General Election

[oafc0000]

You're right, I was looking at old figures for child benefit but, even with the increase I think the value of that benefit has been eroded over the years. And it was introduced in the seventies so this government can hardly take full credit for it's existence.

 

That's a joint income of £30k, i.e. each parent earning £15k average. That's not much at all with two young kids, especially when you factor in childcare. And the fact that that £1,000 us the only benefit that a family earning ten times, or even one hundred times, as much don't get couldn't be more Tory if you messed up its hair, stuck a blue tie on it and sent it off to Eton, claiming its fees on expenses.

 

It was a Labour government that introduced the increase for the first child and it was a Labour government who borough it in originally and it will be a Labour government who protects it for all children... The Torys and the Libs will scrap for someone earning as much as you do.

 

Both my bro and sis are single parents, both have half the family income you have, you are pretty well off in comparison.

 

Like I asked, you slag off the amount you currently get, how much more do you actually want ?

Edited April 29, 2010 by oafc0000

[oafc0000]

I think child benefit should be scrapped. If you can't afford kids in the first place, don't have them.

 

Such a bone head comment

 

You do realise we are an ageing society and we need more youngsters to pay for someone to change you piss stained pants when you get older

 

Do you realise how much revenue is generated from a new life being created ? I can't remember the numbers but the country makes something like £250k (can't remember the exact number) on average from every kid born after paying for education, nhs child benefit, etc etc.... So its profitable overall to economy making babies...

Edited April 29, 2010 by oafc0000

[beag_teeets]

Such a bone head comment

 

You do realise we are an ageing society and we need more youngsters to pay for someone to change you piss stained pants when you get older

 

Do you realise how much revenue is generated from a new life being created ? I can't remember the numbers but the country makes something like £250k (can't remember the exact number) on average from every kid born after paying for education, nhs child benefit, etc etc.... So its profitable overall to economy making babies...

 

Legalise euthanasia, if/when I get to that stage, kill me. If possible let people do it when they have had enough of living on this godforsaken rock.

 

Still don't think the state should be paying for people to be having kids, if we need the influx of workers I'm sure Mrs Duffy's Eastern Europeans, wherever they come from, will be able to pick up the slack. Two birds, one stone.

 

I would be interested in seeing the source of the £250k for every Nike black leisure-wear clad scrote pouring into the economy.

[oafc0000]

Legalise euthanasia, if/when I get to that stage, kill me. If possible let people do it when they have had enough of living on this godforsaken rock.

 

I think EasyJet fly to Switerland Pay for it yourself Why should I pay for it!!!

 

Still don't think the state should be paying for people to be having kids, if we need the influx of workers I'm sure Mrs Duffy's Eastern Europeans, wherever they come from, will be able to pick up the slack. Two birds, one stone.

 

I actually think thats a reasonable suggestion even if you was taking the piss

 

I would be interested in seeing the source of the £250k for every Nike black leisure-wear clad scrote pouring into the economy.

 

Well its an average at end of the day but your average scrote is still paying his way...

Edited April 29, 2010 by oafc0000

[johnny punkster]

I think child benefit should be scrapped. If you can't afford kids in the first place, don't have them.

 

 

thanks for confirming why i didn't vote labour yesterday.

 

[oafc0000]

thanks for confirming why i didn't vote labour yesterday.

 

Who did you vote for ? If you don't mind saying...

Edited April 29, 2010 by oafc0000

[beag_teeets]

thanks for confirming why i didn't vote labour yesterday.

 

 

At least you voted mate.

[oafc0000]

At least you voted mate.

 

+1

 

 

[rudemedic]

Yes and now they want to scrap it...

 

 

 

You might pay some (as I did) but not all... aka means tested... I think its fair to ask for some amount of contribution altough I would total support scrapping them but then Uni needs funding by some other method, aka the tax payer.

 

 

 

Tory "investment" (trending water /living off feck all) £38 billion

Labou investment now at £138 billion

 

 

 

Yes NMW has helped and paying tax is a fact of life... Although I do support the 10k tax band proposed by the Libs... but that means you need revenue from somewhere else...

