UK General Election 2005
 

Who will you vote for?

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

I'm not sure how it works with voting over here but if Blunkett doesn't start grounding himself in reality I won't be voting Labour.

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

Perhaps this should be "who will you be voting against" or "can you even be bothered to vote because they're all as bad as each other?"!

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

I think there should be a section for 'other' such as UKIP - not that I will be voting for them.

Quite simply, I was prepared for New Labour to make a difference to this country. I didn't expect the difference to be to the detrement of practically everyone in it - so there is no chance that they will get my vote next time around.

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

I've touched up the poll to include further options.

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

Can you include a ' I have absolutely no idea but I'll cross that bridge when I come to it' option?

Fer goodness its ages away yet.I'm not even ready to think about Crimbo 2004 let alone some undefined date in 2005. :rolleyes:

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

That's exactly the way that i feel about it. although i suppose with all the parties having their conferences now, we will start getting bombarded with election Propaganda soon enough.

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

how about an option for "not telling"? i have two votes being a student, dunno what to do... oh dear oh dear...

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

:confused:

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

I assume your expecting one postal one from where your parents live and one at Uni. You'll be moved off one of those electrol registers so you still only get one vote.

Besides, 2 votes is illegal and I'm sure the fuzz would invite you to 'help them with there enquires' if you used them both.

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

No you don't - and be very careful about thinking you do, they record the fact that you have voted so it would be very easy to prosecute you.

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

It is perfectly legal for a student to be on two electoral registers (one at home and one at Uni). It is also perfectly legal for theat student to vote twice in local elections as they spend half their time in both places and so must have local representation.

However, AFAIK, it is illegal for a student to vote twice in the same election (General, European, etc.) but I do not know how much post-election checking is done to chase up anybody who has done so.

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

There are currently rumours that Blair is planning a suprise November election!

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

aww thats pooey, i wanted to give each party one vote and be nice and neutral ;)

as it happens all the elections there have been i haven't voted here in birmingham anyway, so is a bit of a moot point... :erm:

everyone knows labour will get in again anyway through some fiddle, proportional representation or wahtever it is that gives them more seats per vote? so what's the point? :shrug:

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

With 2 votes? By my calculations if you want to cover the main parties then you'd still be deficient in the votes dept. to the tune of 1.

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

I thought the only option open to students was voting if it was on the way back from the pub ;)

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

Anybody know what the minimum voting age is?

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

18 ?

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

Yep, 18.

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

btw, the vote is verly likely to be the 5th may, thus allowing the slogan 05.05.05 to remind people to vote.

although i would like a early november election, although i dont see why blair would want to do that, labour have got a lot of time to build their votes up and blair also can count on his partys support until the election, after which he will be under a lot of pressure to leave. Bringing forward the election is like the prisoner bring his excutation forward

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

You haven't voted and yet you reckon it's all a fiddle.No,what it is,is that all of us who bother to vote are carrying those who don't vote.If you don't vote nothing can change.If you hate Blair that much get to a ballot box and vote him out but don't whinge about it if they get back in and you DID NOT VOTE.If only 50/60 % of those eligble to vote do so how can it prove anything?If the other 40% weren't so idle maybe TB's majority could be wiped to nothing.Then he really will be up against it because the House of Commons might be more evenly balanced with Labour not having things all their own way.

I wish it were illegal NOT to vote.

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

Ah, you wanted the wuss 'everybody gets a prize' election then :)

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

I empathise with this view, but I don't agree with it on the basis that it is a demorcratic right not to vote.

If people were not voting as some sort of protest, then I could understand, but the fact is that they are simply apethetic to the whole process - simply believing that anyone in power is someone to moan about.

This is partially the fault of the politicians and partially the fault of the non-voters.

One thing I particularly feel is that non-voters shouldn't really complain about the leaders of the day.

