Labour how can you vote for them?
Discussion
Only labour policies are stupid seems to be the suggestion.
There was a bit in The Sunday Times yesterday about the increase - tripling in fact - in student fees costing the government much more than what it saved. The prediction is that 50%, give or take, of debt will not be recovered.
I'm not super intelligent and my wife picked a bloke of her own arithmetical ability to marry. When this was proposed we both worked out within a few minutes that it would save nothing and we thought the odds were that it would cost more. If an ex police officer and secretary to an editor can work that out, and be proved spot on, why did the government get it so wrong?
Further, the suggestion was that it was necessary because of the financial situation at the time. Yet setting up everything cost quite a lot of money. The amount was suggested at the time but we all know such figures are not to be depended upon. These on-costs are not included in the 50% figure.
My wife and I thought that the best way of reducing costs would be to fund STEM fully, no increase in those skills that bring in money to this country - fashion for instance - and for the rest, well reduce the costs of the courses.
The average, that's average, student debt is now £43,000. Some students will have much more hanging over them. Given the hit wages have taken this puts university education out of the reach of many poor people. One might suggest the average student.
Now if I can work it out in an hour, why couldn't this government, the one everyone suggests we should vote for, at least everyone on here?
I get a plumber in to do the plumbing in my house because they know more about plumbing than I do. Why should I vote for a government to run the economy when they, it appears, know less than me about money?
I'm not suggesting labour would be any better. I think they are all in it for their own reasons. My wife, by the way, reckons the only reason the fees were raised was to damage the liberal party. Much more important that saving money and educating STEM students.
How can we vote for any of them?
There was a bit in The Sunday Times yesterday about the increase - tripling in fact - in student fees costing the government much more than what it saved. The prediction is that 50%, give or take, of debt will not be recovered.
I'm not super intelligent and my wife picked a bloke of her own arithmetical ability to marry. When this was proposed we both worked out within a few minutes that it would save nothing and we thought the odds were that it would cost more. If an ex police officer and secretary to an editor can work that out, and be proved spot on, why did the government get it so wrong?
Further, the suggestion was that it was necessary because of the financial situation at the time. Yet setting up everything cost quite a lot of money. The amount was suggested at the time but we all know such figures are not to be depended upon. These on-costs are not included in the 50% figure.
My wife and I thought that the best way of reducing costs would be to fund STEM fully, no increase in those skills that bring in money to this country - fashion for instance - and for the rest, well reduce the costs of the courses.
The average, that's average, student debt is now £43,000. Some students will have much more hanging over them. Given the hit wages have taken this puts university education out of the reach of many poor people. One might suggest the average student.
Now if I can work it out in an hour, why couldn't this government, the one everyone suggests we should vote for, at least everyone on here?
I get a plumber in to do the plumbing in my house because they know more about plumbing than I do. Why should I vote for a government to run the economy when they, it appears, know less than me about money?
I'm not suggesting labour would be any better. I think they are all in it for their own reasons. My wife, by the way, reckons the only reason the fees were raised was to damage the liberal party. Much more important that saving money and educating STEM students.
How can we vote for any of them?
Bluebarge said:
What the blue blazes is "genuine political thrust"??
Reasons floating voters may vote Labour:
1. Concern that Tories taking us out of the EU would lead to greater economic pain than any ham-fisted Labour Chancellor could ever manage;
2. Concern that the £9bn of intended but un-budgetted tax cuts could lead to major damage to important public services such as defence and the police;
3. A feeling that large corporations and the wealthy should be taking a greater share of the tax burden rather than just bashing the middle classes;
4. Concern that the Tories aren't doing enough to encourage house-building and help firts-time buyers/renters;
5. Concern that the Tories' chronic unpopularity in Scotland will make Scottish independence inevitable.
See? it's not hard to think of important reasons why the Tories may be a hard choice for some, without even thinking of your own pocket. It could even be seen as a business-friendly vote, given the Tories Achilles heel on Europe.
Well to qualify in the context of my question "genuine political thrust" can be taken to mean someone interested in politics but perhaps not a politician maybe a reasonably intelligent voter hence not a self serving social parasite only interested in voting labour because more handouts will be received. I'm also not saying the tories are great but we seem to be getting out of the mess better than most others,against the current economic outlook in comparison to said ""Most others" why would anyone risk them again? Thats the question.Reasons floating voters may vote Labour:
1. Concern that Tories taking us out of the EU would lead to greater economic pain than any ham-fisted Labour Chancellor could ever manage;
2. Concern that the £9bn of intended but un-budgetted tax cuts could lead to major damage to important public services such as defence and the police;
3. A feeling that large corporations and the wealthy should be taking a greater share of the tax burden rather than just bashing the middle classes;
4. Concern that the Tories aren't doing enough to encourage house-building and help firts-time buyers/renters;
5. Concern that the Tories' chronic unpopularity in Scotland will make Scottish independence inevitable.
See? it's not hard to think of important reasons why the Tories may be a hard choice for some, without even thinking of your own pocket. It could even be seen as a business-friendly vote, given the Tories Achilles heel on Europe.