 

 

 

Age old issue that would be the same for almost every party...next...

 

 

 

I think the majority of the working class and middle class have had it good for 13 years.. We face a couple of hard years... Lets nuckle down, not let the Torys unwrap all the good work and move on.

 

 

The prospect of a Labour / Lib coalition sounds good to me given what it might result in.

 

Your point was a sort of look at what Labour have done. It wasn't look at what the Tories want to do. My big beef with your statement was about how you said Labour have means tested tuition fees- the Tories didn't have tuition fees in 97, no matter which way you spin it paying £0.01 in tuition fees is more than paying nothing at all. This is not a good thing to be boasting about.

 

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are not age old issues which is the same for any party. A Labour government sent our troops to war with some dubious evidence and the majority of those troops that have had problems are from the lower social classes, this has not helped those people. Incidentally Lib Dems voted against the war and they can hold their head up high about doing so IMHO.

 

If you want a Labour/Lib Dem coalition then you have to vote Labour (I know you've already done so- BTW there is one party that will only let you postal vote for a specific reason soemthing I agree with). Nick Clegg has said he will won't support Labour if they come third in the popular vote (which looks feasible- something I agree with if you come third you shouldn't have more power than those who beat you).

[beag_teeets]

If you want a Labour/Lib Dem coalition then you have to vote Labour (I know you've already done so- BTW there is one party that will only let you postal vote for a specific reason soemthing I agree with). Nick Clegg has said he will won't support Labour if they come third in the popular vote (which looks feasible- something I agree with if you come third you shouldn't have more power than those who beat you).

 

Lets just wait and see what happens on May 6th. It is too early for anyone to be making decisions on which party will be making deals with whom.

 

If Clegg is in the position to be propping up a tory government then it will mean that the tories didn't secure enough votes themselves to have a majority. More people will have voted not to have a tory government than to have voted for a tory government, why should they have more power?

 

The system we currently have is the system we currently have. Yes Labour have had 13 years to reform it, the tories and liberals have had over 150 years to reform it but no one has.

 

Hopefully after this election the whole political process will be reformed, from the electoral system to the actual chambers the parliamentarians sit in to the way government governs. Guy Fawkes had the right idea and it is a shame he was stopped.

[jimsleftfoot]

I receieve a weekly newsletter from the British University's Finance Director's Group. This is an article from it this week:

 

"If a lack of 'application' by the main parties has left you in an illusory state as to the size of the budget cuts facing the next government, then a quick read of this article in the FT should help make things clearer. The article uses a fancy 'online simulator' which it has developed to break down the numbers (£40bn of cuts needed) into specific policies, and it's when the numbers are translated into plain English that the size of the challenge becomes apparent.

 

As an example, the FT have picked out some policies from across the budget that together would add up to the level of cuts needed. These are: "a 5 per cent cut in public sector pay; freezing benefits for a year; means-testing child benefit; abolishing winter fuel payments and free television licences; reducing prison numbers by a quarter; axing the two planned aircraft carriers; withdrawing free bus passes for pensioners; delaying Crossrail for three years; halving roads maintenance; stopping school building; halving the spending on teaching assistants and NHS dentistry; and cutting funding to Scotland and Wales by 10 per cent".

 

If like me you read that list and one or more items on there cause you to think "there's got to be a better way to save money than cutting that!" then maybe you should try having a play with the "deficit buster" simulator yourself. Unless you're completely void of humanity, it's extremely difficult to make up the shortfall without signing up for a policy that just seems plain wrong. Whatever policies the next government decides to enact though, it's certain that over the next three or four years, most of us, in one way or another are going to feel the pinch."

 

 

Edited April 29, 2010 by jimsleftfoot

[rudemedic]

Lets just wait and see what happens on May 6th. It is too early for anyone to be making decisions on which party will be making deals with whom.

 

If Clegg is in the position to be propping up a tory government then it will mean that the tories didn't secure enough votes themselves to have a majority. More people will have voted not to have a tory government than to have voted for a tory government, why should they have more power?

