The 2015 General Election

[darrenm]

 

Both sides have to prove legitimacy.

No, they don't.

A larger percentage vote will help them prove that.

Even if they did, it wouldn't.

 

 

I'm fairly new to this whole taking an interest in politics thing but everything I've read e.g. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32235317

 

The only test for whether a government can be formed is whether it has the confidence of the House of Commons.

In other words, can it assemble the votes it needs to get its programme of proposed new laws passed in the Queen's Speech? The date of the Queen's Speech is Wednesday, 27 May.

David Cameron may opt to remain in power and gamble on getting enough votes from other parties to get his programme passed. If he has already resigned and handed over to Ed Miliband, this will be the key test of whether the Labour leader can form a government.

 

So if Labour want to get the confidence of the House of Commons (prove legitimacy) then surely showing that a greater percentage voted for them would help things? 

[Demitri_C]

Firstly, that is only income tax

 

I know thats income tax im not thick thanks snowy

 

;

secondly, there will have been, as always in these scenarios, 'winners and losers' (factor in tax credit changes for a start);

 

Of course like those who get benefits cut and those that dont. Under some parties they don't want to cut benefits while others do there will be losers and winners

 

thirdly, it's potentially a quite worrying development when people conflate 'income tax' with 'tax' as it expands the band of people who are then no longer thought to be 'taxpayers' especially when the conversation comes around to representation and taxation.

 

 

Again Snowy I know as taxpayer I know what income tax is I thought you would have understood what kind of tax i was referring to when i was talking about peoples tax.

 

Its like inheritance tax they want to exclude people paying it if their property is worth x amount I think its up to 1 million pouns. That does not benefit the rich. In addition they introduced people not paying stamp duty if you were looking to purchase a proerty for first time buyers buying a "cheaper" property. This benefits the people on less income does it not? So I don't agree entirely its all for the rich. They have helped a bit. If its not enough fine I get that but people can't just say they have not helped the poor at all in my opinion 

[mykeyb]

I wonder if you went onto a Chelsea fans forum they would be more pro tory or labour than ours?

[rendelc]

Voted Tory

[snowychap]

I know thats income tax im not thick thanks snowy

I wasn't saying that you were but you did use the phrase 'taken them out of tax altogether'.

It's the phrase that Clegg, Cameron et al have been using throughout the parliament and it is incorrect. The implication is that those poor people (those with a low income) are not taxpayers and thus the politicians are not answerable to them (vfm for taxpayers, &c.).

 

Of course like those who get benefits cut and those that dont.

Benefits, tax credits and much more. This then throws further doubt upon your claim of helping those who earn less.

 

Again Snowy I know as taxpayer I know what income tax is I thought you would have understood what kind of tax i was referring to when i was talking about peoples tax.

See above. You don't seem to have understood the point I was making - that it is both incorrect and misleading to refer to people whose income is below the income tax allowance level as being taken out of tax altogether or, as HMRC unfortunately also does, as non taxpayers.

[Eames]

 

 

Both sides have to prove legitimacy.

No, they don't.

A larger percentage vote will help them prove that.

Even if they did, it wouldn't.

 

 

I'm fairly new to this whole taking an interest in politics thing but everything I've read e.g. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32235317

 

 

 

The only test for whether a government can be formed is whether it has the confidence of the House of Commons.

In other words, can it assemble the votes it needs to get its programme of proposed new laws passed in the Queen's Speech? The date of the Queen's Speech is Wednesday, 27 May.

David Cameron may opt to remain in power and gamble on getting enough votes from other parties to get his programme passed. If he has already resigned and handed over to Ed Miliband, this will be the key test of whether the Labour leader can form a government.

 

So if Labour want to get the confidence of the House of Commons (prove legitimacy) then surely showing that a greater percentage voted for them would help things? 

 

 

Owen Jones has been spouting this shite on social media for a few days now because the Tories used that argument last time in arguing that Brown should move aside even though he was within his rights to try and form a goverment. The Tories were wrong then and anyone using the same argument this time would also be wrong. 

 

 % of votes cast in a FPTP system is of secondary importance. The party with most seats could have fewer votes and yet still have sufficient MPs and hangers on to command the confidence of the Commons. 

 

Equally if she felt like it HM the Q can appoint anyone she feels like to be PM (she won't) without worrying about % vote or anything else. 

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

*makes list of those who voted tory and scuttles back under a rock*

[tonyh29]

*makes list of those who voted tory and scuttles back under a rock*

 

Make a note of those who voted Green whilst you are at it and then I'll get the bedlam van around to pick them up

[darrenm]

 

*makes list of those who voted tory and scuttles back under a rock*

 

Make a note of those who voted Green whilst you are at it and then I'll get the bedlam van around to pick them up

 

How's your box?

[Demitri_C]

 

I know thats income tax im not thick thanks snowy

I wasn't saying that you were but you did use the phrase 'taken them out of tax altogether'.

It's the phrase that Clegg, Cameron et al have been using throughout the parliament and it is incorrect. The implication is that those poor people (those with a low income) are not taxpayers and thus the politicians are not answerable to them (vfm for taxpayers, &c.).

 

Of course like those who get benefits cut and those that dont.

Benefits, tax credits and much more. This then throws further doubt upon your claim of helping those who earn less.

 

Again Snowy I know as taxpayer I know what income tax is I thought you would have understood what kind of tax i was referring to when i was talking about peoples tax.

See above. You don't seem to have understood the point I was making - that it is both incorrect and misleading to refer to people whose income is below the income tax allowance level as being taken out of tax altogether or, as HMRC unfortunately also does, as non taxpayers.

 

Fair enough mate

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

[Nicho]

Voted Labour,

 

Filling in my vote in pencil dosnt fill me with confidence

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

I was surprised about the pencil too, especially in this part of the world and our history of voting shenanigans...

[Eames]

Are you suggesting *Labour/LibDems/Ukip/The Tories (*delete as appropriate) are hanging around with a stash of rubbers to doctor ballot papers? 

[Rodders]

you don't have to use pencil by the way, you can use pen, live squid ink, dyed rat piss or fluorescent highlighters if you want, as long as you form a legible x within a box

[Eames]

Doesn't even have to be an x. As long as the counter can understand your intention you can use whatever symbol you like. 

[brommy]

Doesn't even have to be an x. As long as the counter can understand your intention you can use whatever symbol you like.

[Jon]

Doesn't even have to be an x. As long as the counter can understand your intention you can use whatever symbol you like. 

I'm going to draw a windmill next to the Greens

[islingtonclaret]

Reports of intimidation in Scotland coming from SNP fanatics. Don't know why they'd bother, they've got it in the bag.

 

On a side note, I voted Tory. I'm going to give myself a good wash when I get home

[Nicho]

Are you suggesting *Labour/LibDems/Ukip/The Tories (*delete as appropriate) are hanging around with a stash of rubbers to doctor ballot papers? 

No they out source to a company owned by Robert Mugabe