By the way regarding point 4 did not Blair and Browns terms in office cover the lowest number of homes built in recent years? I will also wager ref item 1 that the damage caused by EU exit will be less ...much less than the Labour option.
Edited by 911Gary on Monday 2nd February 10:33
Edited by 911Gary on Monday 2nd February 10:34
McWigglebum4th said:
Bizarrely people vote for the labour party for exactly the same reason they vote for the tory party
To keep the other lot out
Yup. After seeing what CMD thinks of encryption... I'd rather vote for a chimpanzee. A perfect ball of technical idiocy and overt disdain for the serfs. Oh, and thanks for raising tuition fees (I escaped, my kids won't), just so you can give more money to pensioners.To keep the other lot out
And no, I don't consider UKIP to be any better, I've read their last manifesto.
The last person I voted for was a lib dem MP mind - for no reason other than he was, actually, very good at representing my (former) constituency.
Let's be honest, does anyone here have any faith in any politician to do the "right thing"?
I qualify that question with:
Two things in the news today:
Gordon Brown to promise Scots higher pensions and benefits
Britain nets £30bn as borrowing costs fall that could fund pre-election giveaways
Whilst one is no surprise, neither is the other, really.
I despise the way a socially responsible outlook has been high-jacked by the leftist nutjobs, who would vote in a pig if it wore a red rosette just to spite the Tories but the other side hasn't really covered themselves in glory. My view (which I admit could equally be classed as "other worldly") is that no-one can now claim the moral high ground because they all have some grubby dealings in the closet, which they decide is more important to conceal that the worthy action they are trying to promote.
It's why UKIP maintain their finger-hold.
And then there's the "greens". "Nurse......"
I qualify that question with:
- Based upon what is seen/heard in the media by the usual suspects (particularly PM's Playground Time).
- Assuming that one subscribes to a conventional definition of "right thing" & fairness.
Two things in the news today:
Gordon Brown to promise Scots higher pensions and benefits
Britain nets £30bn as borrowing costs fall that could fund pre-election giveaways
Whilst one is no surprise, neither is the other, really.
I despise the way a socially responsible outlook has been high-jacked by the leftist nutjobs, who would vote in a pig if it wore a red rosette just to spite the Tories but the other side hasn't really covered themselves in glory. My view (which I admit could equally be classed as "other worldly") is that no-one can now claim the moral high ground because they all have some grubby dealings in the closet, which they decide is more important to conceal that the worthy action they are trying to promote.
It's why UKIP maintain their finger-hold.
And then there's the "greens". "Nurse......"
Scooby Drew said:
A vote for UKIP is a vote for Labour (according to CMD) 
Load of crap; UKIP are going to get a lot of votes in the north, the sort of place which have a lot of folk from a rich cultural heritage, where the Cons haven't got a hope of getting in. I'll cite the Heywood and Middleton by-election, which UKIP missed by a mere 600 votes; that was by far the most significant result they've had, even though they didn't succeed. Labour must be bricking it about what's going to happen in the north.911Gary said:
Well to qualify in the context of my question "genuine political thrust" can be taken to mean someone interested in politics but perhaps not a politician maybe a reasonably intelligent voter hence not a self serving social parasite only interested in voting labour because more handouts will be received. I'm also not saying the tories are great but we seem to be getting out of the mess better than most others,against the current economic outlook in comparison to said ""Most others" why would anyone risk them again? Thats the question.
By the way regarding point 4 did not Blair and Browns terms in office cover the lowest number of homes built in recent years? I will also wager ref item 1 that the damage caused by EU exit will be less ...much less than the Labour option.
Well, that's all fine and dandy - so your premise is that you can't believe how any intelligent person who is not a civil servant or reliant on state hand-outs could possibly vote Labour. That's not a very thoughtful premise I'm afraid, and I've just given you a few reasons, off the top of my head, why an intelligent private sector person may choose to vote Labour.By the way regarding point 4 did not Blair and Browns terms in office cover the lowest number of homes built in recent years? I will also wager ref item 1 that the damage caused by EU exit will be less ...much less than the Labour option.
Edited by 911Gary on Monday 2nd February 10:33
Edited by 911Gary on Monday 2nd February 10:34
As to the disruption following a "Brexit" - "wagering" is probably not the best way to approach an enormous foreign and trade policy shift. It's ironic that those who deride Alex Salmond's promises for an independent Scotland as being based on rosy wishful thinking, adopt exactly the same approach when viewing a British divorce from the EU.
Richyboy said:
Labour are obsolete, the tory party is new labour.
