Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Uk Debate Mk 2, the UK's liveliest political and social debate site.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Tories edge ahead of Labour in poll
Topic Started: Oct 3 2014, 08:35 AM (564 Views)
Cymru
Alt-Right
[ *  *  *  * ]
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/uk/tories-edge-ahead-of-labour-in-poll-30634403.html

Labour seem to want to snatch an improbable defeat from the jaws of an almost certain victory.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Replies:
Lewis
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Yes we must for the sake of future generations, get the incompetent Tories out. they have wrecked the country after 4.5 years and now the economy is going down the pan again.

Yes keeping the Tory incompetent out is vital for the sake of future generations.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
I suspect no-one can predict the results of the general election, because of local issues that apply to each constituency.

It is also on the card the SNP is likely to be the biggest third party in Parliament due to the emergent properties of the recent Scottish referendum.
The constituency where I live is going to be VERY difficult to predict. On paper the current Lib-Dem MP will be voted out.
BUT he has rebelled against the coalition so many times on aspects of coalition policy that have severely damaged a significant number of the local population, which will cut the Tory potential vote shreds, despite what national polls state.
New Labour voters here are as rare as rocking horse poo and have been for a very long time.
I also expect UKIP to take away a lot of Tory votes here as well, for a variety of reasons, homosexual marriages being one of them.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lewis
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Well in Cornwall UKIP are generally running a close second to the Tory incompetents, with Camborne and Redruth, they are in joint first place. Close to where I live they are also in first place. It will only take a few disaffected Lib Dems and Labour voters like myself there to vote UKIP and oust the incompetents, entirely from Cornwall altogether (see map).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29581058
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jaguar
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Lewis
Oct 11 2014, 10:41 AM
Yes we must for the sake of future generations, get the incompetent Tories out. they have wrecked the country after 4.5 years and now the economy is going down the pan again.

Yes keeping the Tory incompetent out is vital for the sake of future generations.
Are you aware what's happening in the world today?

European and US STOCK MARKETS have seen sharp falls as fears have deepened over prospects for the global economy. The IMF warned earlier this week that there is a 40% risk of the eurozone slumping back into recession.

Surely you are not claiming the Tories are responsible for that.
Bear also in mind the IMF thinks our rehabilitation is fairly solid. !clp!

All we need now is Labour to regain power and wreck the economy again.  :o

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Lewis
Oct 11 2014, 11:06 AM
Well in Cornwall UKIP are generally running a close second to the Tory incompetents, with Camborne and Redruth, they are in joint first place.
Just one problem with the Camborne and Redruth constituency the massive number of people who need the food bank. The current Tory MP stands no chance of re-election
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Clause 4 Socialists changed the UK, they made sure Thatcher got elected 3 times so much do the British people utterly hate the idiot concept. They must be so proud, she was certainly so grateful for their enduring idiocy and arrogance

Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Oct 11 2014, 11:22 AM
Lewis
Oct 11 2014, 11:06 AM
Well in Cornwall UKIP are generally running a close second to the Tory incompetents, with Camborne and Redruth, they are in joint first place.
Just one problem with the Camborne and Redruth constituency the massive number of people who need the food bank. The current Tory MP stands no chance of re-election
As the IMF pointed out joblessness is endemic across the Planet and there is no easy solution at hand. Best the Gov can do is create an environment where the private sector can create more jobs and the Labour addiction to Statism, taxes and unfettered spending works against such. Not seen you comment on food banks across the European, is their a reason that you only cite Cornwall?
I wonder if you have noted the very high levels of persistent unemployment of young people in France and other European countries over the last decade. Is this something you prefer to ignore?
Why is it that so many economic migrants enter France and find their way asap to a channel port hoping to hitch a ride to the UK?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lewis
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
jaguar
Oct 11 2014, 11:12 AM
Lewis
Oct 11 2014, 10:41 AM
Yes we must for the sake of future generations, get the incompetent Tories out. they have wrecked the country after 4.5 years and now the economy is going down the pan again.

Yes keeping the Tory incompetent out is vital for the sake of future generations.
Are you aware what's happening in the world today?

European and US STOCK MARKETS have seen sharp falls as fears have deepened over prospects for the global economy. The IMF warned earlier this week that there is a 40% risk of the eurozone slumping back into recession.

Surely you are not claiming the Tories are responsible for that.
Bear also in mind the IMF thinks our rehabilitation is fairly solid. !clp!

All we need now is Labour to regain power and wreck the economy again.  :o

Well it is obvious that the incompetents have managed the economy badly such that it is exposed to every whimper from the U.S. to Europe.