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

people who do not vote are annoying

people who do not vote then moarn are more annoying

people who dont vote because they think it gives them a moral highground should be shot

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

Until there is an option "none of the above" on the ballot paper, the only other option is not to vote.

Or possibly because some people have come to understand that your individual vote is worthless and whoever is in power is more likely than not going to do what the hell they like.

The part of the non-voters is *very* small IMO.

If you live in a "safe" constituency, where the candidate gets regularly elected with a massive majority, whether you vote or not has damn all effect on the outcome. If you watch the election specials you soon realise that it is a relatively few "key marginals" which really determine the outcome of the election unless the party in power has become *incredibly* unpopular (eg the last Tory government).

And, as I mentioned above, unless there's a "none of the above" option, your only choice is to vote for another party (who probably don't represent what your views are anyway) or not to vote at all to show your dislike of the entire process.

This, however, does *NOT* preclude the right to express your displeasure of the party in power.

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

You know, I can just hear Saddam Hussein saying exactly the same thing... :rolleyes:

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

Just vote for a inderpendent candidate or run for election yourself if your so worried and SOO moral that you should not vote for the good of the nation. "They are all the same, all wrong, all going to destory the world if they get elected, blah blah blah:

God, i think its good these people dont vote if they feel think like that, we dont want people like that having a say

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

only he would shoot people who DO vote rather than the other way around...

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

Oh deary, deary me :rolleyes:

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

I agree that a box saying that would be an extremely useful device for sending a message to some.

Well in my area, in the last council elections, there was a turnout of 27% (or thereabouts). Are you seriously telling me that 73% of the population could not collectively vote for someone else?

You have the power to turn up and 'spoil' your ballot paper right now. Simply not bothering to show up (as did the majority of the country - bear in mind at the last general election people who voted were in the MINORITY) and then making excuses like 'oh they're all the same' etc etc is apathy on a stick.

And if the majority of people in the country are following your example of not voting because you don't like the options, then start your own party that 53% of country will vote for, that's democracy right?

I would disagree. If a store was selling faulty goods, you don't really have much say in it unless you buy one of the faulty ones. If we all lived by your rules, no-one would turn up to vote. If you want to live in a democracy then you have to take part in it.

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

I guess we can take it from that you are not studying politics then,:rolleyes: :)

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

Under "survival of the least unfit", New Labour's underachievement and stealth taxation will probably be rated less harshly than the Tories incoherent mumblings - the Lib Dems are NO alternative whatsoever.

The Conservatives got in when people were sick of Labour's mismanagement. Labour got back when they went into meltdown.

I'd like to vote UKIP, as I belive the EU is going down a road we should not follow, but the area was lost from Conservative to Labour in the meltdown (from being a "safe" seat), but recovered by them in the last election, so I'd have to back them instead - under PR, I'd vote UKIP - or any alternative that would be pressuring for the EU to be a co-operation of nation states, rather than a surrender to a superstate. To actually leave the EU would be a last resort, but its an option which must be on the table, which means staying out of EMU - basically, take no step in that cannot be reversed.

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

Interesting. Conservative leading by a large majority.

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

Yes, because that 73% would *not* simply "vote for someone else". Their votes would split more or less according to the demographic for your area.

Rubbish. It is a *VERY* loud message that nobody is paying attention to at the moment. People have got fed up with politics.

Despite the majority of people being against the war in Iraq, we invaded anyway. Only after Blair realised that he could actually lose votes if he didn't ban fox hunting did he finally do something about it (and then in a pretty cack-handed and incompetant manner). Faced with fuel protests the government seemed to back down, but very little actually changed.

Our political leaders are taking their positions for granted and it is *NOT* possible for us to do anything about it through the ballot box any more.

That's sheer nonsense. And just as I can't be bothered to vote in a failing and non-representative system, I can't be bothered to point out the fallacies in that argument.

Rubbish. If a store is selling faulty goods and I hear about it (which I probably would, being a subscriber to Which? Magazine and a viewer of Working Lunch etc) I wouldn't go there.