I hope so and with Gordon Brown's announcement to get more benefits and a higher pension for the Scots will do little to repair the damaged caused by the Con/Lab No campaign and will only p
s off the benefit class in England. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2...
If as mentioned above, Heywood is replicated across the North in May, combined with the surge in SNP it could be there worst performance for a long time. Fingers crossed
Derek Smith said:
Only labour policies are stupid seems to be the suggestion.
There was a bit in The Sunday Times yesterday about the increase - tripling in fact - in student fees costing the government much more than what it saved. The prediction is that 50%, give or take, of debt will not be recovered.
I'm not super intelligent and my wife picked a bloke of her own arithmetical ability to marry. When this was proposed we both worked out within a few minutes that it would save nothing and we thought the odds were that it would cost more. If an ex police officer and secretary to an editor can work that out, and be proved spot on, why did the government get it so wrong?
Further, the suggestion was that it was necessary because of the financial situation at the time. Yet setting up everything cost quite a lot of money. The amount was suggested at the time but we all know such figures are not to be depended upon. These on-costs are not included in the 50% figure.
My wife and I thought that the best way of reducing costs would be to fund STEM fully, no increase in those skills that bring in money to this country - fashion for instance - and for the rest, well reduce the costs of the courses.
The average, that's average, student debt is now £43,000. Some students will have much more hanging over them. Given the hit wages have taken this puts university education out of the reach of many poor people. One might suggest the average student.
Now if I can work it out in an hour, why couldn't this government, the one everyone suggests we should vote for, at least everyone on here?
I get a plumber in to do the plumbing in my house because they know more about plumbing than I do. Why should I vote for a government to run the economy when they, it appears, know less than me about money?
I'm not suggesting labour would be any better. I think they are all in it for their own reasons. My wife, by the way, reckons the only reason the fees were raised was to damage the liberal party. Much more important that saving money and educating STEM students.
How can we vote for any of them?
At the same time that tuition fees were raised the repayment terms were made more generous.There was a bit in The Sunday Times yesterday about the increase - tripling in fact - in student fees costing the government much more than what it saved. The prediction is that 50%, give or take, of debt will not be recovered.
I'm not super intelligent and my wife picked a bloke of her own arithmetical ability to marry. When this was proposed we both worked out within a few minutes that it would save nothing and we thought the odds were that it would cost more. If an ex police officer and secretary to an editor can work that out, and be proved spot on, why did the government get it so wrong?
Further, the suggestion was that it was necessary because of the financial situation at the time. Yet setting up everything cost quite a lot of money. The amount was suggested at the time but we all know such figures are not to be depended upon. These on-costs are not included in the 50% figure.
My wife and I thought that the best way of reducing costs would be to fund STEM fully, no increase in those skills that bring in money to this country - fashion for instance - and for the rest, well reduce the costs of the courses.
The average, that's average, student debt is now £43,000. Some students will have much more hanging over them. Given the hit wages have taken this puts university education out of the reach of many poor people. One might suggest the average student.
Now if I can work it out in an hour, why couldn't this government, the one everyone suggests we should vote for, at least everyone on here?
I get a plumber in to do the plumbing in my house because they know more about plumbing than I do. Why should I vote for a government to run the economy when they, it appears, know less than me about money?
I'm not suggesting labour would be any better. I think they are all in it for their own reasons. My wife, by the way, reckons the only reason the fees were raised was to damage the liberal party. Much more important that saving money and educating STEM students.
How can we vote for any of them?
You start repaying it until you earn £17K and the interest on the loan only increases by the rate of inflation until you earn £21K.
Given the repayment terms i'm sure they were quite aware when bringing in the new system that a large proportion would not be repaid. It was in effect a "graduate" tax. If the cost to the government has increased it means that more money is flowing to the universities and to offer a proper degree (rather than a few hours of lecturing plus teaching a week) the universities needed more money.
Bluebarge said:
What the blue blazes is "genuine political thrust"??
Reasons floating voters may vote Labour:
1. Concern that Tories taking us out of the EU would lead to greater economic pain than any ham-fisted Labour Chancellor could ever manage;
2. Concern that the £9bn of intended but un-budgetted tax cuts could lead to major damage to important public services such as defence and the police;
3. A feeling that large corporations and the wealthy should be taking a greater share of the tax burden rather than just bashing the middle classes;
4. Concern that the Tories aren't doing enough to encourage house-building and help firts-time buyers/renters;
5. Concern that the Tories' chronic unpopularity in Scotland will make Scottish independence inevitable.
See? it's not hard to think of important reasons why the Tories may be a hard choice for some, without even thinking of your own pocket. It could even be seen as a business-friendly vote, given the Tories Achilles heel on Europe.
