Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Since the other politics thread seems to be largely concerned with the 2016 US Election, I figured us on this side of the pond ought to have our own thread for the UK election 2015. As per the other one, feel free to post, link, discuss and debate anything related to the election or UK politics in general, and please try to keep it civil and on-topic.

For those (UK or otherwise) that are in the dark about exactly what we're dealing with here, the BBC have helpfully collated a list of lnks to the main parties' sites, and also those pertaining to specific parts of the government:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18247131

Again, for those not familliar, here is a rundown of the situation as it stands:



Here are where the Parties stand on various major issues, again courtesy of the BBC:
Manifesto watch: Where parties stand on key issues - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29642613

***


Now, purely my thoughts:

This could be an interesting one. One thing I think is certain is that the Lib Dems are going to lose out a lot here. After the formation of the coalition, they have done a lot of backpedalling on promises they made, particularly on lowering tuition fees (say goodbye to the Student vote, Mr Clegg), and if anything, all I think they've proven is that they are willing to sell out for a shot at power. I can see them ending up in a coalition again, but only as a tool for another party to achieve a majority.

As far as I can see, the main issues this election will be fought on are immigration/EU Membership, the NHS and education.

I reckon immigration is the only area where UKIP are going to gain any ground, and only then if people don't look too closely at their domestic policies. They did well in the MEP elections purely on that basis, but I consider it unlikely that this will translate into a major gain in Parliament. Every Party seems to have recognised that immigration will be important this year, with some (UKIP, LibDems) promising English Language tests for migrants, and most suggesting that migrants will have to 'earn' benefits, and some that benefits can not be used to support dependants outside the UK. Interestingly, Cameron has ruled out a 'cap' on immigration, instead choosing the route of reducing the incentive for moving to the UK. He has also promised to challenge EU freedom of movement regulations, as part of a renegotiated relationship between Britain and the EU. This is all well and good if he will actually stand up to them, but as the recent backpayment debacle proved (going from 'We'll pay nothing' to 'We'll pay some' to 'we'll pay slowly), I'm not sure he has the clout and confidence to do so.

On the NHS, the general trend seems to be towards increasing its funding, either through cutting benefits (Conservative) or increasing taxes (Labour). Since no one (yet) has suggested privatisation of the service, the parties all fall along similar lines here, but given that Labour have commited themselves to halting any privatisation of the NHS or its services, I have a feeling they may do well with that. On a personal level, the fact they plan to fund the increase in spending with a higher tax on higher income causes me to lean this way. The Greens have also suggested something similar, with a fast-tracked health fund from taxes, but except in very specific areas, I can't help but feel it would be a waste of a vote.

Where the Conservatives absolutely lose my support is on education, with their policy of continung to promote Academies. From what I have seen and experienced first hand, making a school an academy (basically granting it greater independance and supporting it through local businesses rather than government bodies) has no real impact on the quality of the education provided, it simply shifts the responsibility further from the government. I can't honestly support an education policy that is not in the interest of the students being educated.

There is also the issue of lowering the voting age to 16, which oddly enough the Conservatives oppose but everyone else supports. I think it is ultimately a good thing trying to get younger citizens involved in politics, but so far, no one has confronted the real issue here; the lack of a general political education at secondary school level, which is something that needs to happen if the voting age is to be lowered. This in unlikely to be a deciding factor in my books, but could end up being pretty significant on a larger scale, and certainly important in how it will affect the policies of whoever gets through going forward.


At this point, it's hard to say which way I'll end up going; Labour are probably closest to my political standpoint, but whether or not I have faith in them to deliver is up for debate. I couldn't guess at a result at this stage either, as I don't think the European Elections are a good indicator of the way things are going internally (especially once you throw UKIP into the mix). I would like to see a single-party Government rather than a coalition, and to me, the worst case scenario would be a Labour/Conservative Coalition, which sadly I think may be a real possiblity if there is no majority and the LibDems have lost so much support they cannot tip the balance. In which case, we'l just end up with 5 years of back-and-forth, nothing really getting done, and the same blurred and vaguely centerist mess we have at the moment.