However your analogy is faulty because political parties are not like high street shops.

Oh gods, this is the "if you don't like it go and live somewhere else" argument. It's old, tired and tedious, just like the political parties, and I'm not going to waste time on it or them.

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

You always have the option to spoil your ballot paper, one presumes the number of spoiled papers is taken into consideration when the tallying up is done. I'd think a great number of intentionally spoiled papers would show people dislike of the system/party's!

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

Very. Considering everyone thinks the Tories are "dying". I thought, judging by the media, that the Tories don't stand a chance at the next election, but i'll still vote for them anyway, even though, at the moment, it looks worthless.

It is looking like at the moment, the main opposition parties will be the Lib Dems and Labour. Great. Liberals vs socialists. How can two left wing parties really oppose each other? There is not enough difference.

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

Why tories anyway? The NHS was got triple its funding since 1997..My dads friend had heart troubles and never got good treatment, especcially because of his age he always had to wait for a specialist. Until 2000 when he suddenly got much better treatment, they actuallly bothered to see him, and he has bbeen in much better health.

But on topic..labour have increased spending, remember a few moths ago there were positive results on the NHS. Police numbers have increased

What have they done that so bad?

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

Apologies if someone has already made this point, but I have voted in almost every local, national and European election since I was 18 (over twenty years) and my democratic voice has only ever been heard in the European PR system. NONE of my local or national votes have ever counted for anything.

I can't remember the last time I was canvassed by anyone other than the Conservatives, and I don't think we have ever had a none-Conservative MP!

I am not surprised that younger voters feel disenchanted by the whole parliamentary system.

Having said that, I will continue to plug away with my useless vote in the vain hope that one day we may get a different voting system.

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

Over 60 stealth taxes, most of which you will not be paying "yet". £5 billion every year robbed from pension funds. It wouldn't be so bad if the money was spent wisely, however Labour always manage to spend most of it on administration, large increases in paper shifters and nothing at the coal face.

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

So that explains why NOT labour - but it dosent explain why tory?

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

But you were making the point that non-voters such as yourself were not happy with the options on offer in an election, yet you want change - I think this is hypocritical as you're not prepared to do anything about bringing change to pass.

Not voting sends a message, correctly or otherwise, to politicians that you're not bothered. Spoiling your ballot paper (en masse) sends a message that your not happy. Or as you said before, a box saying words to the effect or 'you're all useless, bring me someone better' would be even better, as government tends to write off spoilt papers as the work of morons and lunitics!


That just simply isn't true. First, I don't think that given the state this country is in, that fox hunting is an election winner. Most people don't like it, sure, but there are far more serious issues that need resolving far higher up the list IMO.

Second, and most important, as you say the majority of people did not agree with invading Iraq - you're right, but you do have power to do something about it. Vote for someone other than Labour next time. Even reducing Blair's majority sends a huge message to Labour that they screwed up, and if you and your all fellow non-voters voted for someone else then Labour would be out.

Oh come on Graham, I expected better of you ;)

Seriously though, I respect your opinion - but I found it really interesting that yesterday you green rep'd me (much appreciated) for quoting Niemoller's 'First they came for the Communists' line. Is this not the same thing? The quote was about a man who chose not to speak up (in this case I'm inferring that speaking up requires voting).

Believe it or not I share your total frustration with the whole political process in this country. The parties and people in them are an utter waste of public funds, they do not adequately represent me or you by the sounds of it. But if we don't vote that situation will only get worse. By keeping politicians on their toes, keeping on kicking them out when they screw up, we will have an evolving system in this country, which will be far more representative of the people that elected them.

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

Fine, you contribute a few million pounds to my political campaign and I'll be happy to "do something about it"!!!

Which is why I said Blair did it in a cack-handed manner. He painted himself into a corner to try to grab some votes and then got stuck with the consequences.

