Bollitics: VT General Election Poll #2

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

I think what Tony is adovcating is personal responsibility in the sphere of parenting. Not exactly a bad idea, is it?

Personal responsibility is one thing, judging it on ones fiscal status is quite another.

It's complete bollocks.

[Gringo]

Cons will protect the rich and make the poor poorer they haven't changed one little bit. I am voting Labour.

Whereas labour have changed quite a lot.

[avfc89]

Cons will protect the rich and make the poor poorer they haven't changed one little bit. I am voting Labour.

Whereas labour have changed quite a lot.

I'm not saying Labour are great, politics is bollocks anyway. I just don't trust Cameron or his cronies. He won't get in up here anyway.

[kidlewis]

Cons will protect the rich and make the poor poorer they haven't changed one little bit. I am voting Labour.

well Labour have failed in that department as well.

[kidlewis]

I think what Tony is adovcating is personal responsibility in the sphere of parenting. Not exactly a bad idea, is it?

Personal responsibility is one thing, judging it on ones fiscal status is quite another.

It's complete bollocks.

I'm of the opinion that it doesn't matter what social class you are from. But if apathy leads you to not working and therefore living off benefits because it's the lazy option, and then you decide to have children as well. Then you're an idiot.

If however you cannot find work and never have been able to, then there is not really much choice in terms of whether you can provide for a family or not.

[Guest Ricardomeister]

I think what Tony is adovcating is personal responsibility in the sphere of parenting. Not exactly a bad idea, is it?

Shouldn't personal responsibility also be advocated for many of the rich to pay their taxes and not move money abroad to fund their selfish, greedy lifestyles?

[kidlewis]

I think what Tony is adovcating is personal responsibility in the sphere of parenting. Not exactly a bad idea, is it?

Shouldn't personal responsibility also be advocated for many of the rich to pay their taxes and not move money abroad to fund their selfish, greedy lifestyles?

If they move their money abroad then yes.

If they move abroad as well then it's fair enough.

[Guest Ricardomeister]

And here is another reason the Tories will not get my vote....in addition to their policies on Inheritance Tax, selling cheap bank shares and fox murdering...they are reported as fast tracking £1 billion of taxpayers money to Equitable Life members, which will not be means tested! As the huge majority of Equitable Life members are from the richest section of society it is yet another example of the Tories helping their mates to the detriment of the plebs!

[snowychap]

As the huge majority of Equitable Life members are from the richest section of society it is yet another example of the Tories helping their mates to the detriment of the plebs!

Ian Pearson, Treasury minister, is quoted here:

Mr Pearson was asked whether he thought that some people are unsympathetic to Equitable customers because they believe they are likely to be wealthy, middle class and less in need of help

He replied: "There may be some public perception that that is the case, but looking at the people who write to me as a minister and an MP, they are many people who you would not consider rich at all and who have faced very straitened circumstances as a result of their policies being changed."

[Awol]

I think what Tony is adovcating is personal responsibility in the sphere of parenting. Not exactly a bad idea, is it?

Shouldn't personal responsibility also be advocated for many of the rich to pay their taxes and not move money abroad to fund their selfish, greedy lifestyles?

If that was a personal dig then the idea that I'm rich (or even well off) is jeffing hilarious! I moved abroad to work, not live it up. However if your comment refers to non doms who actually live in the UK but keep their wealth beyond the reach of HMRC, then yes, I quite agree.

Back to the post that you've quoted, do you think that chavish baby machines have a right to produce a large family that they cannot afford, then expect people who actually work for a living (and support their own families) to pay for it?

Cons will protect the rich and make the poor poorer they haven't changed one little bit. I am voting Labour.

Hang on dude, what you say the Tories will do is exactly what Labour have been doing for the last thirteen years! You ignore what Labour have done and say that is what the Tories will do as a justification for not voting for them. I'm not trying to say who you should vote for, just that you seem a bit blinkered to reality.

Personal responsibility is one thing, judging it on ones fiscal status is quite another.

It's complete bollocks.

Not if that involves living beyond one's means and firing out a big brood of kids that you simply can't afford to look after. How is it my, or your, or anyone else's job to fund someone's lifestyle choice?

I'm not against child benefit but I would restructure it so that it's paid in full for the first two children, at 50% for a third child and 0% for any subsequent children. That would force people to be more responsible, without taking away the opportunity for everyone to receive some State assistance with raising a family.

If you want to have more than three kids then you should be able to pay for them yourself and if you can't, then don't. Personal responsibility, innit?

The problem as I see it is that people now regard the State as a surrogate parent, removing the necessity to take control and responsibility for their own economic affairs. This is pretty much the opposite mindset of the generation that fought WW2 who believed in self reliance and represents an explosion of the Welfare State. To coin a phrase, many people vote for Mr Most and politicians desperate to enrich themselves in power will offer the moon on a stick. Eventually it will royally screw us all but hey, we're entitled to it, right?

[Guest Ricardomeister]

Awol, my post was certainly not a personal dig as firstly I have no idea what your circumstances are and, more importantly, I am not that childish. My post was aimed at non doms in general, and also the rich who use tax loopholes to avoid paying tax. If I were lucky enough to be in their position I would consider myself a traitor if I didn't pay my tax in the same way as "ordinary" people.

Of course the baby machines should not be allowed to keep pumping them out. I have said plenty of times that imo child benefit should be stopped after the 2nd child (unless you have triplets/quads etc on the first birth!). The question of those people who choose to rely on the welfare state (ie the workshy, not the genuinely disabled) is another issue that has to be addressed, and is 1 of the reasons that would make me less likely to vote Labour.

