The Labour Party won the 2005 UK general election with 35.3% of the popular British vote. The Conservative Party was just a few points behind with points behind at 32.3% of the popular vote, but because of the first past the post voting system, the Labour Party had a significant majority with 356 parliamentary seats […]
Continue Reading General Election 2010 Poll Results
When a political party are constantly warning us that there are “dark clouds ahead”, does it not pay to at least listen even though they could be wrong. The global warming scandal, pensioners dying prematurely, the Iraq & Afghan wars, multiculturalism, the systematic breaking down of the British culture. Who do you think I’m going to vote for???
View Comment
General Election Poll
Why is the English Democrats (England parliament) not in your General Election poll? They are the 7th largest political party in England and the original English devolution party which is gaining popularity due to the Barnet Formula unfair share of public spending between England and the Celtic Nations.
View Comment
English Democrats Party in the 2005 General Election gained just 14,506 votes (0.1% of the popular vote), gained no MPs and in terms of the popular vote came 21st (20 parties with more votes).
When I started this general election poll I included the top 30 political parties (by popular vote), but at the time I didn’t consider how popular the poll or site would become or how a small number of activists for a small party could skew the results making the poll results worthless: at one point the BNP (used to be a poll option) had over 1/3rd of the vote because of a BNP campaign to send BNP supporters here to vote (made the poll worthless)!
To put it into perspective with 20,000 votes (that’s taken 6 months of visitors!) the English Democrats with 0.1% of the popular vote in 2005 would expect around 20 votes by now in this poll. It would be SO easy for a small party to skew the results.
For example if the English Democrats got all 120 of their candidates to vote in the poll it would suggest their support had increased 600% without a single ‘normal’ British voter, voting in the poll (not suggesting they’d do that, just an example).
The English Democrats Party are not a major force in British politics. If you plan to vote English Democrats in 2010 in the poll I’m afraid you’ll have to vote Other Political Party.
According to http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8526522.stm
“The party is planning to field 120 candidates at the general election. In last year’s European election, the party secured 1.8% of the vote.
It wants withdrawal from the European Union, more freedom from state control, and a separate parliament for England. ”
David
View Comment
I’ll be voting for the Cornish Democrats. They are campaigning on the sensible centre-right ground that the old-fashioned Tories used to occupy. Nice traditional values. Too bad that they are not standing throughout Britain.
# Labour Party – 35.3%
# Conservative Party – 32.3%
insanity. pure insanity. how many decades has it been now that these two parties have been vomiting all over this country?
I can’t bear the thought of Gordon Brown remaining as PM when he has done so much damage to this country both as Chancellor and PM. How many people actually voted for him as PM as a percentage of the population? Not many I suspect? Just a handful of the Labour party.
To guarantee this I will have to vote Conservative, although I secretly would like a hung parliament with the idea that Vince Cable could be Chancellor. Then we might really have a chance to get out of the financial mess we’re in.
View Comment
none of us voted for Brown Marie, he was given the job off Blair who told us what a good primeminister he would be, shows how much he knew, don’t be taken in by Cameron, he can talk the talk but thats all.
Are you suggesting if a prime minister stands down or dies a general election should be called no matter when the last general election was?
Our electoral system doesn’t work that way, we don’t vote in a US presidential fashion for the PM, we vote for the party and at the last general election Labour won and they decide who leads them and the country and right now it’s Gordon Brown (I happen to like him as a leader).
Even the US with their “man at the top is everything politics” they don’t call an election if a president stands down/dies it goes to the vice president.
Have you considered if the situation changed there would be a benefit in assassinating a Prime Minister, it would force a general election!
Do you really think with all the nutters in the world that hate us, that would be a good thing for British politics?
Have we ever had a PM assassinated?? The IRA almost got Thatcher.
Right now it wouldn’t make a great deal of difference who the PM is, you still have the same 650ish MPs in power doing the day to day parliamentary work.
Yes, who the PM is, is of course very important but we get to choose if we want a party with a particular leader at the helm at that time on election day and that’s how it should stay.
It could as others put it result in an unelected Prime Minister running the country for up to 5 years before the next election, but the alternative would be general elections more often! It’s bad enough now that governments don’t think long term because they only have 5 years to get things done. Anything less than 5 years is not enough time for a government to get it’s policies into legislation before the electorate vote again.
David
View Comment
point taken David, labour have had 13years to “get things done” how much time do they need to sort out the mess they have created? another 5years of labour is a pretty grim prospect, £1000 pound rise(which some have turned down)mind you there is a general election looming, just watched Brown visiting our troops in Afghanistan, just after the Iraq inquiry where he manage to avoid every question put him, how can anyone even consider voting for him, the guy has got a longer nose than Pinnochio!
