Election 2010 - Post Campaign Vote

[jimsleftfoot]

I won't say who I'm voting for, but what I will say is that my vote has changed since campaigning began.

 

Whoever you vote for, to the 17% who have put them as their option at the top...please please don't vote BNP. Here's another example of their mentality from yesterday...How many of youz are robbers?

 

Now the Asian guy shouldn't have spat at him, but after suffering racist abuse from a parliamentary candidate I think the most mild mannered person would be tempted to. Argue what you want about the economy, welfare, education etc, but don't let these racist barstewards pull the wool over your eyes.

 

Here here - if you want to make a protest vote, spoil it. Don't vote for these idiots!!!

[oafc0000]

I get the feeling the public are going to stick it to Labour today based on mostly lies and a lack of understanding fuelled by the right wing press

 

Oh well, we ALWAYS get the Government we deserve....

[jimsleftfoot]

Another familiar scaremongering tactic. No one is going to get a bill for the money. A successful company will pay more tax than you, for example, so it will not cost every man woman and child or working individual anything like what you say it will. What you need is for the company to continue to exist, which means you should vote Labour.

 

Was about to say the same thing, all they are doing is dividing a national debt by a number to get an amount. They could probably say that the debt equates to £100 or something per rose bush as frankly its about as useful.

[Stitch_KTF]

You mean "the Tories and the bankers"? That's alright, but I never had you down for one of them.

 

I agree you need to cut the deficit, but only so you can run another one up when the circumstances demand it. The difference is that Labour's current spending means that businesses can keep going. Take for instance the time-to-pay scheme, whereby HMRC forgoes immediate revenues so that businesses can keep going. If your business keeps going, you continue to employ people, sell things, and buy things. If you go under, people go on the dole, and you don't buy things from other people or produce them.

 

Not taking that revenue immediately means running up a deficit. Like I've said before, it's a question not of money but of priorities. The Tories want businesses to go under, Labour don't.

 

 

 

Another familiar scaremongering tactic. No one is going to get a bill for the money. A successful company will pay more tax than you, for example, so it will not cost every man woman and child or working individual anything like what you say it will. What you need is for the company to continue to exist, which means you should vote Labour.

 

Tories and bankers?

 

In my world, businesses dependant on government support aren't viable businesses. Maybe they would be if they weren't hindered by excessive red-tape and the vote-hoarding fantasy that is minimum wage?

 

 

What does slamming businessses for tax do to expand their employment offerings and productivity? It may well be that the man in the street doesn't get a tax bill but that's because he's not got a job!

 

 

Anyway, I can't much fault anyone with a reasoned basis for their support of any party. It's those who bleat "gimme gimme gimme" with no thought of where it comes from that I can't persevere. We're all fans of others spending lavishly for our own good, and on that basis I'd support Labour too if I wasn't so fearful of paying a heavy price for my greed tomorrow.

[Stitch_KTF]

Was about to say the same thing, all they are doing is dividing a national debt by a number to get an amount. They could probably say that the debt equates to £100 or something per rose bush as frankly its about as useful.

 

I had never realises that rose bushes were another source of tax revenue.

[Stitch_KTF]

£909,000,000,000...if you look at the crude calculators...

 

The gross amount of debt means feck all... Fact...

 

It's obvious you're of that impression otherwise you wouldn't vote Labour.

 

Another familiar scaremongering tactic. No one is going to get a bill for the money. A successful company will pay more tax than you, for example, so it will not cost every man woman and child or working individual anything like what you say it will. What you need is for the company to continue to exist, which means you should vote Labour.

 

So it will cost one fella nothing and another hard-working business owner £12k out of his dividend.

 

Sounds good for the fella with all. SOMETHING FOR NOTHING.

[oafc0000]

vote-hoarding fantasy that is minimum wage?

 

Annoys me when I read that given my mum used to get paid a terrible wage before NMW...

[jimsleftfoot]

I had never realises that rose bushes were another source of tax revenue.

 

Well VAT is charged on the sale of them, if you wish to import them you have to pay import duty and import VAT.

The fact is, its just a statistic that doesn't actually represent a true cost to the average person or indeed rose bush.

[oafc0000]

It's obvious you're of that impression otherwise you wouldn't vote Labour.