The biggest issue with the whole thing is that, at the moment, none of the Party Leaders inspire any confidence. You can spend hours reading the manifestos, and it all looks good on paper, but then you look at what has actuallly been done since the last election and sigh; Clegg is a sellout, Cameron has spent most of the time doing very little, and while Milliband can stand as the opposition and make a lot of noise, that's easy to do when you don't have to prove you can do a better job, but not so much when you actually have to. Farage is sadly the only interesting figure in the system at the moment, but for all the wrong reasons; too many blunders, affected personas and trying to be all things to all people. He might be entertaining to watch in the same way as it can be entertaining to watch idiots falling off bicycles or pandas sneezing, but I wouldn't actually trust him to run... anything really (in fact, I'd choose the panda over him). What we need is exactly what we don't have; a politician with ideals, skilled at rhetoric and someone who can actually inspire some trust.


So anyway, that's me ramblings out of the way. To the thread!

If I was a betting man, I'd put my money on a Con victory.

UKIP do rattle a lot of chains, and I can see them gaining a few seats. However, due to our First Past the Post system, I can't see many areas where they would actually gain enough votes to outdo the other parties.

I can see labour losing more seats, Milliband has spent the last four years being ridiculed by the media, and I don't think he has enough personal clout to actually be a PM. He doesn't exactly inspire confidence in others.

The same for the LibDems, this coalition government has really put them in the dumps. Clegg hasn't made the party as important as it should have been, its because of them that we have the ConDem government that we have.

There is also the SNP, I can see them gaining more seats in Scotland, seeing as that is traditionally a labour area, it won't be very good for them.

 welshhoppo wrote:
If I was a betting man, I'd put my money on a Con victory.

UKIP do rattle a lot of chains, and I can see them gaining a few seats. However, due to our First Past the Post system, I can't see many areas where they would actually gain enough votes to outdo the other parties.

I can see labour losing more seats, Milliband has spent the last four years being ridiculed by the media, and I don't think he has enough personal clout to actually be a PM. He doesn't exactly inspire confidence in others.

The same for the LibDems, this coalition government has really put them in the dumps. Clegg hasn't made the party as important as it should have been, its because of them that we have the ConDem government that we have.

There is also the SNP, I can see them gaining more seats in Scotland, seeing as that is traditionally a labour area, it won't be very good for them.

I'm in agreement here, Sillyband doesn't stand a chance.

In a 2 man race I'd agree, but given the current climate I don't know, UKIP might just take enough Tory votes to put Labour ahead by default. FPTP won't give UKIP that many seats, agreed, but it may just cripple the Cons enough.

Of course, they are all full of the same stuff, and all will have to raise taxes and cut spending after the election so the next 4 months guff can be largely ignored. The likelihood of a coalition means any pre-election pledge is worth even less than usual. A good example would be Labours 'save the NHS from privatisation'. Their Shadow Health Secretary Andy Burnham was Health Secretary in 2006 and the first man to privatise a UK ambulance service, if they were in any way committed to the NHS they could at least find someone with slightly cleaner hands

What we will hear little or nothing about is the crippling cost of PFI, because the Tories lovingly kicked it off, transferring huge public finds to private companies they then went to work for, Labour were if anything even more enthusiastic for a decade and now the Lib-Dems are guilty by association. UKIP couldn't afford to stop PFI now either, so one way or another we will be paying off what amounts to a whole pile of really, really bad loan deals for a very long time.

 Darkjim wrote:
In a 2 man race I'd agree, but given the current climate I don't know, UKIP might just take enough Tory votes to put Labour ahead by default. FPTP won't give UKIP that many seats, agreed, but it may just cripple the Cons enough.

That is a good point. With even Tory MPs defecting to UKIP, are they going to put enough of a dent in the Con voters to give Labour an edge? More to the point, would this be a good thing? On one hand, I'd be happy to see Cameron out (although I'm not convinced I want Milliband in) but giving UKIP a power base, even a non-effective one (this time round) might not be the best outcome. If people start taking UKIP seriously, what might we get in the 2020 election? They are already coming up at a rate not really seen since the rise of Labour in the early C20, having gone from relative obscurity to to having both MPs and MEPs, but outside of ther EU get-out plan, I really don't see them having much mileage unless they reinvent themselves pretty heavily.