View Comment
What an ignorant plonker you are. Brown and his ilk have got us in the s— again.
Wake up and smell the flowers or in this case the dung heap. Labour have never realy thought about the massive problems their policies create and cause. In the crap again just like 1979, 1970 and 1950 Is there a pattern here. Oh yes every time they have been in Government.
JW
View Comment
Why not instead of acting like an ignorant plonker by calling me an “ignorant plonker” you explain what you think was wrong with my argument?
David
Labour have, once again, totally destroyed our economy; just as they always do when they are in power. And for what? Social mobility is at its lowest since the 1960s. So if you are born poor, you will stay poor.
Labour have given the country tax credits in place of hope.
@ Robert Upton why have you got such a massive problem with Britain? Labour inherited a mess, hardly a country in pretty good shape. I love Great Britain and feel lucky to be living here; apart from the weather. A British person on TV this morning described Britain as a “sewer”. What are you people on? Get some perspective.
Also, what’s wrong with helping unemployed people? What’s wrong with supporting single mothers? Do you think all single mothers ask to be in that situation? Do you think all unemployed people are lazy? If you are a working man, what would happen if you lost your job? Would you expect the government to give you no help just to protect other people’s taxes?
View Comment
“Labour inherited a mess, hardly a country in pretty good shape” – they didn’t, the economy was in pretty good condition when they came to power. The recession (again global) of the early 1990’s had been over for some years and the country had recovered fairly quickly with a fall in unemployment.
Major factors in the Labour victory were that Tony Blair was very charismatic compared to John Major (who actually won an election in his own right) and Labour internally reformed; sleaze and a public opinion of a need to change after so many years of a Conservative government. Also Europe issues and the withdrawal of the ERM (which actually helped recovery of the recession).
“Also, what’s wrong with helping unemployed people?” – absolutely nothing as long as you’re helping them to get another job.
“What’s wrong with supporting single mothers?” – absolutely nothing provided that you’re not just encouraging them to have loads of children by lots of different fathers because it’s financially better for them to do so; also that the father’s are being forced to take financial responsibility for their offspring and that children are placed with the parent that are best able to provide for them.
“Do you think all single mothers ask to be in that situation?” – All? No. Some? Yes.
“Do you think all unemployed people are lazy?” – All? No, some? Yes
“If you are a working man, what would happen if you lost your job? Would you expect the government to give you no help just to protect other people’s taxes?” – No, I would expect the Government to help me for a short while so I could look for another job whilst also taking responsibility for myself by making sure that I was insured for the loss of income should I lose my job.
View Comment
“No, I would expect the Government to help me for a short while so I could look for another job whilst also taking responsibility for myself by making sure that I was insured for the loss of income should I lose my job.”
Although the right wing side of me agrees with this in principle, for it to work there needs to be at least hypothetically a job for everyone (or nearly everyone) and the left wing side knows there isn’t (~2.5 million unemployed).
No matter how well a country like ours does, there will always be unemployment.
I’ve not been in the job market for a while, (self employed about a decade and before that studying mostly), but I hear a lot of people in specific circumstances are finding it almost impossible to find a job despite wanting to work (so not talking about lazy people who don’t want to work and can starve for all I care).
Scenarios that come to mind are 50+ year old men, worked in one job most of their life, lost their job and though wanting to work are no longer attractive to the job market (the training/skills they have are not applicable to available jobs). Even with retraining who is going to hire a 50+ year old for a job when there are under 30 year olds available?
During the last recession an uncle of mine fell in that sort of scenario. Not very close to him, so don’t know the full details: He worked in the city (some kind of financial consultant), doing well until the recession hit, went from I think a £400,000 house to a council bedsit!
So yes in principal, but in reality we can’t remove the safety net as some will fall who do not deserve to.
Regarding “insured for the loss of income should I lose my job” what do you have in mind Sarah?
David
View Comment
David, I’m not sure what you meant with your last question..?
VoteNo and I had a discussion some time ago where we agreed that the system should be that you would get benefits for no longer than 6 months and after that your insurance would kick in to cover your costs of living.
The problem with the fact that there will always be the unemployed is that there are jobs out there it’s just that some either don’t want to do them or it’s not economical to take them under the present welfare system.
The UK relies on skilled labour coming in from outside (immigration) yet makes it so expensive for people already in the UK to study and train to fill those jobs. Isn’t that backward? There is high unemployment yet immigration is still relied upon due to the UK’s own barriers to gain the necessary qualifications.
