Politics in the UK

[White Fire]

this sort of thing seems to go in a cycle in the UK, first we vote labour in and have a great 4-8 years but then they spend all the money and borrow too much (recesion), then we vote the tories in and they clean up labours mess but then they get corrupt, then we vote labour in and have a great 4-8 years but then they spend all the money and borrow to much (recesion).....etc.

That's the way of the unrestrained Capitalist system though. People make money, and keep investing that money to make more money until eventually they're spending money they haven't even got yet and it all goes downhill from there...

 

[Liberaliterr]

If you don't like the Tories policies, vote Labour or the Liberal Democracts.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

Labour's stance on Europe is more acceptable, but i don't see them making the necessary cuts in the welfare system, nor will they lower taxes sufficently. However, at least they will look after the welfare system. Another problem with labour is that they are comprimising our personal liberaties with all the anti terror legilsation, ID cards, DNA data bases and CCTV everywhere. It's getting a bit too 1984 for me. Perhaps the Conservatives would be the same, i don't know.

The welfare system actually needs more money, not less money. And it needs this money from direct taxation of the super wealthy. If you give money to someone who has nothing they will spend that money on things they need, whether it is food, or fuel, or basic goods. This, in turn, goes towards the people who are working in frontline basic jobs (supermarkets etc). Removing that money will reduce the flow of money at the bottom end of the economy.

Worse still, it will lead to crime. How much does it cost to keep a person on benefit vs keeping a person in prison? It is something like a 500% increase in costs. Not only that, but when you do spend money on prisons that money does not filter back into the economy. Jails are simply black holes of funding that don't return the money to supermarkets, gas companies, tillers, shop-keepers, or anything else. It is pure waste.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

Oh plus, just noticed you are from the Wirral. You think by throwing money at the unemployed, they will all become flower children underneath God's glorious blue sky. That really isn't the case. Here's a little memory test for you:
How much money has been pumped into Birkenhead? Is it still a sh*t-hole? You can't polish a turd no matter how much money you throw at it.

Yep. So I know about poverty first hand, unlike you who gets your information from insane right-wing tabloid news papers.

Suffice to say, every single aspect of your posts is so wrong I wouldn't even know where to begin. Quite simply, people need to eat. Under current rules, the benefits system will stop people from doing that after 6-12 months, unless they agree to do six months of community service, for nothing. Basically work for no actual income beyond bare essentials. Slavery is the term that is really needed for this kind of thing. Rather than do that many are turning to crime to make ends meet. Hence the reason things are a lot worse today than they were twenty years ago.

Basically Labour continued to use Tory policies, which don't work.

As for prison costs, well to pay someone basic benefits costs, let us over estimate and put that at around £5000 per year (that is factoring in such things as jobcentre staff wages etc).

A prison place costs (according to this [http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/28/justice.prisonsandprobation]) £40,000 per year.

That is an increase of 8 times. If you were in charge your policies would leave you with a choice of chaos on the streets or bankrupting the country in the middle of a major recession. This is why people are so terrified of the prospect of Cameron getting in - he basically repeats the same crap you do. He will lead us to disaster.

 

[DraftPickle]

Just to butt in most of the conservatives supporters do seem to just largely ignore huge parts of our countries political history and other peoples view, points this is one thing that annoys me just this complete lack of empathy, and I seem I'm being quoted for the record its part of my very education to keep up to date and know as much as i can find on politics, I'm not retarded, peace out

 

[Agema]

You are joking right?
If you go into a pub, what is the income of the average person there? I can tell you it's not the middle class man drinking his nights away. Plus, next time you are at a football match, look around - last I checked, football wasn't a needed supplement to live.
Plus, any evidence for your claim on prison? If a family of 3 are living in a council house, they have their bills paid for them, annual renovations etc spent on them. I doubt that the cost of living in a concrete box is anything close to that if you take into account the amount of people occupying a single prison instead of many homes.
And money spent on prisons does filter back into the economy! Seriously, have you thought about that for a second? You need to pay people to construct the place, then maintain it, (Food, electricity) and to warden it. If you want more money, I'm all for chain gangs etc. Not to mention prison keeps dangerous individuals off the streets which seems like a good idea...