 

The system we currently have is the system we currently have. Yes Labour have had 13 years to reform it, the tories and liberals have had over 150 years to reform it but no one has.

 

Hopefully after this election the whole political process will be reformed, from the electoral system to the actual chambers the parliamentarians sit in to the way government governs. Guy Fawkes had the right idea and it is a shame he was stopped.

 

The same could be said for any government in my memory. We have a 3+ party system so its usually the case that more people vote for the opposition than the government. I'd agree with you its a bit early to see which party is making deals with others. It might be interesting to see what happens if one party (probably the Tories) gets enough seats that they don't need the Lib Dems to help form a government- especially as I think the Toires have some sort of deal with the unionists in NI but I could be way off.

[oafc0000]

Your point was a sort of look at what Labour have done. It wasn't look at what the Tories want to do. My big beef with your statement was about how you said Labour have means tested tuition fees- the Tories didn't have tuition fees in 97, no matter which way you spin it paying £0.01 in tuition fees is more than paying nothing at all. This is not a good thing to be boasting about.

 

Universities where massively underfunded under the Torys. You got any beef with that ?

 

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are not age old issues which is the same for any party. A Labour government sent our troops to war with some dubious evidence and the majority of those troops that have had problems are from the lower social classes, this has not helped those people. Incidentally Lib Dems voted against the war and they can hold their head up high about doing so IMHO.

 

Labour backed the war, the Torys backed the war and the Libs as a minority third based party did what they do on most issues took the other path. You sure the Libs weren't doing what they did with trident (lied about) and just vote winning ?

 

Libs have always targeted the student vote for as long as I can remember... aka anti war, anti tuition fees, pro Europe...

 

If you want a Labour/Lib Dem coalition then you have to vote Labour (I know you've already done so- BTW there is one party that will only let you postal vote for a specific reason soemthing I agree with). Nick Clegg has said he will won't support Labour if they come third in the popular vote (which looks feasible- something I agree with if you come third you shouldn't have more power than those who beat you).

 

Labour / Lib coalition with Milband as leader. I can see the future I can

Edited April 29, 2010 by oafc0000

[leeslover]

Legalise euthanasia, if/when I get to that stage, kill me. If possible let people do it when they have had enough of living on this godforsaken rock.

 

Still don't think the state should be paying for people to be having kids, if we need the influx of workers I'm sure Mrs Duffy's Eastern Europeans, wherever they come from, will be able to pick up the slack. Two birds, one stone.

 

I would be interested in seeing the source of the £250k for every Nike black leisure-wear clad scrote pouring into the economy.

Clearly the solution is to only let rich people have children as they are far less likely to breed scrotes. Child benefit creates a perverse incentive by encouraging the poor to procreate and therefore extend the underclass and does nothing to encourage the well off to produce decent children. It's all in the genes.

[beag_teeets]

The same could be said for any government in my memory. We have a 3+ party system so its usually the case that more people vote for the opposition than the government.

 

You can claim your £5. To be pedantic, it is a multi-party system where only 3 parties (2 till this campaign) had a shot at power.

 

I'd agree with you its a bit early to see which party is making deals with others. It might be interesting to see what happens if one party (probably the Tories) gets enough seats that they don't need the Lib Dems to help form a government- especially as I think the Toires have some sort of deal with the unionists in NI but I could be way off.

 

The tories have always aligned with the Ulster Unionists, they propped up Major a few times. The SNP could become very critical soon as will Sinn Fein. We could become similar to Israel once the results come out.

 

Could get even more interesting after the results, if it is disastrous for Labour the party could split. Same for the tories if they do not get to be the government even after Dave's "de-toxification".

 

As rudemedic has pointed out, we face a horrendous couple of years, guiding us through it could be a bunch of people tied together by the loosest of threads battling for their own special interest. Gays for closer integration with Europe, Fascists for trade links with America and absolute loons who think that dinosaur fossils are there to test us for devolution for the English.

