[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

Strange, isn't it - if someone displayed a poster stereotyping labour voters as work-shy dole-scrounging layabouts, watching Sky Sports on their giant plasma TV, surrounded by lots of dirty kids and Staffordshire Bull Terriers, there would be a huge outcry.

But I suppose reverse-snobbery is acceptable.....

(btw, I never have, or intend to, hunt foxes, and neither do the hundreds of people I know who vote Tory - then again, most of my Labour-voting friends don't keep whippets or wear flat caps )

Sadly that would appear to be the case. I guess I would have to go into that snobbish group in that I would vote Tory if necessary to unseat a Labour MP but prefer the Lib Dems. That I have a Lib Dem MP is a huge bonus.

I live in an affluent area which doesn't appear to have ever voted Labour, have a fairly high paying job, I'd better start lobbying my MP to get fox hunting legal again so that I can join the other snobs in my constituency. Maybe we could hunt the above stereotypical Labour voters instead

---------- Post added at 20:31 ---------- Previous post was at 20:16 ----------

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

they attack on the running of the economy but plan to cut investment in the public sector very severely which will only increase unmemployment.

So what do you suggest, we just keep increasing taxes until businesses don't want to do business here anymore and people are punished further for actually working?

Investment in the public sector is not a viable way to reduce unemployment. The public sector is there to provide essential services, not to employ as many people as possible. It is the private sector's job to reduce unemployment as it's the private sector that pays for the public sector.

Enlarging the public sector to make the unemployment figures look good is part of the reason for our structural deficit, Labour just employing more and more people in the public sector without having the resources to pay for it.

eg. they attack labour on youth unemployment yet are planning to cut funding for youth training and apprenticeship schemes.

Citation for this would be useful please, along with where this cash would be going.

they attack on the gap between rich and poor and will cut inheritance tax for the rich.

They also want to change the National Insurance increase threshold so that rather than starting at 10k it starts at 45k, removing all those who aren't on top rate tax rate from paying. That strikes me as being quite friendly to the less wealthy. Like it or not the rich, industry and businesses are the engine of economy, when the economy is healthy and there are people to purchase the products because they feel wealthier everyone does better.

It's a balancing act that Labour have failed at, they haven't had the testicles to impose direct taxes so have instead been slapping people with indirect and non-progressive taxation which has hurt the poor far more than the rich. Labour are no better, apart from that they love spending money they don't have and want to run everything through a massive public sector.

they claim they will get people on incapacity benefit back into work, the truth is they will just unconditionally cut their income and leave them to rot after that.

Your opinion, no way to know how that would pan out.

they attack on the how labour handling of the banks yet the tories for short term gains plan to sell those shares on the cheap. Guess who will snap most of them up.

You did read this policy somewhere beyond the Labour party's response, right? It was about offering shares to people at a discount. Many of those who aren't super rich would snap these up, would be a good use of their savings. The super rich wouldn't get rights to any more shares than anyone else.

Those who aren't able to benefit from this as they simply can't afford to living from pay cheque to pay cheque would probably welcome not having 1% stuck onto their NI by next year's increase.