If Cameron is smart, he'll bring forward his referendum promise as early as he can, and take a chance between now and May to prove he'll stanf up to the EU. That could take a lotrom UKIP's sails, and hopefully get Labour to actually commit to something regarding the EU, which to my mind they haven't really done yet, beyond their immigration policies.

Lowering the voting age to 16 yo?

Seriously? Not that I don't think it'll necessarily encourage 16+yo to actually vote and make an impact...

O.o

When I was 16, I was a dumb ass...

I can see Labour getting bent over and done dry in Scotland.
SNP are going to take them to the cleaners.
this kills any chance of Labour winning enough seats to be a credible threat.
Lib Dems, as far as I can see traditionally got a lot of support from students, and after their time in coalition, well, that's gone now.
The Conservative party, I think are going to lose a bit of support to UKIP, but all in all, I think it won't be too bad.
In al seriousness I can see the big winners in the next election being SNP, The Green Party, and UKIP.

I want a green+BNP coalition backed by independents. It will never happen but would be awesome.

"lets plant more trees!"*
"but only indeginous british ones!"

My main concern is that beaker who can't talk or lead and looks like a cartoon character will get in, or that the tories will get it with UKIP or ukip will get in alone.

I hate party politics. The annoying thing is that most people in blind polls support the policies of the greens but won't vote for them as they are percieved as hippies who will ban cars and meat. Their own name undermines them!

 whembly wrote:
Lowering the voting age to 16 yo?

Seriously? Not that I don't think it'll necessarily encourage 16+yo to actually vote and make an impact...

O.o

When I was 16, I was a dumb ass...

It is a bit of a stupid idea. I'm all for getting young people getting involved in politics (although as you point out, it might not work), but I am pretty certain when I was 16 I would have no idea what to vote, given the complete lack of political education in the current system. Similarly, most people I know at that age, have very limited political knowledge for the same reason?

Of course, it makes sense from the 'get in power, screw ideals' attitude that is flooding modern politics, as it meant there are millions more impressionable minds with none of the cynicism that comes with age, whom they can dupe into voting for them with false promises. Not that that's any different now, of course!

Agreed with Whembly and Para.. Have an exalt!

All I can really say is I don't want labour to win the election. For me its either UKIP or conservatives

 Soteks Prophet wrote:
I want a green+BNP coalition backed by independents. It will never happen but would be awesome.

"lets plant more trees!"*
"but only indeginous british ones!"

My main concern is that beaker who can't talk or lead and looks like a cartoon character will get in, or that the tories will get it with UKIP or ukip will get in alone.

I hate party politics. The annoying thing is that most people in blind polls support the policies of the greens but won't vote for them as they are percieved as hippies who will ban cars and meat. Their own name undermines them!

That's one of the best things I've read all day!

Da Stormlord wrote:
All I can really say is I don't want labour to win the election. For me its either UKIP or conservatives

Care to elaborate? Is there any specific Labour policies you don't like the sound of, or do the Cons/UKIP just better align with your own views?

My prediction:

tl;dr: The Lib Dems will be crushed, UKIP will bleed support away from the Tories, Labour will be severely damaged by SNP gains in Scotland, but will be propped up by the SNP in a Coalition. The SNP will be the greatest winners, relatively.

The Tories will lose a handful of seats to UKIP, perhaps we'll even see a couple more defections. Not enough to crush the party (a desire expressed by Peter Hitchens of the Mail on Sunday and shared by me), but enough to worry them and force them to come up with even more disingenuous gimmicks and empty promises in future to appeal to the voters being poached by UKIP.

Like their promise to hold a referendum on Britian's EU membership in the next Parliament, which IMO they have no intention of keeping and don't want anyway, but they made the promise regardless because they know they won't ever be in a position where they will have to keep it. Theres no way they'll have an absolute majority making them the biggest party. The best they can hope for is another coalition, at which point they'll quietly drop the EU Ref promise or kick it into the long grass yet gain, blaming their Coalition partner for "obstructing" them. An excuse which served them very well 2010 - 2015, with Cameron abandoning all sorts of inconvenient empty promises that he didn't want to keep anyway, blaming it on "those nasty Lib Dems".