Anyway the Great Recession was caused in the US, not by New Labour. So you diatribe is invalid in any case.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Cymru
Alt-Right
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Oct 11 2014, 01:45 PM
As the IMF pointed out joblessness is endemic across the Planet and there is no easy solution at hand. Best the Gov can do is create an environment where the private sector can create more jobs and the Labour addiction to Statism, taxes and unfettered spending works against such.
The trouble is increasing the number of jobs to be had within a shrinking pool of work available just masks the bigger problem of there being less jobs available overall.

The government should be concentrating on how we transition from our current economic model to one which deals with the challenges that increasing workplace automation in the near future presents, such as mass unemployment as the norm and the concept of earning an income, and thus using money as a medium of exchange in purchasing goods and services, untenable.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
krugerman
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
As predicted, the 1 point Tory lead has now gone, and as of the middle of this last week, Labour were back in front again, though by just 1 point, but the shift away from the tories could be on-going.

There could be some interesting changes to the polls in the next few weeks, in the wake of the overwhelming UKIP victory in Clacton, and the scare for Labour in Heywood and Middleton, it will be interesting to see, but I still predict that UKIP are a bigger threat to the Conservatives.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Cymru
Oct 11 2014, 02:09 PM
RJD
Oct 11 2014, 01:45 PM
As the IMF pointed out joblessness is endemic across the Planet and there is no easy solution at hand. Best the Gov can do is create an environment where the private sector can create more jobs and the Labour addiction to Statism, taxes and unfettered spending works against such.
The trouble is increasing the number of jobs to be had within a shrinking pool of work available just masks the bigger problem of there being less jobs available overall.

The government should be concentrating on how we transition from our current economic model to one which deals with the challenges that increasing workplace automation in the near future presents, such as mass unemployment as the norm and the concept of earning an income, and thus using money as a medium of exchange in purchasing goods and services, untenable.

Finding work, finding jobs, to be done is not hard, is in fact very easy!
Where the difficulty begins is in paying a wage for these jobs to be done ..... does anyone think there are enough care workers (include care of the elderly)? Are there enough employed in Border Controls?
Furthermore, when folk find work, when they come off benefits, when they stop being a drain on the nation and begin to contribute, things do change, things get better, and business opportunities appear that were not there before.

Without much effort of thought it would be easy to discover a million or two extra jobs that can be done and would make for a better country - if the money were there to pay for them.

As one of the wealthiest nations this should not be a huge problem - it is because that wealth is not wisely distributed.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Oct 11 2014, 03:18 PM

Furthermore, when folk find work, when they come off benefits,
Finding work and coming off of benefits are two very different things.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Oct 11 2014, 03:23 PM
Affa
Oct 11 2014, 03:18 PM

Furthermore, when folk find work, when they come off benefits,
Finding work and coming off of benefits are two very different things.


I would rather you add something worth taking note of of, than to to be flippant like this ....... do you have an opinion to share that introduces a conceptual idea we can begin to debate?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Oct 11 2014, 03:34 PM


I would rather you add something worth taking note of of, than to to be flippant like this ....... do you have an opinion to share that introduces a conceptual idea we can begin to debate?
I was not being flippant. The current shower in power think work is the cure for poverty and lowering the welfare bill. Low wages in Britain mean work of itself is not the answer.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Oct 11 2014, 03:44 PM
Affa
Oct 11 2014, 03:34 PM


I would rather you add something worth taking note of of, than to to be flippant like this ....... do you have an opinion to share that introduces a conceptual idea we can begin to debate?
I was not being flippant. The current shower in power think work is the cure for poverty and lowering the welfare bill. Low wages in Britain mean work of itself is not the answer.


Stating the obvious, I see ...... sorry for the comment, made because it did seem to be directed at the poster (me) and off topic.

Wage levels are a different topic, though not unrelated to what I was telling. Which was that there is lots of work to be done but no money to pay for it being done.
That part was in part addressed by the lack of wisdom in 'wealth distribution'.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Alberich
Member Avatar
Alberich
[ *  *  * ]
But the problem is as it always has been...and probably as it always will be. The difference in income for an unskilled man at the bottom of the social heap who is on the full panoply of welfare, with housing costs met, and what he could earn on a low wage job (with tax credits) is margimnal, if it even exists. Now if the object is to motivate the unemployed who have been long time on welfare, there are only two ways of doing it. You either raise his take home pay by a considerable margin, so that there is a real and large difference between welfare and work payments. Or you keep cutting back on welfare, with the same object in mind.