Yes, but then we're stuck with either Michael Howard and the Tories who nobody is really willing to trust, or the Lib Dems who want to dive headlong into Europe despite the fact that it's clear that most of the country doesn't want that.

Of course you can vote for a "minor" party or spoil your ballot paper, but frankly these are equally as pointless.

I am willing to "speak up" about issues. I have e-mailed my MP on such matters as the introduction of IR51 (the taxation of dividends for small businesses) and the blatant unfairness of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 that redefines a child as someone under 18 (instead of 16) and then effectively *backdates* that so that a photo that *was* legal is now *illegal* (a breach of Human Rights law).

However this is not the same as objecting to an unrepresentative system for electing governments that does not reflect the views and opinions of the population of this country.

Or possibly someone will actually start *doing* something about it.

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

Think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one mate!

I think it's a chicken and egg situation....

You think it's an unrepresentative system so you don't vote.

I think it's an unrepresenative system becuase people don't vote.

Either of us could be right (or both for that matter!) :Peaceman:

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

£118,00 0 expenses, £57,000 salary. That is the average cost of your MP.

Why does it not surprise me to find out that of the top ten most expensive MP's 9 of them are Labour members, the other was from the SNP. One woman Labour MP claimed £31,000 on postage alone.:disturbd:

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

Because there are more Labour MPs than anyone else, and the SNP is strongest in the far North of Scotland, which costs more to get to than, say, Surrey. The postage one was funny though, something like 200 first class letters a day on average.

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

I assume that these expenses are audited? For example is there a little man in a grey suit somewhere checking Post Office receipts?

What annoys me is the 'expenses' claimed by certain MPs for apartments close to the Houses of Parliament...especially the ones who live in Central London anyway.

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

Of the top ten most expensive MP's (all Labour ) five of them come from as follows, Crosby, Leicester, Burnley, Hendon, & Nottingham, hardly from the far North. Their average cost was £126,06 0 per annum with the Crosby MP claiming a staggering £168.88 9. Contrast that with Tam Dayall a Labour MP from Linlithgow who claimed £81.000 .

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

Tony Blair was given £43,026 over 3 years , for the upkeep of his home in Co Durham, don't we pay him a decent wage and give him rent free accomodation.:(

Also whist the Inland Revenue recommended rate for mileage allowances for us mere mortals is 40 pence per mile an MP is allowed to claim 57.7 pence per mile, that should encourage them to drive environmentally sound cars ( not ).

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

Apparently there's about to be an audit and a number of MPs have been repaying dodgy expenses - I read this in the Littlejohn column the other day.

I think I read that some cabinet MPs are also claiming london accomodation costs (legally) even though they are getting free grace/favour homes - except Blunket who has refused to claim his.

These are 'socialists' - isnt everyone supposed to be equal except some are more equal than others?

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

This is perhaps the most depressing poll i have ever seen - i cant understand why anyone would vote conservative at the moment. I can understand why not to vote labour but why vote for conservative?

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

Well as much as Liberals are making headway against the Tories, if you want Labour out they are still the only real alternative. Sad innit?

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

all together now.... "things can only get better, can only get better.... etc"

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

Is there any way to reset this poll, as we are much closer to the general election and many people may have now decided or changed their mind?

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

Yes, I'll do it in a minute, first here are the results so you can look back after the reset.

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

Thanks.

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

Erm.. Try again?

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

Patience is a virtue!

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

;) Actually, I was referring to the 7 (48.48%)

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

Fixed - though it might have helped if you gave some clue as to what the hell you were talking about in the first place. :rolleyes:
__________________

The Poll is now ready, vote away. :D

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

I read in a paper the other day (can't remember which one) that Labour aren't automatically garanteed a win over the Tories, as their poll (MORI-Gallup styled, but I can't remember who polled it), as the divide is quite close again.

The Politics Show has touched on that too. They put it all on immigration issues.