 

Its scary to think that in general the UK public have about as much grasp of the situation as you do....

 

You really think the Torys or any other party will reduce gross national debt ?

[leeslover]

Wrong... The bank bailout cost about £850B...

No they didn;t, you retard. I have explained this to you time and time again. If that were true, then would we have been £650 billion in surplus last year without them? Because that is the only conceivable logic to what you are saying. Stop talking arrant :censored: about the biggest problem facing this country.

[oafc0000]

No they didn;t, you retard. I have explained this to you time and time again. If that were true, then would we have been £650 billion in surplus last year without them? Because that is the only conceivable logic to what you are saying. Stop talking arrant :censored: about the biggest problem facing this country.

 

quite down Tory boy

 

You explanation was wollox... No need to name call...

Edited May 6, 2010 by oafc0000

[leeslover]

quite down Tory boy

 

You explanation was wollox... No need to name call...

I'm a libertarian, which is as far removed from being a Tory as you are. Now then, if Johnny has £10, and says to Billy that if Billy runs out of money he will give him £5, but Billy doesn;t run out of money, how much money does Johnny have?

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

Tories and bankers?

 

In my world, businesses dependant on government support aren't viable businesses. Maybe they would be if they weren't hindered by excessive red-tape and the vote-hoarding fantasy that is minimum wage?

 

 

What does slamming businessses for tax do to expand their employment offerings and productivity? It may well be that the man in the street doesn't get a tax bill but that's because he's not got a job!

 

 

Anyway, I can't much fault anyone with a reasoned basis for their support of any party. It's those who bleat "gimme gimme gimme" with no thought of where it comes from that I can't persevere. We're all fans of others spending lavishly for our own good, and on that basis I'd support Labour too if I wasn't so fearful of paying a heavy price for my greed tomorrow.

 

The HMRC time-to-pay scheme means that companies in trouble can effectively default on their tax bills without the revenue winding them up in court. That isn't Government support as in money handed out, it's support as in keep your business going lads, because that will cost us less in the long run.

 

Only 2.5 million unemployed in this, the deepest darkest recession of all time (caused by casino bankers). Every Tory recession meant 3 million unemployed, riots, social unrest, pure horror for the nation. But go ahead and vote Tory if you want. Vote in haste, repent at leisure! They don't care about you, but you seem to care a lot about them.

 

Strange.

[Stitch_KTF]

Annoys me when I read that given my mum used to get paid a terrible wage before NMW...

 

I understand your sentiment but, with all respect, she will have been paid what she was worth to her employer. If she was worth more then she could have left and earned more elsewhere.

 

Under minimum wage there is a quite reasonable chance that she would have lost her job.

 

 

 

Its scary to think that in general the UK public have about as much grasp of the situation as you do....

 

You really think the Torys or any other party will reduce gross national debt ?

 

Its scary to think that in general the UK public have about as much grasp of the situation as you do....

 

Not that I'm voting Conservative, but you don't think they will reduce it? If not, why keep slamming their proposed spending cuts? Or have they promised to decrease revenues also?

[oafc0000]

I understand your sentiment but, with all respect, she will have been paid what she was worth to her employer. If she was worth more then she could have left and earned more elsewhere.

 

Under minimum wage there is a quite reasonable chance that she would have lost her job.

 

Total bollox... It was the argument but forward by Torys back in 97 and it was as bollox then as it is now... Even Dave Moron admits it was bollox!!!

Edited May 6, 2010 by oafc0000

[oafc0000]

Its scary to think that in general the UK public have about as much grasp of the situation as you do....

 

Not that I'm voting Conservative, but you don't think they will reduce it? If not, why keep slamming their proposed spending cuts? Or have they promised to decrease revenues also?

 

WOW... Seriously, go and look into how National Debt works....

 

Gross debt means nothing, its all about context...

 

If any party manages to reverse national debt amount it would be nothing short of a miracle via god... Can they slow the rate at which debt increases and grow the economy ? You bet...

Edited May 6, 2010 by oafc0000

[leeslover]

It'l be reet, the Chinese will pay - and when they get wise to us we can, wait for it, PRINT MONEY! Just ask Wardle...