It stands to reason that no government can afford the former. Apart from the cost, there would be the knock on effect on the wage scales of all other workers, who would demand that their differentials be maintained. That only leaves the latter. Governments can tinker around with low pay,and make marginal adjustments, but unless there is a real financial motivation for the unemployed to seek work (any work) nothing much is going to alter. So go figure, as they say.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Alberich
Oct 11 2014, 04:11 PM
Now if the object is to motivate the unemployed who have been long time on welfare, there are only two ways of doing it. You either raise his take home pay by a considerable margin, so that there is a real and large difference between welfare and work payments. Or you keep cutting back on welfare, with the same object in mind.

It stands to reason that no government can afford the former. .... That only leaves the latter.


Did you read the posts where the formation of the post war Welfare State was discussed as being with 'all party' support. An idea formulated by the pre-war Conservative Government, and fully supported by Business?
This will help direct you - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/commission-on-social-justice-beveridges-appeal-for-an-attack-on-five-giant-evils-the-beveridge-report-turned-its-author-into-a-hero--the-peoples-william-nicholas-timmins-reports-1444837.html

The Welfare State must be protected ........ cuts reduce its value, and that value is vital to everyone, business most of all.

Where you go wrong here is in saying "no government can afford the former". Affordability comes from having the resources to afford, and or the potential to accrue those needed resources. Every Government has the potential to increase its resources - how is what politics (party politics) is about.
It's fair to say that no Conservative has ever been very good at increasing revenues to the State. Their's is an opposite ideology that focuses on being MINIMALIST.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Alberich
Member Avatar
Alberich
[ *  *  * ]
I think you miss the point. I am fairly familiar with Beveridge, and were he to be alive today, he would probably recoil in horror at the plethera of welfare benefits available. The present welfare system is FAR more wide ranging than he had in mind; and far more expensive. But to go back to the point where you say I am wrong...the affordability of a low wage/minimum wage increase. To make a discernable difference; to make work more attractive, you would have to do a lot more than tinker round the edges of low pay scales. It would have to be a significant increase. It would be no use adding pence to the hourly rate. We are probably talking of doubling the minimum wage structure, and it would not stop there, of course, as the unions would expect commensurate increases to protect their members interests, and to maintain differentials.The cost would be enormous.

The welfare state should offer a safety net on a temporary basis only, and not a permanent way of life (I exclude, of course, those who are physically incapable of employment). Sooner or later, the penny will drop.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Alberich
Oct 12 2014, 12:47 PM

The welfare state should offer a safety net on a temporary basis only, and not a permanent way of life
Benefits as a "Permanent way of life" is a sound bite that cannot be backed up with any evidence.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Alberich
Oct 12 2014, 12:47 PM
I think you miss the point. I am fairly familiar with Beveridge, and were he to be alive today, he would probably recoil in horror at the plethera of welfare benefits available. The present welfare system is FAR more wide ranging than he had in mind; and far more expensive. But to go back to the point where you say I am wrong...the affordability of a low wage/minimum wage increase. To make a discernable difference; to make work more attractive, you would have to do a lot more than tinker round the edges of low pay scales. It would have to be a significant increase. It would be no use adding pence to the hourly rate. We are probably talking of doubling the minimum wage structure, and it would not stop there, of course, as the unions would expect commensurate increases to protect their members interests, and to maintain differentials.The cost would be enormous.

The welfare state should offer a safety net on a temporary basis only, and not a permanent way of life (I exclude, of course, those who are physically incapable of employment). Sooner or later, the penny will drop.

Total Welfare Spending is less than 7% of GDP, and the biggest spend is on Pensioners.
Do you include these as 'The welfare state should offer a safety net on a temporary basis only'? Of course not!
Neither would you include those on disability benefit, the working poor on top up benefits ...... all you you refer to to is the working age jobless -
These figures are for year 2011- 2012.
Total Spend Welfare Bill -= £160.2bn
State Pensions - £74.2bn
Pensions Credit = £8.1bn
Job Seekers Allowance = £4.9bn


I suggest you stop equating Welfare Spending with out of work scroungers. Only when you properly recognise the problem can you begin to work towards resolving the problem - if indeed it is a problem.


Edited by Affa, Oct 12 2014, 08:22 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Beveridge, nobody, envisaged Welfare Spending to assume the level it has, but they should have.
Most of the increases have come about because of two predictable outcomes - technological advances doing away with manually operated production lines etc, and people living a lot longer. Neither of which are a Bad Thing.
The first has made business more efficient. And business has pocketed these efficiency gains, whilst at the same reducing the wages (real terms) of the fewer ops it still does retain.

Spending is not unaffordable, it is that there is little or no will/desire to make it affordable by increasing revenues.
All we hear is that spending must be cut, by reducing benefits - there is a different argument that says more of the wealth being created should be used to take people off welfare.


Edited by Affa, Oct 12 2014, 08:59 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
State Pensions aren't part of the Welfare monies Affa

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_budget_detail_14bt12013n_40495000020103044745#ukgs303

But I agree that Job Seekers allowances are not the problem for Welfare expenditure, but people being out of work is a big issue in terms of taking people out of low household income.


