that deficit by the coalition maybe...

 

[Guest77]

But a lot less than the Tories, they have increased the deficeit by an extra 500 billion in 5 years buffoon, so lets see your excuse for that.

 

[Octopus]

HOW DO YOU KNOW? what qualifies you to suggest this? evidence please.

Because Ed Balls has REPEATEDLY said that the Coelition has cut too far, too fast, so by this he would have carried on borrowing MORE than the coelition than Labour would have.

Simples.

 

[Octopus]

But a lot less than the Tories, they have increased the deficeit by an extra 500 billion in 5 years buffoon, so lets see your excuse for that.

See post 310

 

[andyb]

Because Ed Balls has REPEATEDLY said that the Coelition has cut too far, too fast, so by this he would have carried on borrowing MORE than the coelition than Labour would have.

Simples.

Not that simples, when the coalition came in the economy was growing. The austerity budget in the autumn plunged this country into recession so we had less tax collected.
This government has been borrowing to make up the shortfall as well as everything else that's been going on.
If we had a bigger economy and more tax revenue that goes with it plus less unemployment to pay for then borrowing would of been less.

Not simples.

 

[Octopus]

Not that simples, when the coalition came in the economy was growing. The austerity budget in the autumn plunged this country into recession so we had less tax collected.
This government has been borrowing to make up the shortfall as well as everything else that's been going on.
If we had a bigger economy and more tax revenue that goes with it plus less unemployment to pay for then borrowing would of been less.

Not simples.

Yup, because the Labour party were trying to keep it inflated by employing 250K new civil servants and spending money left, right and centre.

This situation was unsubstainable as they (as usual forgot) that excessive Public spending is not the way out of a dip......

so they could have borrowed £150 billion for 5 years and the national debt would have grown by £750 billion

When more than 50% of GDP is generated by public spending (which was 53% in 20009/2010) its never going to work

EDIT: And because the EU is also in a mess (and continues to be so) one of our biggest export areas is in, and continues to be in, the doledrums!

 

[Guest77]

See post 310

I have seen it, I am still laughing at it.

 

[andyb]

Yup, because the Labour party were trying to keep it inflated by employing 250K new civil servants and spending money left, right and centre.

This situation was unsubstainable as they (as usual forgot) that excessive Public spending is not the way out of a dip......

so they could have borrowed £150 billion for 5 years and the national debt would have grown by £750 billion

When more than 50% of GDP is generated by public spending (which was 53% in 20009/2010) its never going to work

EDIT: And because the EU is also in a mess (and continues to be so) one of our biggest export areas is in, and continues to be in, the doledrums!

Well the public sector was about 20% of the workforce, I'm not sure how they could account for over 50% of gdp.

The £150b a year for 5 years is something you have pulled out of thin air, probably based on Labours last couple of years in government. It's not a fact is it? Labour never got in so it can't be.
What is a fact however is the coalition borrowing about £115b a year for 5 years. I assume your comfortable with that.
Another fact is the Tory promise that the slash & burn austerity measures they introduced would erase the deficit in the course of this government.