The Liberal Democrats will lose a lot of seats leaving them a shadow of their former selves and more or less irrelevant.

Labour will lose a LOT of Scottish seats to the SNP, and will be forced to do a lot of horse trading and back scratching to get the SNP to prop them up in a coalition government.

Ultimately the SNP will be the biggest winners in 2015, and will take a mischievous glee in stirring gak up by interfering in "English laws" - areas that apply only to England and not Scotland. Having failed to convince the Scots to vote for independence, they'll do their best to stir up anti-Scottish sentiment in England thereby keeping Scottish Independence on the political agenda (See! We told you so, those English all hate us!). IIRC Nicola Sturgeon has already expressed her intention to do just that (they're ending their long standing policy of SNP MP's not getting involved in matters that only affect England not Scotland).

Shots are being fired over the issue of Youth benefits/unemloyment, and as someone in the targeted age bracket, I can't say I agree with either Milliband or Cameron.

Cameron:
- Jobseeker's Allowance for 18-21 year olds replaced with a 'Youth Benefit' that only lasts 6 months before they MUST do unpaid community work or enter an apprenticeship.
- NO housing benefit for 18-21 YOs.
- Savings used to fund 3m new apprenticeships.
David Cameron: Unemployed young 'should do community work' - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31500763

Milliband:
- Promises apprenticeships for anyone with Level 3 qualifications (2 A-levels or L3 Diploma) by 2020
- No word on benefit cuts, but committed to 'the working families of Britain' as a part of economic recovery
- Unemployed Youth must take training courses if they lack required qualifications.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31483886

Can't say I'm happy with either of these focusing on apprenticeships; not that I have anything against them in principle, but when we have University graduates that leave with a double First and can't get a job, should we really be creating 'already filled' jobs by the million, and getting a situation where in the same time it takes to get a Degree, you can do an apprenticeship and be guarunteed a job at the end of it? Seems to rather heavily incentivise not going to university, and offers nothing for those that are. Creating new jobs is great, but I do think the focus should be on creating them for those already qualified rather than putting all the focus on future-proofed apprenticeships and leaving millions of people that have already done the neccessary learning unemployed.

Which is why I'm going to tentatively say that I think Labour might come out of this particular tussle better, as they aren't forcing people into apprenticeships in the same way that the Cons are, while still opening them up to those who want them. As said, though, I'd like to see how either side plans on dealing with the job deficit that's here right now, rather than in 5 year's time...

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
My prediction:

tl;dr: The Lib Dems will be crushed, UKIP will bleed support away from the Tories, Labour will be severely damaged by SNP gains in Scotland, but will be propped up by the SNP in a Coalition. The SNP will be the greatest winners, relatively.

The Tories will lose a handful of seats to UKIP, perhaps we'll even see a couple more defections. Not enough to crush the party (a desire expressed by Peter Hitchens of the Mail on Sunday and shared by me), but enough to worry them and force them to come up with even more disingenuous gimmicks and empty promises in future to appeal to the voters being poached by UKIP.

Like their promise to hold a referendum on Britian's EU membership in the next Parliament, which IMO they have no intention of keeping and don't want anyway, but they made the promise regardless because they know they won't ever be in a position where they will have to keep it. Theres no way they'll have an absolute majority making them the biggest party. The best they can hope for is another coalition, at which point they'll quietly drop the EU Ref promise or kick it into the long grass yet gain, blaming their Coalition partner for "obstructing" them. An excuse which served them very well 2010 - 2015, with Cameron abandoning all sorts of inconvenient empty promises that he didn't want to keep anyway, blaming it on "those nasty Lib Dems".

The Liberal Democrats will lose a lot of seats leaving them a shadow of their former selves and more or less irrelevant.

Labour will lose a LOT of Scottish seats to the SNP, and will be forced to do a lot of horse trading and back scratching to get the SNP to prop them up in a coalition government.