Edited by Steve K, Oct 12 2014, 09:03 PM.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Oct 12 2014, 09:02 PM
State Pensions aren't part of the Welfare monies Affa

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_budget_detail_14bt12013n_40495000020103044745#ukgs303

But I agree that Job Seekers allowances are not the problem for Welfare expenditure, but people being out of work is a big issue in terms of taking people out of low household income.



Table 2.1 of this ifs link - Nov 2012 has a lot of detail - it also has quite too many "not available" notes. There are some things the public are prevented from seeing.

http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn13.pdf
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Ta, I may be a while
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
jeevesnwooster
Oct 3 2014, 10:35 AM
That's not true at all, I happen to know of people going around knocking on doors for Labour, guess who they are?

Frumpy middle-class people who like to get in on anything free and then try to take it over, I say let them battle it out and laugh at them for it

Ed Balls will not be coming back to knock on my door, My wife made sure of that.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lewis
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Rich
Oct 12 2014, 10:08 PM
jeevesnwooster
Oct 3 2014, 10:35 AM
That's not true at all, I happen to know of people going around knocking on doors for Labour, guess who they are?

Frumpy middle-class people who like to get in on anything free and then try to take it over, I say let them battle it out and laugh at them for it

Ed Balls will not be coming back to knock on my door, My wife made sure of that.
Likewise Scammer's or his useless ilk will never be knocking on my door. The scum would be swept away by my missus' broom.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Oct 11 2014, 03:44 PM
Affa
Oct 11 2014, 03:34 PM


I would rather you add something worth taking note of of, than to to be flippant like this ....... do you have an opinion to share that introduces a conceptual idea we can begin to debate?
I was not being flippant. The current shower in power think work is the cure for poverty and lowering the welfare bill. Low wages in Britain mean work of itself is not the answer.
But work is the answer and a life on State benefits is not. So you should consider what is required to generate higher net disposable incomes. One quick way is to remove Labour's tax on jobs which we know comes directly out of the pocket of the employee. Another way is by slimming big Nanny down to size, but you would not want that would you? No you just wish to moan from the guidelines and infer that the must be a magic bullet. Truth is Mr Smurf that you do not really care much about jobs or the unemployed as you are fixated not on the creation but destruction of wealth. I have you fingered as a closet Trott.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Oct 13 2014, 08:47 AM
But work is the answer and a life on State benefits is not.
Two propaganda sound bites in one sentence RJD, that take skill.
Iain Duncan Smith stated three times in one day "Work Frees You," (Arbeit Macht Frei.)
The hard fact is the reality is work only frees you if it pays enough you can live on it without the assistance of state in work benefits benefits.

A life on state benefits means someone fit and able is living off of the state for all of their working age life and have never been employed from the age of 16 until the age of 65.
There is just one problem with that RJD, that is only around 400 people NOT the vast army the propaganda implies.
(DWP stats released on a regular basis about each benefit and how long and how many people have been on them.)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tytoalba
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
jaguar
Oct 3 2014, 11:50 AM
papasmurf
Oct 3 2014, 11:20 AM
jaguar
Oct 3 2014, 11:14 AM
They're beginning to realise that Socialism is controlled by rich kids from the middle-classes who don't practice what they preach.
What "Socialism?" Any socialism in Britain only exists in the minds of Tories.
Have to agree, so why do Labour still claim to be Britain's democratic socialist party.
The NHS and the social service system of pensions and assistance are all running well and are all socialist in their functions.
To pretend that Britain is not socialist in many rrespects or does not sustain socialist ideals is nonsense.The poor can get help if they know where to go to get it.
What it is not is Marxist, but a working vibrant capitalist system with many of the rewards being funneled back to the poor, and help offered to all where they need it.
The differences in peoples minds is "Is it enough?' and the reply has to be "What can be afforded, and what is the social impact of giving too much?'
Too much, and there is no incentive to work or to improve ones own lot, too little and some will fall by the way side, but since time immemorial aome have always fallen by the wayside through their own sloth, addictions, or inadiqacies. No government can be all things to all people, and those who through their own efforts , hard work, thrift ordered lifestyles or good fortune,or by chance who are never a burden on the state should not be penalised by harsh taxation to satisfy the political agenda of others. The rich already pay a bigger part of the tax bills than others with less. No government or system can micromanage the affairs of every individual
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tytoalba
Oct 13 2014, 09:48 AM
The poor can get help if they know where to go to get it.
Not any more, there are now huge holes in the safety net created by the current government.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Fully Featured & Customizable Free Forums
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Add Reply