View Comment
With 2.5 million unemployed are you suggesting the majority of the 2.5 million unemployed could get a job if the lazy ones wanted to work and the welfare system was harsher so taking a low paid job is better than living on benefits?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/5384516.stm It’s from 2006, but makes interesting reading especially as we know entrance to the UK is now harder.
It certainly dispels the myth that immigrant workers claim benefits and take council houses. Out of ~6000 claims from migrant workers for JSA/Income Support only 700 were deemed eligible. That’s for a 2 year period with up to a potential 400,000+ (600,000+ if self employed workers who don’t register are included in estimates) registered migrant workers: note it’s unlikely all those who registered to work here actually came to Britain, but if we assume 300,000 did work here only 700 claimed JSA/Income Support out of 300K.
That proves the vast majority of migrant workers pay their way while they live here. You might not agree with so many migrant workers taking jobs in Briton (I also have an issue with it), but the idea they are sponging off the system is total BS, they contribute to the economy.
It also says the vast majority of migrant workers are being paid close to the minimum wage. Why are British born workers not taking these jobs? I agree with the premise it would be better if British born workers took more of these jobs as 2.5 million claiming JSA is bad for the economy.
I’ll accept some unemployed people are lazy and not looking for work, I also accept some unemployed people won’t take a low paid job because it’s no better than claiming benefits. As a side note it was even worse under the Conservatives and I’m talking from personal experience. When I was studying to go to University, but wasn’t actually a student in the eyes of the Conservative government and had to claim unemployment benefit to survive. I was studying full time while claiming (was a mature student, no facility for me to be a student doing A-Levels and OU courses with a young family). Took a job for a 6 week period for the experience (working in a hospital lab, looked good on my CV and University application). Despite working full time for those 6 weeks, we were worse off (around £10 worse of a week if I recall correctly) than on benefits! So if it wasn’t for the experience I couldn’t have taken such a low paid job (there was no minimum wage back then). Today minimum wage and tax credits would make working that job worthwhile relative to JSA/Income Support.
Anyway, what I won’t accept is the premise the majority of the 2.5 million unemployed fall into those two categories (lazy and not able to take low paid work). I believe the vast majority are looking for work, but for whatever reason not finding it.
Take a read of
“About 70 per cent of claimants were still leaving JSA within six months.”
Even now 70% of the unemployed find work within 6 months during a recession.
Look at the long term unemployed graph:
People who have been unemployed for more than 12 months has doubled, but it’s ~650,000 out of 2.5 million, so even if you assume they are all layabouts who don’t want work, we have over 1.8 million who are wanting to work and will probably find work in the next 12 months (70% in 6 months).
And there’s this:
“In January only about 4 per cent of JSA claimants under 25 were unemployed for more than 12 months, but for the over-50s the figure was 21 per cent.”
The perception of the long term unemployed being young layabouts is wrong. 96% of the long term unemployed are over 25 years of age with the over 50s having real problems as you might expect (will need retraining, employers less likely to hire).
The truth is pretty much the opposite of what you are suggesting Sarah, the majority of unemployed people are actively seeking work and over 70% will find work within 6 months of becoming unemployed.
When those people find work they’ll be replaced by more unemployed people, with the numbers unemployed likely to go up in the short term (estimates of unemployment peaking at 2.9 million) and down in the long term.
Of course there will be some who take advantage of the system, but it’s clear from the numbers it’s the minority not the majority and parliament legislates for the majority.
David
View Comment
I’m feeling quite misunderstood here!!
Did I actually say that ALL (2.4 million) the unemployed were lazy and didn’t want to take low paid jobs?? I’m sure I didn’t. I think I have always suggested that there is a core number of people who really don’t want to work because they are lazy.
I believe I have said / implied that support should be given to those who need it to gain employment. I agree that not everyone claims for long periods of time but just until they get themselves sorted out.
I remember a friends mother many years ago, being told she was starting work in PC World the next day because she had been claiming for so long and if she didn’t turn up she didn’t get a penny in benefits again!
I believe I said something along the lines of under the present welfare system people don’t want to take low-paid jobs because they are financially better off not doing so. Is that a good system? Where it’s better to be on welfare doing nothing than take a job and possibly get further employment opportunities? It’s far easier to get another better paid job when you already have one than when you don’t. Welfare shouldn’t be a choice.
“You might not agree with so many migrant workers taking jobs in Briton (I also have an issue with it), but the idea they are sponging off the system is total BS, they contribute to the economy.” – What statement exactly are you responding to here?
View Comment
Please read my comment again, I didn’t say you said all unemployed people are lazy. I said it sounded like you were suggesting the majority of the 2.5 million are either lazy (work shy) OR not able to take low paid work because they’d basically loose benefits (welfare more lucrative than working).