Ultimately the SNP will be the biggest winners in 2015, and will take a mischievous glee in stirring gak up by interfering in "English laws" - areas that apply only to England and not Scotland. Having failed to convince the Scots to vote for independence, they'll do their best to stir up anti-Scottish sentiment in England thereby keeping Scottish Independence on the political agenda (See! We told you so, those English all hate us!). IIRC Nicola Sturgeon has already expressed her intention to do just that (they're ending their long standing policy of SNP MP's not getting involved in matters that only affect England not Scotland).

I'd have to disagree with those conclusions. Most polls I've seen show Labour and Conservative with roughly a third of the votes each, and UKIP getting about 10-15%. Even if the SNP took every seat in Scotland (assuming that all Labour seats are in England, Wales and NI), that's only 8% of the total, and not enough to rival a Conservative/UKIP coalition. I'd suggest that the latter is the most likely outcome of the next election.

My 2p worth. Vote UKIP. And not for immigration , let me explain!

Let me explain my reasoning. I 100% am against the benefits system. I go out, I work hard, and then money is taken out of my pay packet and GIVEN to people who choose not to work. I am not interested in any explanation or debate, I am against this. People on Benefits have a better lifestyle than myself. In this I support Cons, I am against Labour. In their last term in power they allowed an entire generation to become benefit bums and have said they will increase spending on welfare benefits. Cons have done something to curb this area of spending, but not enough. This is where UKIP have a vote wining policy for me. They will cap child benefit to the first 2 children. Have as many children as you like, but anymore than 2 and you receive no benefits.

2nd vote winner from UKIP for me. They will ban the slaughter of any animal on religious grounds. I eat meat, I am pro animal rights. Slitting a sheep’s throat with a knife and leaving it to die whilst the blood drains out of it is not the way to kill for food. A quick, bolt through the head is what is needed, but we allow slitting of throats to please Muslim and Jewish religions. Ban it, pure and simple. It's not just that. I am against the slaughter of animals in this method, yet for ease, a large amount of food sources now source Halal meat so they do not upset the Muslim population. I am against this.

3rd vote winner. More benefits. Currently, you can claim UK benefits for family members that don’t even reside in the UK. So a mother from Poland, based in the UK, can claim child benefit for her dozen brood who live in Poland, and have never set foot in the UK. UKIP will end this.

I also believe the Political establishment has become stale, it needs a kick up the arse. If UKIP receive a strong turnout, regardless of who gets in power, they will not be able to ignore UKIP.

Well, you're not interested in any debate so it's safe to just go "You're wrong and have a very poor understanding of many things" and leave it at that.

 TheSecretSquig wrote:

I also believe the Political establishment has become stale, it needs a kick up the arse. If UKIP receive a strong turnout, regardless of who gets in power, they will not be able to ignore UKIP.

This is about the only part I agree with; whether he's right or not, Farage is about the only politician in the current system that actually manages to make an impression beyond the policies, a skill that seems lost these days.

But other than that, I don't think I could ever support the majority of UKIP's domestic policies. I do agree with them over the EU, but I'd rather see that come about through them prompting anyone else into action than doing it themselves.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Well, you're not interested in any debate so it's safe to just go "You're wrong and have a very poor understanding of many things" and leave it at that.

Maybe that was a bit strong a statement. The whole debate of taking money off someone who works to give to those who don't is a whole other topic to discuss, not really here at the risk of de-railing this thread. Personally, someone who contributes nothing to society should get nothing in return in my opinion. And the debate of 'because you should' or 'civilised society' doesn't wash me me. There are other, modern Western countries which don't operate a benefits system and they do fine. If everyone decided they needed Benefits, who'd provide them with income. They do nothing for me, yet I'm forced to do something for them. But let's not de-rail this thread.

Personally, I will be voting UKIP. I don't beleive they will win an outright leadership, but I do feel that another co-Gov. could be formed with them. Cons for example would rather form a colaition with UKIP than risk loosing power to Labour, and UKIP would take any shot to get into power. From my own working background, Labour are (and have been) a disaster, Cons have been ok. Cameron's lost my vote though over lack of action on a) Benefits Culture, b) EU, c) Immigration. I don't think we'd have quite as big an issue on Immagration if the Benefits Culture was tackled, and they certainly wouldn't be queuing up at Calais to get here.