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

i haven't voted in years and don't intend to they all pee in the same pot
there all the same
bring back mrs thatcher

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

on the Politics Show, they have been explaining LibDems tax policy, and how some of the working class that need the most help (nurses, teachers) will pay more when council tax is abolished, and that the LibDems have devised a ridicluous number of new taxes, including a dog tax!! What the...

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

I most certainly wont be voting for labour due to them helping me become poor (abolishing of grants, student fees etc). Sadly they dont have much of a sizeable oposition but whoever is the strongest near the time is where i'll hedge my vote be it libdem or more likely conservative. whoever it is labour must be outed before they ruin this country further

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

Not sure how the backbench MP for Sheffield Brightside is going to ingratiate himself with you Bifta :)
__________________

The Lib Dems want council tax to be replaced by a local income tax. Sounds sensible. They want to raise the Stamp Duty threshold significantly to help first time buyers. Sounds sensible. They want a 50p rate of income tax on earnings over £100 pa. Sounds sensible. Charles Kennedy allegedly likes a drink. Sounds sensible.
__________________


Voting should be compulsory but you should be allowed to spoil your paper (which would make for an interesting election night).
__________________


Two left wing parties? Where?!
__________________


Iraq. Tuition fees. Two tier health service. House arrest/detention without trial. Removal of right to jury. Indirect taxation. SATS.
__________________

:clap: The main reason appears to be to keep coloured people out the country. Sadly this seems to have a fair amount of appeal in our prodly 'tolerant' country!

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

I chose I will not voting since I can't vote ;)

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

Now I know why I get into such heated debates on CF :)

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

[img]Download Failed (1)[/img]

Tories without a doubt. The way Labour treat students is utter vile, and I would love to see that fu*king smug smile wiped off Blair's face.

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

Unfortunately, you're probably right. :disturbd:

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

Interesting results here from a recent poll:

:shocked: Only 1% difference!

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

how about a "Havent decided" option?

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

And you think the Tory's will be any better, pull the other one, its got blue bells on! :rolleyes:

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

Hmm well for a start there will be no tuition fees so that's a few thousand pound difference in student debt already...

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

That's the problem this country has at the moment, the number of people voting is falling due to one major reason.... both of the main parties are as bad as each other at holding to promises, neither has managed to create the definitive government whilst in power and to be quite honest all they seem to care about at the moment is scoring points off each other.
If either of these parties were seen to be better, more trustworthy or even just different to the other then we would have a deluge of voting at this election, somehow I doubt it. The tories screwed up royally towards the end of their run, the people voted them out because of one reason, they were sick and tired of them. Now Labour is in power and people are losing faith in them, they may squeak another term or they may find themselves having to move Tony out of number 10, either way this country is going to see no magic wand being waved to produce instant results as it has suffered too many years of bad politics caused by inhouse fighting, silly mistakes and snap/ knee jerk decisions on policy :(

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

You think, an where's the money for that coming from? I've not seen any election pledges, and even if I had I'd prolly not believe it, they're not known for sticking to them. :erm:

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

So who will be paying for the tuition then? Where is that extra money going to come from? Maybe the tories have checked down the sides of their collective sofas and found a secret stash of money that no-one knew of?

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do...c.page&tabID=3

It's the fifth plan of action on the right to scrap them. I will be in the first wave of students to be hit with these things, if Labour stay in.

Whether or not tories stick to their policy or not, don't know. But this is a policy I support.
__________________

There's spending money wisely, like the conservatives plan to do, and then there's investing an incredibly large amount of money into everything and getting absolutely nothing out of it, which labour are currently doing. By spending it well, there will be no need for extra money.

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

No it doesnn't. Like I said, the poorer will be paying more in tax.

I did write that in October, when the political landscape was somewhat different. It was at that time Kennedy made his "becoming a party of opposition" speech, and conservatives at an all-time low (which made LibDems look better)

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

I'll probably vote conservative this time, since labour appears to be letting public spending get out of control. They started well, but over-promised & don't appear to have the guts to admit that they need to rein back on public spending. Not suprising really with an election in the offing. It really annoys me though when good policy takes second place to electioneering, because it's us workers that are going to have to pay for the mistakes.