That’s clearly two categories of unemployed people, not just lazy.
I accept I didn’t make it clear what I meant, I should have said:
“With 2.5 million unemployed are you suggesting the majority of the 2.5 million unemployed could get a job **within 6 months** if the lazy ones wanted to work and the welfare system was harsher so taking a low paid job is better than living on benefits?”
Or I could have used the number 750,000 as that’s the number of people currently unemployed for over 6 months.
So I meant the majority of those who haven’t found work within a reasonable period of time, (6 months) of being unemployed.
Is that what you are suggesting?
I believe you mentioned 6 months of help then insurance should take over? that’s why I’ve used the 6 month time scale, personally I’d see long term as over 12 months.
Implication being you want government to remove support for unemployed people who fail to find work within 6 months?
For a system like that to work two things would have to be in place. First that the vast majority of the unemployed can in fact find a job within 6 months and second everyone takes out unemployment insurance (would have to be compulsory, otherwise people will fall through the system).
If my understanding of your earlier comments were correct: you think most of the unemployed who are still out of work after 6 months either don’t want a job (work shy) or refuse to take a low paid job (not better off money wise than on benefits), by removing benefits at 6 months the lazy ones would be forced to find work and the ones ‘stuck on benefits’ would be forced to take any job they could find?
Based on the FT article I linked to that’s currently 30% of the unemployed would not be entitled to help under your system!
How many of the 30% do you think fall within the work shy or won’t take a job because of benefits categories?
There are currently around 750,000 people who have been unemployed over 6 months.
You can’t believe all of them could find work if they wanted to within 6 months?
At least 5% of the 30% find work within a further 6 months, so I think we can assume they aren’t work shy/stuck on benefits, they couldn’t find a job.
Lets assume it is as low as 5% that are the real long term unemployed (unemployed over 6 months), what are those current ~125,000 (that’s 5% of the unemployed today) people do when it comes to buying food for their kids etc…?
Sarah you seem to be wanting government to remove the safeguards we have so the minority of those who abuse the system don’t get away with it!
I accept there will be those who are work shy and others who won’t take a job because relative to benefits it’s not worthwhile. I can’t see it being a high % though.
From the media I’d got the perception there was a LOT of young people who are long term unemployed and sponging off the tax payer, but the numbers say otherwise! The under 25s are less likely to be long term unemployed than anyone else. If a system like yours was brought in, it would be the over 25s who are the vast majority (96%) of the long term unemployed that would suffer the most.
In your latest comment you’ve confirmed you did mean the ‘stuck on benefits’ part, though not how many of the unemployed fall into this category in your opinion. Please correct me if I’ve misunderstood what you meant.
BTW don’t read me wrong on this, if unemployed people are work shy they don’t deserve a penny of our taxes and if unemployed people are refusing to take low paid work because they are better off on benefits**, again they don’t deserve our taxes.
** If you understood the current benefits system you’d realise it’s now almost impossible to be worse off in work than on benefits. You could argue not being significantly better off working than on benefits for some situations, but I don’t think you’ll find a scenario where a low paid job at minimum wage has a person worse off than on benefits now. Under the Conservatives with no minimum wage you’d have been right when you still lived in the UK.
David
View Comment
David,
“If my understanding of your earlier comments were correct: you think most of the unemployed who are still out of work after 6 months either don’t want a job (work shy) or refuse to take a low paid job (not better off money wise than on benefits), by removing benefits at 6 months the lazy ones would be forced to find work and the ones ’stuck on benefits’ would be forced to take any job they could find?”
Goodness me, that’s a really harsh glare on it!! I think I said that there is a core of people who don’t want to work and have never have. I stick by my comment that some people consider themselves better off on benefits and really don’t want to work and that welfare should be a back-up only not a lifestyle choice.
If the tax credit system makes you better off by enabling you to take the (low paid) jobs on offer why are people not taking them? If you’re saying that you went into your local job centre and there were no jobs advertised at all then I would revisit my thinking.
I believe I said that you would get benefits for up to 6 months and then your (compulsory) insurance would then compensate you. Income policies generally run from 6 months to 2 years I believe. So in effect, yes, the Government would be removing support after a period of time particularly if the tax credit system compensates you to take a lower paid job even for the short term.
I am personally amazed by some of the barriers that people will put up themselves to not take a job and genuinely consider themselves disadvantaged because they can’t be bothered to even attempt re-arrange themselves accordingly.
Won’t consider working outside their immediate area or moving to another area for employment; won’t accommodate shift work; won’t consider a job that’s lower paid than the one they had before even temporarily; not a chance if it’s more than one bus journey. I heard some of these from my own brother-in-law.
View Comment
@ Sarah In the Desert. When I say Labour inherited a mess, I don’t simply mean regarding the economy. I unlike you and some other posters, do not obsess over and base my entire political thinking on the economy and the EU. You can argue with me until you are blue in the face about these issues and it won’t change the fact that my value system is different to yours, and it always will be. Frankly the country would be in debt regardless of who was in charge, so I don’t spend too much time milling it over as to me, it’s a problem that can never be solved. That’s global capitalism, it will always be like this, and we will always be lucky to live in the UK. When I say Labour inherited a mess, I am talking about what I feel is most important. The last time I checked, this forum was about who we are going to vote for and why, not about economic strategy. Public services, and most importantly, the NHS are unrecognisable now compared to in 1997, and I have personal experience of this. For example people used to wait for CABGs (heart bypasses) for several years in those days, and many people died waiting. When I left the NHS in 2006, this wait had reduced to 12 weeks. Life and death. You see, what’s important to me is simply different to what’s important to you (or at least what you choose to post about). Isn’t it interesting that the people with more Tory leaning posts are the ones which seem to be largely about money $$$$$$$$$.
You write: “What’s wrong with supporting single mothers?” – absolutely nothing provided that you’re not just encouraging them to have loads of children by lots of different fathers because it’s financially better for them to do so; also that the father’s are being forced to take financial responsibility for their offspring and that children are placed with the parent that are best able to provide for them.” I thought the CSA already were forcing fathers to take financial responsibility for their children where possible. What welfare model would you apply to support single mothers? Many are in that situation through no fault of their own, they work, pay taxes and should not be denied support just because there are others that abuse the system.
The insurance you suggest in case you lost your job; are you seriously suggesting that low income families should be taking out private insurance in case the lose their jobs?
View Comment
Helen, your little world sounds great but I live in the real world.
My whole thinking is about what is fair and what is right for the majority not the minority and giving everyone a say on what is best for the country.
I don’t believe it’s fair for those people who work really bloody hard to fund people who make really stupid and selfish lifestyle choices.
The CSA is a joke and a really poor argument for forcing some fathers to pay (when some are already claiming benefits and working cash-in-hand). The CSA doesn’t work for a lot of parents, they can’t guarantee regular maintenance and certainly can’t chase errant parents across borders.
Just to give you a little perspective on single parenting; at the end of 1997, I became a single parent to my daughter, my first husband died suddenly whilst I was 4 months pregnant. I worked 60 hours per week until 8 months pregnant (saving to pay for my maternity leave) as I was only entitled statutory maternity pay for my leave as I was contracting (admin and secretarial at that time so not highly paid either). I had to go back to work when my daughter was 8 weeks old, she wasn’t even sleeping through the night.
I was told by the local (Labour) DSS office that I wasn’t entitled to any kind of help because I lived in my own home which was mortgaged, I ran a car because I needed it to be able to get to work as well as collecting and picking up my child. They told me to sell up, apply for either housing benefit or a council property and stop work.
That first year, Labour abolished the single parents tax allowance and MIRAS (tax relief) on mortgages. I worked hard to support myself and my daughter and I didn’t get any help from the Government to do it and managed to keep a roof over our heads.
I would support single parents through tax allowances and maintenance paid directly through the tax system from the other parent. I would also make it clear that there would be a limit on the number of children that the Government is prepared to pay for. I wouldn’t necessarily give custody to the mother either, it would be the parent best able to provide for the children.
“Isn’t it interesting that the people with more Tory leaning posts are the ones which seem to be largely about money $$$$$$$$$” – too right! We work hard for what we have, not relying on the Government to top up our incomes!
As far as the NHS goes, in my opinion, it should now be for emergencies, people should be penalised financially for treatments given due to self-inflicted ailments (heavily obese smokers and heavy drinkers?) and people should be made to take more responsibility for themselves. I’ve had 3 minor operations in the last 2 years paid for by Bupa through our own insurance – I took responsibility!
View Comment
@Sarah I notice you are happy to talk about your own circumstances whilst casting dispersions on me and ‘my little world’ whilst knowing absolutely nothing about me. In 1997 why did you associate your DSS office with Labour? If you can’t respect other people’s opinion and my perspective (and that the forum is about how we form our own political opinions) then what is the point in reading it and posting on it?
You write about “…what is fair and what is right for the majority not the minority.”
When you talk about the majority, do you mean the same ‘stupid population’ you refer to in another post? You have been reliant on private healthcare, private insurance, which is your right, but if you had the ability to relate to ‘the majority’, you would realise that BUPA cover is not exactly fair game for most normal people.