Oh plus, just noticed you are from the Wirral. You think by throwing money at the unemployed, they will all become flower children underneath God's glorious blue sky. That really isn't the case. Here's a little memory test for you:
How much money has been pumped into Birkenhead? Is it still a sh*t-hole? You can't polish a turd no matter how much money you throw at it.

You have several problems in your argument.

Firstly, if you look at the demographics of football match attendance, you'll find it is now more the preserve of the middle class. http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2008/aug/14/premierleague "only around 9% [of season ticket holders] can be classified as working class".

Secondly, the average income of the people drinking the night away down the pub depends entirely on the area you're in. If you're in a middle class area, they tend to be affluent and drink Leffe and Staropramen, in a working class area, they tend to be poor and drink vastly cheaper Carling. Of course, you might find fewer middle class people down the pub because they're at the gym (£400 a year membership fee), having an expensive £50-a-head meal, or maybe just savouring a £15 bottle of Chateau Riche in the comfort of their own home watching the football on their premium package satellite service, unlike the poor who have to watch the game on the pub's TV. But, you know.

Whatever, very few people down the pub and at the football are on unemployment benefits.

* * *

£800 million lost to fraud? Hell, a few years ago it was £2 billion. I call that fixing a broken system - what are you complaining about? But that's not too bad, either. Corporate fraud in the UK is estimated to cost companies £1.2 billion a year.

And if you want to avoid paying your hard earned dosh, how about tackling tax avoidance? I mean, throughout the whole of the 90s, and maybe even to this day, NewsCorp (you know, Rupert Murdoch's media company) paid zero tax. Yep, a multi-billion corporation running several of the top newspapers and Sky TV apparently somehow made no money at all. It, and all the other big companies using creative offshore financing deals, cost the country anywhere from £20 billion - £80 billion a year in lost tax revenues. Funny how the average media outlet, run by large, often multinational companies, don't tell you that.

And hell, no-one's going to tell you anything but Rupert Murdoch once the Tories get in and scrap the restrictions on media ownership (now, why did the Sun just switch to pro-Tory, hm, let me think?) and gut the BBC.

 

[Agema]

I know people who have lived next to drug dealers and hookers in Leasowe, whose kids molested each other.

"I know people who were flatmates of people whose cousins' boyfriends went to school with someone whose dad was a bus driver. OMG I so appreciate what it's like to be poor!" Nice try, though.

I grew up near the Wirral, so I know the area pretty well. Please note that Leasowe is in the district of Wallasey, which returned a Conservative MP for the entire 20th century until the Tories started melting down in 1992.

 

[Huey1000]

The Conservatives are going to pull this country back from the shit Labour has left us in. Billions in debt, a government that no one can trust and one of the most useless prime ministers we have ever had. Someone above me said the Conservatives are corrupt, but both main parties are corrupt as hell. the expenses scandal only confirmed this.
TYhis Labour government has a retarded immigration policy. They let in all those people who will just be a drain on the economy whilst those who have done a service or will be beneficial (e.g the iraqi interpreters) are not allowed in.
Remember the whole thing with the Ghurkas? The labour party, who you are so proud of, refused to give them the help they needed. These were people who were willing to give their lives for OUR country, and the labour government wanted to refuse them citizenship.
Labour has left us with an economy in ruins and has shaken the entire country's faith in british politics.
I'm not saying the Conservatives can do much better, but they certainly cant do any worse. I know i'm voting Conservative.
And you personally, you seem to me to be someone whohas taken the stereotypical view of the Conservatives, without actually looking at their policies and without listening to what they have to say, and used that to sing labours praises.

Thank you very f**king much! About time somebody set all these liberal idiots straight, hell some of these posts made me sympathize with Glenn Beck. All the Labour has done since 1997 is bankrupt the market, integrate our society with mongrels and turned Britain into a politically correct state, nowadays disliking muslims makes you a racist and supporting the free market makes you a selfish narcissist.