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

How do you work that one out?

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

There were a few examples on the show. The people worst affected are people who share a house. The council tax gets divided into 3, but with an income tax, it is multiplied by 3 (if 3 people are in the house). Sometimes the landlord picks it up.

There is a calculator on the Lib Dems' website which will tell you if you pay more or less under their scheme.

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

Well they had virtually no chance (< 0.1%) of my vote before I saw that, now they have even less chance. :erm:

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

I voted ''Other'', because none of the parties involved in elections in Northern Ireland are represented in the pole.

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

I have just looked, and it seems I will be one of the ones better off.

It is just really poor thinking from Lib Dems. They come up with some idea which appeals to their ethics. They test it against one group of people and it (in their eyes) improves them. The don't adequately research to how everyone will fare under the scheme which makes them negligent. Either that or they don't give a monkey's about the poorer voters.

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

£21 billion for higher education, scrap tuition fees AND no additional contribution from the tax payer.

That's swayed me................NOT.
__________________

Bully for you on a teachers salary and my other half on a modest salary I'll be £69 a year worse off:

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

But you accept now that conservatives are much more kinder to students?

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

That is categorically not true. Income tax reflects earnings and ability to pay, which council tax does not.

The worst taxes for the poor are of course, indirect ones, but they are also the ones which politically are easiest to get away with. We get shock-horror if antone suggests !p on income tax so every bugger is scared to do it. So they reap revenues through NI, petrol, alcohol etc which hits everyone regardless of ability to pay.
__________________

The Tories don't give a toss about poorer voters hence the Poll Tax and the tax regime they had which effectively encouraged tax avoidance and, whatever, favoured the wealthy.
__________________

But, income tax reflects people's ability to pay. Tax has, or shouldn't have, owt to do with how many share a house. TThose three people don't use the NHS etc as much as others?

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

Do you just read random posts, or is there a logic to which you skip.

Poorer people are more likely to share a house as they will be unable to afford to buy one. Renting means they'll either pay no council tax at all (if the landlord pays it), or becomes divided amongst the tennants (which is also what happens if they buy the house jointly). One example on "The Politics Show" were 3 teachers and a nurse sharing a house. The calculator said they'll pay £2000 more a year. £500 each to them is a lot.

If like me, you are lucky to own your house, or live in your parents, and you don't earn much, and your house is nice, then you'll pay less (a lot less in my case) but most everyone else will pay more.

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

Fair point. Probably not too much logic to be fair :) been down the pub watching the football and imbibing alcohol so if I'm making even less sense than usual I do apologise. However, income tax is earning related so the poor - the real poor - will be better off. The rich - the real rich (over 100k p.a) - will be worse off. Those on benefits will pay nothing for example. Which will mean a lot to them.

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

It's worth noting at this point that the current student loans system was instigated by the Tories, not Labour.


I have to admit, at this point in time, I don't know who I'll be voting for. I trust neither the Tories nor Labour (both, IMO, have lied to the electorate), but the LibDems don't seem to have a chance of winning.

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

It should also be noted that the current top up fees were instigated by Labour not the Tories, even though I'm pretty sure Labour said in their manifesto they wouldn't...

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

Not at all, my point was that they have pledged stuff but not said how it'll be funded. It makes me nervous and should you, after all they'll probably have to break the pledge when they get in.

Also it's not good to vote for a party on just one issue. Even if they could prove they'd keep the pledge I'd still not trust them on the other issues like the economy, education (as a whole) and the health service.
__________________

.............ands they haven't (have they :confused: ) , not in this term.

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

It wasn't in their manifesto. Wonder why? Could it be that it goes against everything that 'old' Labour stood for!