When you say the NHS should be just for emergencies, are you suggesting people with long term conditions should be excluded from state funded healthcare?
View Comment
Helen,
“I notice you are happy to talk about your own circumstances whilst casting dispersions on me and ‘my little world’ whilst knowing absolutely nothing about me.”
You’re a UK based health worker, so assuming public sector? You think it’s in your interests for Labour to stay in power as they are the source of your income and you believe they will stay true to the NHS. You’ve quite possibly enjoyed above the national average pay increases since 1997. I’m an expat keeping out of the way until Labour are out!
“In 1997 why did you associate your DSS office with Labour?” It was a strong Labour run council and Labour had just come to power.
“When you talk about the majority, do you mean the same ’stupid population’ you refer to in another post?” Unfortunately, yes. People have short memories and tend to vote for the party that they believe will make their own lives better without actually looking at the finer detail of how the prospective Government would go about it, what they have previously promised and reneged on and at what cost it would be further in the future.
You’re correct, Bupa cover isn’t cut out for everyone and the NHS should be very thankful that people like us have it and don’t drain the service instead of getting the hump and treating us like dirt when we are about to be transferred!
I will stick with my point that people should take more responsibility for themselves and their health.
This doesn’t include those with hereditary or long-term illnesses that are through no fault. The NHS needs to change, it’s a money drain, it’s abused and it’s too big; the NHS is absolutely brilliant for emergencies and can’t be faulted. Those people who have already paid into it for their working lives should be entitled to it’s full use but this should now be scaled back. I have an ideal but it would involve writing a manifesto that I just don’t have time to do!
“If you can’t respect other people’s opinion and my perspective (and that the forum is about how we form our own political opinions) then what is the point in reading it and posting on it?” I originally answered your first post quite factually upon which you came back with some wishy washy paragraph about how it wasn’t what you meant and you were talking about your values not the economy and the EU.
People read this forum and form opinions hopefully based on fact which wasn’t what you were giving out with the “Labour inherited a mess”, you didn’t really give any fact at all about “the mess” apart from waiting lists on the NHS.
I am not ashamed of where I came from to the life that I have now – we have a wonderful life (which we didn’t have in the UK) because we educated ourselves, took opportunities, took risks, made sacrifices and worked really hard.
View Comment
@ Sarah in the desert
“…too right! We work hard for what we have, not relying on the Government to top up our incomes!”
But you were criticising the government for not giving you the income support you felt you needed in 1997? You wanted your income to be topped up then and were rightly aggrieved when it wasn’t. Now you don’t need those benefits, you disagree with their availability to others.
View Comment
If you read my post fully then you will notice that I was aggrieved because I was working yet I was being told that I should give up and that it was financially better for me to do so as I wasn’t entitled to any kind of help to encourage me to stay in work and pay tax.
I actually support helping people to work, I don’t support helping people to stay at home.
View Comment
How long is it since you lived in the UK Sarah?
I ask because many of your perceptions are way out of date, “Conservative government to blame” out of date!
Today as a single working mother you’d be entitled to working tax credits and child tax credits and I believe the Homeowner Mortgage Support Scheme (although I recall reading that’s not been taken up by many people!) where some of the mortgage interest is offset for 2 years. Then there’s child care costs to help parents afford child care so they can afford to work.
You’d have been much better off under the current system than the old Conservative system that made it even harder to take a low paid job as there was no minimum wage and little support (like tax credits) for families on low pay.
Working tax credit and child tax credits help families help themselves and as you said in an earlier comment, when in work it’s easier to find higher paid work than when unemployed.
This is exactly the sorts of things government should be doing to make taking a low paid job worthwhile and the Conservatives want to decrease the number of families entitled to claim working tax credit and child tax credits.
I know you’ve said you are probably going to vote UKIP, but I keep seeing you voting Conservative when I read your comments, which is why I keep using the Labour vs Conservative comparison. I suppose UKIP are pretty much the Eurosceptic Conservatives anyway, so not too far off :-))
David
View Comment
I know what you are saying; I earnt 4.35 per hour as a single parent during the day and I worked 3 evenings a week waitressing as well and still managed without having to rely on money from Government.
A better tax allowance would have been nicer and simpler to administer but in the end I didn’t get it and it wouldn’t have done me any huge favours anyway because having it so hard inspired me to improve my education and get better paid jobs. I was fortunate enough to meet my husband as well whilst getting the better paid jobs! :-)
View Comment
I have always voted Conservative but I am voting UKIP. I just think that the issue of the EU is so fundamental to the future of the UK and its people and to be denied a say in it is completely wrong.