My views, (and I'm not a Tory)Reasons floating voters may vote Labour:
1. Concern that Tories taking us out of the EU would lead to greater economic pain than any ham-fisted Labour Chancellor could ever manage;
2. Concern that the £9bn of intended but un-budgetted tax cuts could lead to major damage to important public services such as defence and the police;
3. A feeling that large corporations and the wealthy should be taking a greater share of the tax burden rather than just bashing the middle classes;
4. Concern that the Tories aren't doing enough to encourage house-building and help firts-time buyers/renters;
5. Concern that the Tories' chronic unpopularity in Scotland will make Scottish independence inevitable.
See? it's not hard to think of important reasons why the Tories may be a hard choice for some, without even thinking of your own pocket. It could even be seen as a business-friendly vote, given the Tories Achilles heel on Europe.
1. You mean the same as was said when we didn't join the Euro? Getting out of the EU, if done properly, will give this country a massive economic boost, we would be able to conclude our own trade agreements all over the world on our own terms, including a mutually beneficial one with the rump EU.
2. Cutting tax rates raises tax take. Fact.
3. Cutting the top rate to 45% has increased the tax take from the wealthiest, and they pay a higher proportion of the total than @50%. Big corporations avoiding tax? Agreed something needs to be done but it has to be by international agreement, it cannot be done domestically. Places like Ireland and Luxembourg need to be brought to heel, but the EU will need to be involved with that but they won't.
4. Planning reform is being fought by the Left. What do you think should be done to help first time buyers?
5. So what? I don't care if they stay or go, they should do what they think is good for them.
Derek Smith said:
There was a bit in The Sunday Times yesterday about the increase - tripling in fact - in student fees costing the government much more than what it saved. The prediction is that 50%, give or take, of debt will not be recovered.
I'm not super intelligent...
Run that by me again Derek. You are saying if we end tuition fees clearly we get nothing back. So getting 50% back is the same as zero? Nope, I don't follow that.I'm not super intelligent...
911Gary said:
Just interested to hear how ANYBODY can vote for Millipede and Balls,what are people thinking? I am genuinely interested bearing in mind the last 3 labour governments performance as to how we would vote them back in? Surely they must be now to anyone with genuine political thrust unelectable?
They are to me the most cretinous pair of idiots ever rolled on stage as candidates.Balls is beyond description,Millband is just muppetlike a joke on the world stage.
Naked self interest, or because grandad did. It ALWAYS comes down to one or the other.They are to me the most cretinous pair of idiots ever rolled on stage as candidates.Balls is beyond description,Millband is just muppetlike a joke on the world stage.
JagLover said:
At the same time that tuition fees were raised the repayment terms were made more generous.
You start repaying it until you earn £17K and the interest on the loan only increases by the rate of inflation until you earn £21K.
Given the repayment terms i'm sure they were quite aware when bringing in the new system that a large proportion would not be repaid. It was in effect a "graduate" tax. If the cost to the government has increased it means that more money is flowing to the universities and to offer a proper degree (rather than a few hours of lecturing plus teaching a week) the universities needed more money.
There is no extra money for the universities. The cost has increased because the % forecast to be repaid has reduced. The forecasts for repayment have worsened considerably since it was introduced.You start repaying it until you earn £17K and the interest on the loan only increases by the rate of inflation until you earn £21K.
Given the repayment terms i'm sure they were quite aware when bringing in the new system that a large proportion would not be repaid. It was in effect a "graduate" tax. If the cost to the government has increased it means that more money is flowing to the universities and to offer a proper degree (rather than a few hours of lecturing plus teaching a week) the universities needed more money.
It was just another "faith based" policy from the Tories - also see "expansionary fiscal contraction", "free schools", £3bn NHS restructuring etc..
LucreLout said:
911Gary said:
Just interested to hear how ANYBODY can vote for Millipede and Balls,what are people thinking? I am genuinely interested bearing in mind the last 3 labour governments performance as to how we would vote them back in? Surely they must be now to anyone with genuine political thrust unelectable?
They are to me the most cretinous pair of idiots ever rolled on stage as candidates.Balls is beyond description,Millband is just muppetlike a joke on the world stage.
Naked self interest, or because grandad did. It ALWAYS comes down to one or the other.They are to me the most cretinous pair of idiots ever rolled on stage as candidates.Balls is beyond description,Millband is just muppetlike a joke on the world stage.
Lets face it, Labour want to buy your vote with someone elses money.
The tories want to buy your vote by letting you keep more of your own money.
McWigglebum4th said:
TankRizzo said:
Asking a Labour supporter why they vote the way they do normally involves the conversation turning to "the Tories" within the first minute. Their entire premise this for the election seems to be "we're not the Tories".
Asking a Scooby Drew said:
A vote for UKIP is a vote for Labour (according to CMD)
in that the orthodox view is that traditional labour supporters generally won;t defect to the 'kippers where the more europhobic end of conservative support may very well do so - as we've seen in the shire county LA elections Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff