Who will you vote for?

[devon_metro]

It's always interesting though how things work in their local areas. In my area it's between the Conservatives and Lib Dems. Labour's candidate is from London which hasn't gone down too well and I have never seen him in the area, most people don't even know who he is, but can recognise the other two who both live and are from the area.

There do not seem to be any Labour volunteers in the area delivering leaflets; the only thing we've had from them is the free election address which everyone sends out and I'd say only around 5% of the houses that have posters up are for Labour. Interestingly enough, the seat is currently held by Labour with a majority of 8,962.

Similar to here, the Labour candidates havn't been trying to win the votes, clearly they recognise its a lost cause, and to quote Mandelson shows how "(un)strategic" they are being.

Then again, not received any lib dem propoganda yet!

 

[Ivo]

Well, I suppose that we could always vote for the RailUK party, whose members are the members of this board... :roll:

Any ideas for a mandate?

 

[Mojo]

No University fees for anyone called Grant...

 

[me123]

Strangely enough, the Lib Dems aren't fielding a candidate in our area... Probably because they traditionally do badly in Lanarkshire. But I don't know if the candidate is still to be announced...

They're one of the parties that I would consider voting for, though, because their opposition to Trident is one of the big issues for me in this election (bearing in mind that I live in Scotland and a lot of the domestic issues are devolved). I cannot support a candidate who backs Trident, yet will cut the budgets for many other things such as real defence spending in Afghanistan, transport, health and education (or the respective devolved budgets). So, that leaves me with the SNP for now, although if the Liberals do field a candidate I will definitely consider giving them a vote.

Furthermore, I can't believe Labour are campaigning on devolved issues during a Westmister election. Just shows me that, in terms of the reserved issues, they really have no more ideas.

Of course, my vote's totally worthless. I'm in the safest Labour seat in the UK, so Tom Clarke MP is going to get back in regardless.

 

[Mojo]

I cannot believe how negative Labour and the Lib Dems are being throughout this campaign; here's just one example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CenY-DImIKc&feature=player_embedded

Had a leaflet from the Lib Dems describing the Conservative candidate as a "London based corporate lobbyist" which is a complete lie; she is a local resident and has worked hard in the community since her selection in 2006. In contrast, I've never seen the Lib Dems anywhere here doing anything. Had a second leaflet from them the other day talking about supposed Conservative cuts to the NHS and everything else - complete lies.

 

[Nick W]

Part of arguing ones own case is rebutting the arguments of others and pointing out where they say one thing and do another thing. I see nothing wrong with this.

The fact is that the Conservatives claim that they've changed, but they've done nothing about Lord Ashcroft, and nothing about Daniel Hannan. So how can believe that Tory policies are actually what their media and David Cameron claims that they are. Moreover, they're still the party of unnecessary tax cuts for the rich - their taxes will earn votes but it will not help businesses and it will not help the economy.

You're right that if a false claim is made, the individual should be taken to court for libel, but otherwise I'd say that anything should go. I'm sceptical about the Conservative party's efficiency savings, so I imagine claims about cuts that affect essential services may well be real!

I wouldn't vote based on whether or not a party campaigns in your area - if you live in a seat considered safe you may find that the party with that seat doesn't campaign - this is because they'll be campaigning elsewhere. If you like the views of the party you should see why this is a good idea.

 

[j0hn0]

I wouldn't vote based on whether or not a party campaigns in your area - if you live in a seat considered safe you may find that the party with that seat doesn't campaign - this is because they'll be campaigning elsewhere. If you like the views of the party you should see why this is a good idea.

Understandable, but personally I won't vote for someone who doesn't earn it. For me, assuming that a whole area is going to vote a certain way smacks of arrogance of the highest order, especially seeing as peoples faith in politicians is at an all time low.

 

[Polls]

Wow I really think Liberal Democrat might actually get in! I have heard across the board that generally people are fed up with the two main ones and they want a COMPLETE change.

It will be interesting but hopefully the Lib Dems won't panic too much if they get into power. We need a strong leadership right now, not a learner. :roll:

 

[Oswyntail]

Part of arguing ones own case is rebutting the arguments of others and pointing out where they say one thing and do another thing. I see nothing wrong with this.

Part of it, but not the major part. I do feel that, since the 1979 election, there has been too much emphasis on it - as recently as earlier this year we had ministers claiming their failures were because of what the Tories left behind - and I think that is a sign of lack of understanding and imagination.

The fact is that the Conservatives claim that they've changed, but they've done nothing about Lord Ashcroft, and nothing about Daniel Hannan. So how can believe that Tory policies are actually what their media.....

I think, in a straight comparison of dodgy supporters, the Tories might not come off worse. But, leaving that aside, one what rational basis can one make a choice if you reject the manifestos? Do you believe any of the promises? And we currently have a Labour party who - without giggling - maintain that Gordon Brown has achieved a lot, as did Blair before him! Are you equally sceptical about their manifesto? Sadly, I think we have a generation of politicians across the board who believe a) the sole purpose of being elected is to gain and maintain power, not govern and b) they are representing only their party members.

 

[devon_metro]

unnecessary tax cuts for the rich -

One thing I always struggle to understand.

Why is it necessary to tax people who earn good money to hell?

In most cases they've worked hard for that money, so what moral high-ground has anybody got to tax the hell out of them.

Oh and before somebody says anything, I am not "rich"/toff/privileged, however don't really believe in taxing those who work hard

 

[Ivo]

A fair point, until you consider that the mega rich are often those that do not have real claim to it, such as singers or footballers. In these instances, a slight increase in tax would result in a saving for the rest of us.

 

[ainsworth74]

until you consider that the mega rich are often those that do not have real claim to it, such as singers or footballers.

Why don't they have a claim to it? They have a talent that people are willing to pay them money to use, the fact that people are willing to pay them vast sums of money to perform doesn't mean that they don't have a claim to it. Who would you say has a claim to earn mega bucks?

 

[Ivo]

If it was a toss up between Branson and Rooney, Branson even if I was bribed to say Rooney. Why? Because he has built his fortune from essentially nothing. On the other hand, Rooney is worth so much because of the huge exposure of football these days. fact that he is so good at it means little; even League Two players earn more than most people these days and they aren't that much better than the rest of us. And if I'm honest, most singers become loaded because their prices are extortionate compared to their costs - but their exposure results in a huge public profile that every girl aged 12-17 adores.

 

[jon0844]

But we don't directly pay the wages of Rooney and co. Football clubs do, using money from fans who are willing to pay (clearly they are, even if they moan about ticket prices and expensive merchandise).

As we can see now, bad management and overspending could bring many clubs down - such is life.

But it's still nothing to do with us. I say fair play to any footballer than can earn many, many, thousands of pounds a week. Is it obscene? Probably, but we've all ALLOWED it to happen and people are just taking advantage of it as I'm sure most of us would in the same position (sorry, but I really do believe most people would).

When it comes to business leaders, leaving Branson aside, I do know some people who have become very, very rich running businesses - but they've had rather questionable pasts, and have often got rich by doing things that weren't in the interests of customers or staff. Still, those who are ruthless are the ones who go further. In these cases, it could well be you or me paying for it - either as an employee or customer.

As for the music industry; they do seem to be struggling - and many artists aren't earning anywhere near what you think. The reality-TV stars are often tied into contracts where they see hardly any money at all. More fool them for thinking that appearing on stage managed shows and events will make you rich. Far from it.

 

[Mojo]

I'd personally have varying tax rates depending on what job you do and its importance (eg. footballers would pay more tax than entrepreneurs). Could be controversial though!

 

[Oswyntail]

I'd personally have varying tax rates depending on what job you do and its importance (eg. footballers would pay more tax than entrepreneurs). Could be controversial though!

Fun, but unworkable. There would be a rash of "John Terry" accessories, to show he was a businessman who played a game incidentally. And (slightly off topic) what the hell is an "entrepreneur" as an occupation? The politicians all say they should be encouraged, but the only folk I have ever heard of describing themselves as that were simply barrow-boys, opportunists, crooks, shysters and snake-oil merchants (Mandelson anyone?)

 

[thefab444]

And (slightly off topic) what the hell is an "entrepreneur" as an occupation?

They are the Del Boys of society.

Yeah, we really must encourage them.

 

[jon0844]

If you up the tax on these people, you end up with the company (or football club in this case) having to pay even more to compensate - like the bonuses to the bankers.

In a way, does it matter if a player earns a million or three per year? Yes, it's crazy - but if they aren't giving up all their money in tax, they're presumably spending it like water and putting it back into the economy anyway.

What you might wish to do is find a way to keep the money in the UK, thus ensuring that people who earn loads of money re-invest it here when spending it.

I have fairly small savings, so what I don't pay in tax or NI is spent on goods and services. If I paid more tax, I'd spend less. Simple economics really.

 

[Polls]

Yay! Tax the effing bankers that got us into this mess and then took our hard earned money!! ... that was the decider for me to vote Liberal Democrats.