Now Gordon Brown is on his knees necking on Obama's communist ballocks; another case of a British PM following the mistakes of American polarised politics. So what makes the Tories better than the Labour? nothing really besides their platform, they both lie and cheat but I guess the end justifies the means. Like America, we are becoming a two-party system and the only competition is the Liberal Democrats and the BNP, apparently another thing we're getting from America is the black and white thinking.

That's politics in Britain: politically correct liberals have their say, conservatives have their say, and the British people have to shut up, listen and never complain. Voting doesn't count for anything and democracy is incredibly flawed, maybe we should try the monarchy again, but only if the king is Burger King... speaking of which, I'm hungry.

 

[Dudeakoff]

Lack of sources when people sprout up apparent 'facts' makes babies cry. No, your biased newspapers aren't a good source.

EDIT: Oh, and stop calling Labour liberal, they used to be left leaning, but since the 'new Labour' revival they've planted themselves in the centre right. In my opinion anyway.

 

[Nickolai77]

The welfare system actually needs more money, not less money. And it needs this money from direct taxation of the super wealthy. If you give money to someone who has nothing they will spend that money on things they need, whether it is food, or fuel, or basic goods. This, in turn, goes towards the people who are working in frontline basic jobs (supermarkets etc). Removing that money will reduce the flow of money at the bottom end of the economy.

Worse still, it will lead to crime. How much does it cost to keep a person on benefit vs keeping a person in prison? It is something like a 500% increase in costs. Not only that, but when you do spend money on prisons that money does not filter back into the economy. Jails are simply black holes of funding that don't return the money to supermarkets, gas companies, tillers, shop-keepers, or anything else. It is pure waste.

Your point about crime is quite a good one, i havn't seen anyone make that point against the notion that a welfare state breeds dependance and idleness. Really, i agree, without welfare, people end up in crime because it's the only way some people can make money. I think thats why America has higher crime rates than European countries.

My stance on the welfare system is that government spending needs to be temporarily cut so we can balance the book's, the government has spent so much money on bailing out banks i think the government could do with their income being stabalised. Then the funding can go back into the welfare state. However, if the government has more money than i am assuming it does, then perhaps the cuts are not needed.

Btw, i'm from the Wirral too!
Live in the southern part

Plus, any evidence for your claim on prison? If a family of 3 are living in a council house, they have their bills paid for them, annual renovations etc spent on them. I doubt that the cost of living in a concrete box is anything close to that if you take into account the amount of people occupying a single prison instead of many homes.
And money spent on prisons does filter back into the economy! Seriously, have you thought about that for a second? You need to pay people to construct the place, then maintain it, (Food, electricity) and to warden it. If you want more money, I'm all for chain gangs etc. Not to mention prison keeps dangerous individuals off the streets which seems like a good idea...

Government benifit to poor people also filters back into the economy, the government helps them pay their bills, so they have more disposable income as not all their meagre income goes into paying taxes, the extra money they can spend then goes into the economy. Simple.

Oh plus, just noticed you are from the Wirral. You think by throwing money at the unemployed, they will all become flower children underneath God's glorious blue sky. That really isn't the case. Here's a little memory test for you:
How much money has been pumped into Birkenhead? Is it still a sh*t-hole? You can't polish a turd no matter how much money you throw at it.

Parts of Birkenhead look like they havnt been repaired since the Blitz, it really is a dump. However to my knowledge, there has been no serious investment in Birkenhead. However, if you look over the river towards Liverpool, and perhaps take a walk around Liverpool One, you can see what some serious investment can do. I don't believe that simple cash handouts solve the worlds problems, but it sure as hell helps.

 

[Dudeakoff]

The disposable income freed up by benefits still produces a net loss.

Source that claim dude, it's meaningless without it.

Serious investment (e.g. billions) does help, but again, the problem with Liverpool is too much unemployment for too long. When the Docks went, the council did nothing to create new jobs. When the factories went, same story. And now you have the cycle of unemployment and benefits. By cutting off benefits, it breaks this cycle. Harsh method, but one which will do something to stop the problem rather than continue it.