I liked that one as well. Why don;t they just print a couple of trillion extra and hand it around, then we'll all be rich!

[Stitch_KTF]

The HMRC time-to-pay scheme means that companies in trouble can effectively default on their tax bills without the revenue winding them up in court. That isn't Government support as in money handed out, it's support as in keep your business going lads, because that will cost us less in the long run.

 

Only 2.5 million unemployed in this, the deepest darkest recession of all time (caused by casino bankers). Every Tory recession meant 3 million unemployed, riots, social unrest, pure horror for the nation. But go ahead and vote Tory if you want. Vote in haste, repent at leisure! They don't care about you, but you seem to care a lot about them.

 

Strange.

 

Sounds like a good scheme, can't fault it.

 

 

Where has this notion that I'm voting Tory come from?

 

Also, what would Labour unemployment be without their obscene public sector and (arguably ridiculous) Higher Education policies. The Tories could have borrowed £100B+ per year, employed people where they aren't need and consequently lowered unemployment too.

 

Alas it would have been artificial and thus eventually detrimental, as it is today.

[Stitch_KTF]

Total bollox... It was the argument but forward by Torys back in 97 and it was as bollox then as it is now... Even Dave Moron admits it was bollox!!!

 

Really? So legislation alone can raise wages without having any impact on price and thus demand the of employees output/product?

 

If 'Dave Moron' said that then he is indeed a moron. Or more likely he's pandering to morons who believe your :censored:e in order to win votes in our fundamentally ridiculous political system.

 

 

If any party manages to reverse national debt amount it would be nothing short of a miracle via god...

 

Brilliant

 

So tell me, who can we attribute that too?? Or don't we ever have to pay it back? If we don't pay it back, which idiots will subsidise our lifestyle next?

 

 

 

The way you so quickly and regularly tie yourself up in knots is hilarious my friend. You're one of a kind.

[oafc0000]

Really? So legislation alone can raise wages without having any impact on price and thus demand the of employees output/product?

 

If 'Dave Moron' said that then he is indeed a moron. Or more likely he's pandering to morons who believe your :censored:e in order to win votes in our fundamentally ridiculous political system.

 

 

 

 

Brilliant

 

So tell me, who can we attribute that too?? Or don't we ever have to pay it back? If we don't pay it back, which idiots will subsidise our lifestyle next?

 

 

 

The way you so quickly and regularly tie yourself up in knots is hilarious my friend. You're one of a kind.

 

 

It is you my friend is in knots... Like I said, look into it a bit more than reading the Daily Mail

 

[Stitch_KTF]

 

It is you my friend is in knots... Like I said, look into it a bit more than reading the Daily Mail

 

I haven't even seen a Daily Mail since I was last waiting for fish in the chippy.

 

Now, maybe you could wriggle free enough to answer the questions I posed?

[jimsleftfoot]

I understand your sentiment but, with all respect, she will have been paid what she was worth to her employer. If she was worth more then she could have left and earned more elsewhere.

 

Under minimum wage there is a quite reasonable chance that she would have lost her job.

 

Or to put it another way, if the employer could get away with paying a rubbish wage he would. Proven throughout history and presently on half of this earth.

 

 

[oafc0000]

Or to put it another way, if the employer could get away with paying a rubbish wage he would. Proven throughout history and presently on half of this earth.

 

+1

[Stitch_KTF]

Or to put it another way, if the employer could get away with paying a rubbish wage he would. Proven throughout history and presently on half of this earth.

 

*looks at the ever increasing number of self-service checkouts at the likes of Tescos*

 

*Looks at the dole queue*

 

*rings council to complain and has a computer answer, despite them apparently having a bottomless pit of money with which to employ*

 

 

Instead of, like oafc0000, pointing out what Minimum Wage addresses in fantasy land, why not address the fundamental economics which it contradicts.

[oafc0000]

I haven't even seen a Daily Mail since I was last waiting for fish in the chippy.

 

Now, maybe you could wriggle free enough to answer the questions I posed?

 

Your question is bollox as well...

 

Some of the debt will be open ended and some of it will have tight conditions... It would be easier if you went and read up on national debt...

 

I know you don't understand it as you are pushing the line that the gross amount matters... It never has and never will...