Any government that had balls could get rid of PFI by the simple method of explaining to the private vultures what would happen to their chances of getting any government contract in the future if they insisted on obtaining the usurious terms accorded to them under the current system.

Putting that to one side, UKIP's policies are a big bag of clown shoes. The Lib-Dems very sadly shot themselves in the foot with a 10-bore shotgun by their botched referendum on proportional representation. This issue, which has the potential to resolve the current crisis of confidence in politics, has been pushed off the agenda for a generation.

Labour, I don't know. Milliband does not inspire confidence.

The Tories of course are the usual bunch of nasty party freaks hiding under a banner of "fairness" and "We're all in it together" (unless we are millionaires, of course...) They are still more hated than perhaps they realise.

I foresee another hung parliament with the rump of the Lib-Dems, the Greens and SNP holding the balance of power.

 TheSecretSquig wrote:

There are other, modern Western countries which don't operate a benefits system and they do fine.

Such as....?

 TheSecretSquig wrote:

Personally, I will be voting UKIP. I don't beleive they will win an outright leadership, but I do feel that another co-Gov. could be formed with them. Cons for example would rather form a colaition with UKIP than risk loosing power to Labour, and UKIP would take any shot to get into power. From my own working background, Labour are (and have been) a disaster, Cons have been ok. Cameron's lost my vote though over lack of action on a) Benefits Culture, b) EU, c) Immigration. I don't think we'd have quite as big an issue on Immagration if the Benefits Culture was tackled, and they certainly wouldn't be queuing up at Calais to get here.

Why do feel there are major issues with:
a) Benefits Culture, what is this? Can you define it in terms of scale and demographics?
b) EU, what actions do you think should be taken and why?
c) Immigration

Personally I will not be voting for UKIP. As far as I can tell they are a party that stands on a platform of "You are being run by unelected people far away for their interests, vote for us and we can run you for ours instead". This does not answer any questions. That they constantly try to get votes by stoking fear of problems that don't really exist and are, for the main, hyper-tories with whom I share as little common ground as some geezer in Brussels is unlikely to change my position.

UKIP's policies are a big bag of clown shoes.

 TheSecretSquig wrote:
The whole debate of taking money off someone who works to give to those who don't is a whole other topic to discuss, not really here at the risk of de-railing this thread. Personally, someone who contributes nothing to society should get nothing in return in my opinion. And the debate of 'because you should' or 'civilised society' doesn't wash me me. There are other, modern Western countries which don't operate a benefits system and they do fine. If everyone decided they needed Benefits, who'd provide them with income. They do nothing for me, yet I'm forced to do something for them. But let's not de-rail this thread.

It's on-topic in relation to the UK, I feel, so feel free to discuss it.

Personally, while I can certainly see where you are coming from, I do feel very strongly that in a country that will refer to itself as civilised, fair, democratic and effective that no human being, employed or otherwise, should ever be left without what they need to survive, or have to fear for the roof over their heads or the food in their mouths. It is easy to dismiss benefits claimants as 'lazy, good for nothing thieves' or whatever, but I'd hazard a very confident guess that the primary cause of unemployment (and therefore benefit claimants) is not lack of motivation or even lack of qualification, but lack of availability. One cannot do a job if the job simply is not there.

If you have a university leaver who comes out with a relevant degree, but by dint of locale, health or any other factor cannot get a job, would you deny them the benefits that would keep them housed and fed, but because at that moment they cannot 'contribute'? Or what about someone who has worked for 20 years, and is suddenly made redundant and cannot find another job?

To me, such a thing would seem utterly barbaric, and I have to question the effectiveness and morality of my government whenever I see people in a first world, economically developed and culturally/politically stable nation barely keeping above the poverty line, and in all too many cases falling below it.

Paradigm wrote:If you have a university leaver who comes out with a relevant degree, but by dint of locale, health or any other factor cannot get a job, would you deny them the benefits that would keep them housed and fed, but because at that moment they cannot 'contribute'? Or what about someone who has worked for 20 years, and is suddenly made redundant and cannot find another job?.