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

On the other hand, if enough people vote LibDems as a protest against Labours unkept promices and mismanagement, and against the lying barstewards that are the Tories, then the LibDema will grab a larger share of seats in parliment. Doing thus warnest the Labour that the people are becomming fed up with their lying, renaging ways. While showing the Tories they havent been forgiven for being a crowd of lying *******s either.

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

I don't want to play the age card but.......( ;) ) trust me they don't support students (especially if they're working class oiks). Been it, seen it, done it - mind you, Labout these days are certainly no better. Two-faced sods would have been up in arms if the Tories had propsed tuition fees.

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

True, I was making the point that the Tories aren't entirely innocent.

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

I missed those points earlier, they were added after I started my post.

I said before that this system doesn't benefit hardly anyone, and I said that the Lib Dems were "negligent" in doing that, but actually they are pretty smart. They don't want us to benefit from the system - it is a tax. They want to screw as many people as possible, and as much as possible. They is the sole reason a tax exists - to raise money.

You have probably worked it out by now, but in case you haven't, regarding your last point, council tax is charged per house, not per person. 4 people in a house means everyone pays 1/4th of the tax. Income tax affects everyone, it isn't divisible.

You raised a point about people on benefits. Do people on benefits over the minium threshold (£10k isn't it?) pay tax on it, as it is still income? Also, don't forget that there are exemptions to the current system, that won't apply to some people, whereas an income tax will apply to everyone.

Like I said (eventually), it isn't supposed to be nice, or fair, or ethical... It is supposed to milk as much of our (sometimes hard) earned money from us. The Lib Dems are trying to raise tax money, would they suggest the system if it left people better off?

Edit: Link fixed.

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

I had worked that point out - though I do enjoy being patronised, even after a beer :). That's why I like the idea. What'sd four people living in a house got to do with anything? That's four people sharing the same bin but not a lot else. Those four individuals can still each use the library, drive on roads, have their kids educated, get policed, etc, etc. The fact that they share the same house has diddly squat to do with the anything.... which is why council tax is unjust.
__________________


Income tax related to earnings is fair. People on 10k pay little (probably nothing), people on £100k pay more. An income tax will apply to everyone but if we have 10, 23, 40 and 50 % rate bands we have a more equitable system. Indirect taxation or home related taxation is a much blunter tool.

Milk? The Lib Dems look, on the face of it, to be trying to raise tax money through more equitable means and reduce what is (under a "Labour" government) growing inequality between rich and poor. The Tories (and increeasingly Labour)are, on the other hand, only interested in ensuring the rich get richer.

Meanwhile those who moan about tax are also the most vociferous in complaining about crime, NHS standards, school resources etc. Do they think these things are free (or should only be available to those who can afford them)?

For the record I've only voted Lib Dem once, and then tactically. But as mainstream parties go, they look the best of a bad, nay rotten, bunch. Of course should they get elected they'll only let me down...... :(

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

Sorry, I didn't mean it that way.

If 4 people share a house, they share the council tax (if the landlord even forces them to), meaning they will be better off, than if they were taxed individually with extra income tax.

The perfect world senario though, which all governments should be working towards, is that people should pay as few taxes as possible, not as many. The Lib Dems though need a lot of money, and a lot of taxes to get it.

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

:) No worries!
__________________

Yeah they might be better off individually but is that system fairer? I personally think not.

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

Why is everything so charicaturial to you? If you complain about tax, then you must be an evil child-eating conservative. You probably think I have a pin-striped suit, bowler hat and a tightly rolled umbrella.

Everyone complains about tax, because for obvious reasons noone wants to pay 1p more than they have to. However public services have to be paid for, so people accept it. That doesn't mean the government can go power-crazed and pilled their citizens.

I have proved that most poor people will be worse off under Lib Dems ditch council tax plan. You seem to have agreed, but you are still arguing thats a good thing? First you say the poor should pay the least, then you say that everyone should pay as much as possible.