[Guest Ricardomeister]

As for the Treasury Minister saying it is a public misconception about how rich most Equitable Life customers are, having worked in the industry for several years, dealing with plenty of transfers from Equitable Life (the average transfer I would guess at about £100,000 plus a few hundred pounds in monthly premiums) and having friends who worked as advisers for Equitable Life, I can assure the liar (oops sorry, I mean Minister!) that from our experiences the huge majority of Equitable Life policyholders are very wealthy people (ie businessmen, accountants, solictors etc). I certainly never came across any Equitable Life clients paying £20 a month into their pension!

[snowychap]

As for the Treasury Minister saying it is a public misconception about how rich most Equitable Life customers are, having worked in the industry for several years, dealing with plenty of transfers from Equitable Life (the average transfer I would guess at about £100,000 plus a few hundred pounds in monthly premiums) and having friends who worked as advisers for Equitable Life, I can assure the liar (oops sorry, I mean Minister!) that from our experiences the huge majority of Equitable Life policyholders are very wealthy people (ie businessmen, accountants, solictors etc). I certainly never came across any Equitable Life clients paying £20 a month into their pension!

According to the Equitable Members Action Group (who, admittedly, might be biased) submission to the ombudsman:

Policyholders

Nine tenths of policyholders were saving for their retirement or had retired. As a result of the

Treasury/FSA cover-up and delaying action, most of those who suffered the big policy value cuts are now

in their sixties and many in their seventies and eighties, many are infirm and some have died. The 500,000

direct savers had an average investment of £46,000 in Equitable Life, the million people whose retirement

investment was via group schemes had an average of only £4,000.

I can't, as yet, find anything on the ombudsman's website which contradicts that, though there may be something.

[leviramsey]

Also people who tend to move retirement accounts tend to be the wealthier holders to begin with (partly because taking such an active interest in things financial correlates pretty well with wealth, partly because, well, is the extra return on a smaller amount worth more than the hassle of moving the account?, and partly because the pitches to move accounts are generally targeted at the wealthy).

Further, doesn't it seem a little strange to be stereotyping the occupants of a ship based on who got on the lifeboats?

[avfc89]

Hang on dude, what you say the Tories will do is exactly what Labour have been doing for the last thirteen years! You ignore what Labour have done and say that is what the Tories will do as a justification for not voting for them. I'm not trying to say who you should vote for, just that you seem a bit blinkered to reality.

The Tories haven't changed tho, they still are very much clung to their old policies. I am voting Labour because I prefer stability, I don't see Cameron improving the country one little bit. Cons will make it harder for the poor families.

[drat01]

..

[Ads]

Hang on dude, what you say the Tories will do is exactly what Labour have been doing for the last thirteen years! You ignore what Labour have done and say that is what the Tories will do as a justification for not voting for them. I'm not trying to say who you should vote for, just that you seem a bit blinkered to reality.

The Tories haven't changed tho, they still are very much clung to their old policies. I am voting Labour because I prefer stability, I don't see Cameron improving the country one little bit. Cons will make it harder for the poor families.

… but we’ve just gone through the worst depression since the 1920’s, how is that a mark of stability?

[meregreen]

Hang on dude, what you say the Tories will do is exactly what Labour have been doing for the last thirteen years! You ignore what Labour have done and say that is what the Tories will do as a justification for not voting for them. I'm not trying to say who you should vote for, just that you seem a bit blinkered to reality.

The Tories haven't changed tho, they still are very much clung to their old policies. I am voting Labour because I prefer stability, I don't see Cameron improving the country one little bit. Cons will make it harder for the poor families.

… but we’ve just gone through the worst depression since the 1920’s, how is that a mark of stability?

The recession was worldwide, do you believe Labour created a worldwide slump. I don't think our economic influence stretches that far. I do believe sensible and prudent support for our economy has enabled us to ride out the worst effects. The Tory response has always been to throw businesses onto the tender mercies of "the market". Which caused a terrible recession in the eighties, far worse than this one.Yes we have suffered a small shrinking of the economy, as has every major industrial nation. But this comes after the longest sustained period of economic growth in our history. I'll trust Labour to do whats best for the country, you can keep that spiv Cameron and his dodgy bank clerk Osborne. I just don't trust them or their kind.

[leviramsey]

Hang on dude, what you say the Tories will do is exactly what Labour have been doing for the last thirteen years! You ignore what Labour have done and say that is what the Tories will do as a justification for not voting for them. I'm not trying to say who you should vote for, just that you seem a bit blinkered to reality.

The Tories haven't changed tho, they still are very much clung to their old policies. I am voting Labour because I prefer stability, I don't see Cameron improving the country one little bit. Cons will make it harder for the poor families.

… but we’ve just gone through the worst depression since the 1920’s, how is that a mark of stability?

If you stay in that depression, wouldn't that be stability?

[bickster]

The recession was worldwide

This simply isn't true, it is a lie, plenty of countries did not enter into recession. Australia being one prime example. And Gordo's policies and decisioms, certainly contributed to the recession, as one of the THE big worldwide financial centres our influence was far and wide and as Mr Brown was the one responsible for implementing a regulatory body with a pair of false teeth that had flushed down the bog, yes we were hugely responsible, probably second behind the USA in terms of culpability

The term Worldwide recession is a myth, one perpetuated by those with a vested interest