Two extracts from a speech by Margaret Thatcher in 1991:
“The summary of the documents for the forthcoming Luxembourg Council—I have not seen the full documents, because they came too late, and I share the views of those who protested that they were not available—reveals a quite different destiny for Europe from any that we were ever given to expect when we went in.”
“The fact is that majority voting means that we give the Community the right to impose on the British people laws with which the House—the elected representatives—may fundamentally disagree.”
https://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/108276
I find this horrifying.
View Comment
“I was told by the local (Labour) DSS office that I wasn’t entitled to any kind of help because I lived in my own home which was mortgaged, I ran a car…”
Sarah, Labour had only just come into power in 1997 so the treatment you received was at the hands of Conservative policy and legislation (it’s different now).
What you just did was the equivalent of if the Conservatives win the general election and June this year blaming the Conservatives for anything you disagree with in the country when it’s too soon to blame a new government. They need at least a couple of years to change legislation etc… things don’t change over night!
Also it wouldn’t have mattered if your local council was run by an independent, they still have to follow what the government puts into legislation and in 1997 the relevant legislation was from the Conservative government.
If you went to the government for help today, with a similar situation you’d be treated much better since Labour’s had over 10 years to bring in new legislation that protects more people in need than the previous Conservative government.
Sarah, if you were a Conservative voter, that would be an own goal :-)
Your recent comments are very “Deep Blue” if you know what I mean.
David
View Comment
David,
You made me stop and think there and recall all those years before! You’re right, the Conservatives did abolish the lone parents tax allowance but replaced it with Family Credit which Labour then abolished and replaced with Working Tax Credits but there was a full year gap in between of no help to work at all which was down to Labour, the woman was very sympathetic when she was telling me!! I was just so angry at the suggestion that I would be better off giving up my self-respect to let the Government look after me.
I just remember having a really tough year of working long hours and paying a fortune in childcare. My actual point there anyway apart from having a dig at Labour was the fact that single parents shouldn’t be able to just live off the state and have loads of kids, I didn’t earn a lot and didn’t have the luxury of even sporadic maintenance!
“Your recent comments are very “Deep Blue” if you know what I mean” – I know! Scaring myself really!! Still going to go with UKIP though! If Margaret Thatcher was leader of the Conservatives I would vote for her, she made tough decisions, took responsibility for them and the fears she had for the country have come to pass.
View Comment
Helen, I think you need to get some perspective. Obviously you are reading the wrong surveys regarding unmarried mothers:- Britain having the highest margin. Unemployed, income support, incapacity benifit. The lists are endless. If your a tax payer Ms Helen and I suspect your not, you will be in earnest about trying to get the bulk of the lazy B……s back into meaningful employment so they can start supporting the real needy cases like the seriously ill the pensioners who essentially are being robbed by this Government.
Incidentally, this Government inherited a very stable economy in 1997. Interesting to note also that in 1992 Labour, when in opposition, commissioned a survey about how much Tax is hived off from a single pound. It demonstrated that the Tax element was 82pence. Since labour came to power it has gone up to 91.5 pence. Any idiot will tell you, allow people to keep more of thier disposable income, especially employers they will make the money markets go round. Employing more people paying tax and NI. So why do every Labour Governments doctrine demand that wealth making section of the country should be screwed for everything they can. It’s psuedo communism and look what happened to that!
JW
View Comment
Do you have a source for the tax surveys you refer to?
David
@ John Liddle “Obviously you are reading the wrong surveys regarding unmarried mothers:- Britain having the highest margin.” How does this bare any relevance to anything I’ve posted?
“If your a tax payer Ms Helen and I suspect your not, you will be in earnest about trying to get the bulk of the lazy B……s back into meaningful employment so they can start supporting the real needy cases like the seriously ill the pensioners who essentially are being robbed by this Government.”
John unlike Lord Ashcroft, I’m a UK based health worker and therefore pay UK tax. Can you clarify why you assume I don’t pay tax? My Dad works in a centre which gives people advice and skills to find new meaningful employment. I feel this is a great use of resources. What do you suggest we do to these people as they try to find work? Remove benefits altogether?
View Comment
@ George2 So you don’t think Gordon Brown should be visiting the troops in Afghanistan? Our troops are engaged in a vital operation which could make or break the conflict, and you think the PM should keep out of it? If he doesn’t go, he is an unsupportive PM, if he goes, it is cynical. The guy can’t win.
@ Hoppy If we really had a ‘destroyed economy’, would we not all be begging on the street, or looting shops rather than sat in our comfy homes tapping away on our laptops? Looking at the situation with a little less hysteria, would reveal that the UK is undergoing an economical downturn, in common with all other Western societies. Fancy that. How dare the government not have made us uniquely immune from the global downturn.