Your solution to lack of jobs is to cut the system people rely on to get by without a job? When we're just coming out of a recession? And the jobs will just come out of nowhere? I must be misunderstanding you, please explain further.

 

[Agema]

Interesting report but essentially useless. It's far too small and pleasantly ambiguous - the great kind of findings made in newspaper articles.
And it sounds like you have a chip on your shoulder. Remember, we are talking about disposable income. You said that on benefits you do not have enough to survive and therefore it should be increased. I'm saying given anymore benefits, the money will be thrown away on booze and other unneeded items. As you said:
"unlike the poor who have to watch the game on the pub's TV"
Have to? No, there is no need in having to go down to the pub and watching "the game", or drinking stella etc. Seems to have that luxury money can't be non-existent for needed things such as water, food and a roof.

So £800 million is an acceptable figure for you? That's £800 million lost, not to mention the actual expenditure on benefits.
Corporate fraud is 'saved' by insurance, so no real loss there.
And there is a difference between actual loss, and potential earnings. It's easier to over look clever finance then watching hard earned tax money go to the undeserving.

End of the day, Labour are helping the people holding back the country the most. That is unfair, unjust and this country is now becoming unsafe. Time for a change.

I don't know about a chip on my shoulder. I do get the impression you have no idea whatsoever of what it is like to be poor, you're just very happy to pass out judgements on people you see in pub windows and football terraces but know nothing about. I said nothing whatsoever about benefits not being enough to survive - do keep up with who said what.

I wouldn't say £800 million is great. I just say that some level of fraud is inevitable - I put the corporate fraud in as a comparison. You can switch the system around plenty, and people will find ways to cheat it, much as people will find loopholes in tax laws, and so on. In the greater scheme of things, it's actually a small sum, particularly when so many other things cost the nation far, far more. And attacking Labour for cutting fraud to 40% of what it was earlier... that's just bizarre. I'm astonished you are so blase about vastly wealthy organisations arranging finances so that we (well, I have a job, I don't know about you), the public, have to pay shedload more in taxes. 20 million pounds is about 4p on the base rate of income tax - £800million is about 0.2p. Why should we pay so much because Tesco, BP and so on can avoid their tax responsibilities?

Corporate fraud is saved by insurance so no real loss? Fine, if you're ever robbed, let the burglar off who breaks into your house - after all, you've not lost anything, it'll be covered by your insurance. Frankly, pal, I have savings and a pension, and as a shareholder, that's my money disappearing into corporate fraudsters pockets and paying insurance to cover fraud.

Ah, the old line that the poor hold the country back. That's my least favourite Daily Mail line of argument - the poor deserve to be poor. They've not been failed by industry closing and losing their jobs, crappy state education, bad infrastructure, institutional neglect etc.: no, they've done it to themselves. I hate it because it's the casual dismissal, not just the failure to understand, but the total lack of desire to even try to understand the challenges many people face. It's no surprise you don't give a toss what happens to them, and even hope they get left to starve, thrown in prison or otherwise punished. (This increasingly hard attitude to the poor has been noticed by many charities who deal with poverty with some concern. They find it harder to raise money too.)

Funnily enough, even the Tory MPs realise how screwed up a view that is, which is why the Tories are at least promising support to help the poor develop their skills. Hopefully, once in power, they won't listen to the callous disregard of so many of their supporters and dump those policies in favour of punitive measures.

 

[Lexodus]

I am an antichrist-ah!
I am an anarchyst-ah!

I think most people realise Cameron will be shit, but they want a different kind of shit to the one we've had for the last few years.

 

[Lexodus]

Ah, the old line that the poor hold the country back. That's my least favourite Daily Mail line of argument - the poor deserve to be poor. They've not been failed by industry closing and losing their jobs, crappy state education, bad infrastructure, institutional neglect etc.: no, they've done it to themselves.

To sum that line of thinking nicely, 'You really should have thought of that before you became peasants!"