Mr Bridger
Sound of the suburbs
Care to explain what you actually mean by that because it sounds a load of bollox just to side on your political views?
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
General Election 2015
- Thread starter Herr Tubthumper
- Start date
Care to explain what you actually mean by that because it sounds a load of bollox just to side on your political views?
- Thread starter
- #3,722
Read the posts, it's really is quite simple. Whilst we disagree, Hatters understands my point, as do numerous other posters.
n1 gull
Well-known member
The point I disagree with is calling an individual selfish for voting for a costed government policy.
You might disagree with the policy but you shouldn't have ago at the individual for voting in a way that suits his family
- Thread starter
- #3,724
This is nonsense. Just because it's a government policy it doesn't mean you're exempt from criticism if you support it. Acting in your own interests is selfish regardless of the rights or wrongs of the act.
Your lazy premise seems to be that most/all Tories are voting based on self-interest. Either that or you'll use the "just having a laugh" get out card.
You and your other looney chums bang on and on about the rich Tory toffs.
I'm not sure how many of those toffs will benefit from...
1. No tax for those on minimum pay.
2. 30 hours/week free childcare.
3. Being given the opportunity to buy their property (as all Tories own massive swathes of property already)
...so why would a Tory be voting for these policies that help out those less fortunate?
spring hall convert
Well-known member
1. Aren't they just raising the tax threshold, rather than it exclusively being for people on minimum wage, therefore everyone gains.
2. Not saying it's a bad idea but it clearly benefits big business, many of whom provide this sort of thing anyway.
3. Because it adds further fuel to the fire of the Great British homeowning ponzi scheme. If they wanted to make homes affordable to normal people, they'd build more.
Hatterlovesbrighton
something clever
But there in lies the debate. How do you decide whether you are more or less worthy than the guy next door.
On right to buy, if I was a housing association tenant and my mate across the road was a council home tenant then I don't think I would feel too bad about voting for a policy that would give me the same rights.
ROSM
Well-known member
C'mon even the bluest tinted specs can see that the increase in personal allowance benefits all taxpayers especially those that are paid in tax efficient ways. Also the homeowner policy is around getting more properties into private ownership and taking social housing stock out of the equation, which in turn benefits those who lease properties
Finally the childcare figure is allegedly funded by the 1.4bn gained from the pension reforms, over 2 thirds of which are going to the inheritance tax changes which benefit the more affluent in society.
As a policy it is in effect, crumbs from.the rich man's table
Butch Willykins
Well-known member
Sorry to be a pedant, but It actually starts to reduce at £100k. If you earn over £120K then your personal tax allowance is reduced to zero.
Ernest
Stupid IDIOT
As you've no doubt read the Tory manifesto would you let us leftie loonies know exactly how all these policies have been costed, please don't mention 'long term financial plan' or 'magic money tree', thanks
Machiavelli
Well-known member
We're not supposed to view ourselves as humans. We're only supposed to view ourselves as individuals. There is no alternative
Machiavelli
Well-known member
[MENTION=14921]spring hall convert[/MENTION] has dealt with most of these pretty well, but I'd like to endorse policy 2 far more. Once upon a time, my childcare costs were higher than my wages.
And, you're right, Tories aren't necessarily the party of the rich. One Nation Tories aren't for instance, and this vision guided that party between 1945 and 1975. There are a few One Nation Tories now (Willetts, Montgomerie, even Gove is currently flirting with the idea, for instance), but mostly they're just a bunch of neoliberals. And all neoliberals are concerned with is self-interest, self-investment, and asociality.
This one in particular is totally crazy. I would suggest that any party that could come up with a scheme like this should pretty much be totally unelectable. It's probably the stupidest idea I've ever seen from a mainstream political party (and that's saying something).
The fact that it's been criticised by that hard-left organisation, the CBI and has been described by that bastion of revolutionary press, Money Week, as the "one of the worst policies" to be floated this election - joining those other left-wing rags, The Telegraph and the FT, in condemning it
Napper,your statement is so sweeping and righteously smug, I must ask you how it feels to be so morally superior.
Do you go round with a warm fuzzy feeling all the time and does your s--t smell of roses, or what?
- Thread starter
- #3,735
1) My reply was specifically to Hatter where he actually said he voted with self-interest. There was no generalisation.
2) I have never ever used a "for a laugh card", why do you say this ?
I'd suggest you're the one being lazy here; by not reading and properly contextualising my posts and/or jumping to conclusions. Either this or the 22 degree sun has affected your head.
- Thread starter
- #3,736
A fair question. I'm not sure how you decide. But what I do know is that if you take more social housing out of circulation, and use tax payers money to assist this, there will be less houses and dollar for those who are deemed needy.
Also, If you want a house then surely it's only fair you use the same channels as everyone else?
spring hall convert
Well-known member
Excellent line from the Lib Dem manifesto launch just now.
They would add a heart to a Conservative government and a brain to a Labour government.
Full marks to whoever wrote that one.
They would add a heart to a Conservative government and a brain to a Labour government.
Full marks to whoever wrote that one.
Nice work indeed.
Any chance they could also lend Labour someone, anyone, who could be Prime Minister?
- Thread starter
- #3,739
I think they know their days in power are numbered.
ROSM
Well-known member
The last time I looked at the odds, it was level pegging between Dave and ed to be next prime minister. Given that, I think we will have a good chance to find out soon enough how good a prime minister Ed is.
It's not all about style over substance - otherwise Paul Barber would now be ordering the curtains for number 10