If you are born poor, often you do stay poor, and that is the nature of capitalism. The question is, which policies help even out opportunities. I can only speak for my own situation. Surestart is a Labour programme, which has directly helped my family enabling single parents to work, one of many reasons why I vote Labour. I suppose this is one of the things you hold responsible for ‘destroying the economy’.
View Comment
Hi Helen,
Unfortunately Gordon has destroyed the economy.
I remember seeing him on TV a few years ago standing outside a new shopping centre smiling and saying how strong the UK economy was. The sad fact is that our economy was built on borrow and spend (borrow money from China to buy Chinese goods)
The government could have stopped the run-away house market (by applying capital gains tax on any profit or by taxing house purchases at say 17.5%) They didn’t even when it was obvious that the housing market was completely out of control. When people start making more money from their houses than their salaries something is VERY VERY wrong. (we had .com then we had .house)
Gordon PERSONALLY decided that it was wise to DUMP a large proportion of the countries gold depots on the world market causing gold prices to crash to a 20 year low (a value now known as Browns Bottom — don’t believe me check out Wikipedia). This had personally cost every man woman and child in the UK something like 80 quid. Well done Gordon.
I am forever amazed what various people blame the Tories for. “Thatcher destroyed the British ship industry” (If she did then she must also have been responsible for the death for virtually ALL large ship building in all countries except South Korea, China and Japan (at one stage Sweden was filling the Baltic Sea with brand new over priced ships no one wanted, then the Swedish shipping industry collapsed). Same is true for coal and several other industries.
I think it is amazing that Brown has the cheek to blame the banks for all the financial mess (I work in the telecoms industry and have no connection to the banking industry at all). The government has personally borrowed money like there is no tomorrow. I am not surprised that Brown refused a vote of EURO membership since sure as heck we couldn’t (now) meet the membership entry requirements. Since Brown became PM the pound has dropped by 34% against the Euro, 31% against the US dollar and a mammoth 82% against the Japanese Yen. The truth is at Britain now owes so much due to the way that labour has wrecked the economy the ONLY option is to follow Zimbabwe’s lead and devalue (expect inflation to take off within the next year). Currently the government debt per citizen is about 13800 quid (yep that’s the amount owed by every single man/woman and child in the uk)
View Comment
@ James Bateman “I am forever amazed what various people blame the Tories for. “Thatcher destroyed the British ship industry”
Thatcher destroyed the communities which relied heavily on shipbuilding and mining, by turning her back on them. You may be fortunate enough not to have been witness to this. If you want a balanced view on what happened in these communities, why not listen to some stories from people who actually experienced the decline, rather than formulating your own hypothesis based on the economic decline of the industry itself. You are talking about $$$$$, the reasons for the global decline of those industries, and seem apathetic to the experiences of the communities involved, and how little Thatcher wanted to help them. The bitterness towards her relates more to the lack of empathy than anything else.
View Comment
Completely agree.
Each time Labour leave office they leave a crappy economy / country and the Tories end up having to make all the really nasty decisions to get it back on track and then the stupid population have had enough of dealing with getting the country back on track and vote Labour back in to do it all again!
Margaret Thatcher became so unpopular because of the things that people are now moaning about. She was unhappy at the prospect of further integration in Europe; immigration; and wanting to scale back the public sector and welfare system.
View Comment
@Helen If we really had a ‘destroyed economy’, would we not all be begging on the street, or looting shops rather than sat in our comfy homes tapping away on our laptops? ….
—
Gordon constantly told us that Britain was better placed, and the strongest G7 country to deal with the downturn. (Quote “I also believe that Britain is better placed than most to withstand the global turbulence because of the decisions that we have made both recently and in the past” —
Unfortunately the truth is that (amazingly) Australia never went into a recession, and countries such as US, France, Germany, Japan, New Zealand (and just about every other country on the planet) were ALL out of recession months before the UK.
So it seems that Browns special recession busting schemes (such as cutting VAT which I know was heavily criticised by Vince Cable and but several German ministers) weren’t exactly very clever (I wonder how much that cost them in lost taxes).
Unfortunately I believe the UK voters are left to vote for one party run by an one-eyed Scottish idiot (/dictator/bully), and another by someone who just smiles and say yes (Blair Mark II)
View Comment
@ James Bateman
“one-eyed Scottish idiot”, you have undone all of your rational argument by that babyish comment: nice one.
From someone who thinks Thatcher is blameless with regards to the decline of British shipbuilding and coal mining communities, you can’t legitimately call anyone an an idiot.
View Comment