[oafc0000]

Clearly the solution is to only let rich people have children as they are far less likely to breed scrotes. Child benefit creates a perverse incentive by encouraging the poor to procreate and therefore extend the underclass and does nothing to encourage the well off to produce decent children. It's all in the genes.

 

It's just like reading the Daily Mail

[beag_teeets]

Clearly the solution is to only let rich people have children as they are far less likely to breed scrotes. Child benefit creates a perverse incentive by encouraging the poor to procreate and therefore extend the underclass and does nothing to encourage the well off to produce decent children. It's all in the genes.

 

Thank you Dr Mengele.

 

 

[johnny punkster]

Who did you vote for ? If you don't mind saying...

 

 

no comment, but it wasn't BNP either.

[oafc0000]

no comment, but it wasn't BNP either.

I never ever had you down as a BNP fan

 

[rudemedic]

Universities where massively underfunded under the Torys. You got any beef with that ?

 

 

 

Labour backed the war, the Torys backed the war and the Libs as a minority third based party did what they do on most issues took the other path. You sure the Libs weren't doing what they did with trident (lied about) and just vote winning ?

 

Libs have always targeted the student vote for as long as I can remember... aka anti war, anti tuition fees, pro Europe...

 

 

 

Labour / Lib coalition with Milband as leader. I can see the future I can

 

You got any evidence that the Tories gave less to the unis than Labour? (More so if you include amount per place). I don't know why Lib Dems were anti-war (it could be because they go after the student vote) but they are more right than the other two. So what if the Lib Dems target the student vote- for a start it could well see them win Durham which was a safe Labour seat until the last election- how many students are there, I would guess 1 million. That's a lot of people and well worth targeting.

 

If you are so confident that the Lib Dems will form a coalition with Labour and Milliband will be PM (if that's what you meant by leader) then why don't you put money on it (you'd get fairly decent odds on the first one, nevermind Milliband being PM).

[beag_teeets]

You got any evidence that the Tories gave less to the unis than Labour? (More so if you include amount per place). I don't know why Lib Dems were anti-war (it could be because they go after the student vote) but they are more right than the other two. So what if the Lib Dems target the student vote- for a start it could well see them win Durham which was a safe Labour seat until the last election- how many students are there, I would guess 1 million. That's a lot of people and well worth targeting.

 

If you are so confident that the Lib Dems will form a coalition with Labour and Milliband will be PM (if that's what you meant by leader) then why don't you put money on it (you'd get fairly decent odds on the first one, nevermind Milliband being PM).

 

Better odds if you specify which Milliband too.

[oafc0000]

You got any evidence that the Tories gave less to the unis than Labour?

 

Government target of 50% (which is too high) going to University simply can not be covered from tuition fees alone. There are some numbers out there demostarting the facts and showing Labour do pay more towards University than the Torys did. This couple with tuition fees has no doubt helped.

 

If you drop tuition fees (which I would back) then you have to pay it out of the public purse OR reduce places. The problem with reducing places is you do decrease the number of places available on average to working class children who generally speaking do not benefit from private education etc etc.

 

So do you support the tax payer taking up the bill or would you like to see a reduction in places back down to pre-97 levels or possibly worse ?

 

If you are so confident that the Lib Dems will form a coalition with Labour and Milliband will be PM (if that's what you meant by leader) then why don't you put money on it (you'd get fairly decent odds on the first one, nevermind Milliband being PM).

 

I have given up gambling due to heavy losses

 

[johnny punkster]

I never ever had you down as a BNP fan

 

i thank you

[leeslover]

Thank you Dr Mengele.

It's just like reading the Daily Mail

 

I am still in two minds how to deal with those who are rich but ugly.

[rudemedic]

I am still in two minds how to deal with those who are rich but ugly.

 

http://www.autoblog.nl/images/wp/Tamara%20...ne%20Lycos2.jpg

 

In the likely event you don't recognise her that's Tamara Ecclestone- her Dad is Bernie and he's rich but ugly. That's just one example I'm sure there are others.