Let’s discuss a few topic’s here. Job’s. Anyone can get a job in this Country. There are 100’s of workers who arrived in the UK and within days have set up their own business washing cars. Within 3 miles of my own house there are 4 garages, every one of them now has a car washing business, 3 Polish, 1 Turkish, all are busy. So, if these unqualified people can suddenly ‘invent’ a job and start working there is no reason someone else can. The issue is that the chap leaving uni with his top degree expects to walk into a top job. The uni leaver with his degree won’t wash cars, it’s beneath them. Then there’s the other side, “why should I wash cars when I can be paid benefits to sit on my backside and do nothing”. If we didn’t pay benefits, people would be forced to find work.
On the subject of Benefits. It should be for the bare necessities, nothing else. Benefits should be given vouchers or a card that only allows expenditure on essential items. Booze, Fags, Scratchcards, Sky TV, 3D Flatscreen HDi TV’s are not essentials. Disability Benefits. Why, just because you are disabled, you receive enough benefits to have a brand new car every 2 years? (I know, because I have family on disability allowances). Sorry, I work, I contribute, but money is taken from me, preventing me from owning a new car, and given to someone else so they can have a new car every 2 years. It’s wrong. Whilst I agree they need help, here’s some vouchers that entitle you to free public transport. Not, here’s a free, brand new car every 2 years. “oh, I don’t live near Public Transport”. Well move house then!
My previous job was a domestic electrician, my company had the contract from the local authorities to re-wire all the houses on their Council Estates. I could write pages on what I witnessed, but needless to say for the sake of my health, I left the job before my blood pressure went through the roof. I witnessed first-hand what sort of Lifestyle people on Benefits can afford, how it’s no longer seen as ‘help’, its seen as a ‘right’ and a lifestyle by 2 generations now. Every house had Sky TV, the latest Flatscreen TV, multiple Games Consoles, all paid for by my Tax. I’ve witnessed Girls determined to get pregnant, just so they then receive their free Council House, and all the Benefits that go with it. Mothers with +6 children, planning more, just so they’ll receive more Benefits and get a bigger house. The whole system is wrong and ANY party that does something to curb this wins my vote. Labour will increase welfare spending, just like they did last time.
I’ve yet to hear an argument, which justifies why money I have earned, is taken off me, and given to the above. All the arguments are ‘civil society’ or ‘it’s the right thing to do’. Sorry they don’t wash. If we all adopted the same attitude, who would pay then? I guess because I’ve witnessed the deep end of the Benefits Culture, it’s swayed my view. “Gee, thanks for working and earning some money, now give some to me because I don’t have a job. I’ll never have a job, so I’ll never give you anything back”. Sorry, its wrong!

Kilkrazy wrote:UKIP's policies are a big bag of clown shoes.

If stopping animals from having their throats slit open and then letting them bleed to death instead of a quick bolt in the head, all in the name of ‘Religion’ is a ‘Clown Shoes’ Policy, then you and I live on different planets.

Another UKIP Policy. Cut Foreign Aid. Why do we give India £100’s Millions in Foreign Aid? It’s not a 3rd world Country, It has its own Space Programme, combined, it is the single biggest banker in Swiss Bank Accounts (+£900b) yet we are still giving them foreign Aid. When the UK has a Failing NHS, Schools need funding, services are being cut, why are we giving Billions every year to countries which clearly, don’t need it. If everything was good in the UK, then yes, give it. But its not.
Schools. My local School which my daughter will start at next year has now had to employ 2 Polish Translators. This is because where I live, there has been a large influx of Polish families. With this, comes the expectation that we will school their Children. No Issue. My issue comes that instead of spending limited school funds on things for actual education, these now are cut because we now employ translators. Wrong. This is an English School. Speak English, or leave. Why should all the English speaking children have their standard of education cut, because the School now needs to fund Translators for a small number of Children? If you want to be taught in Polish, fine, but pay for it yourself, this is an English School.

Well I'm a uni leaves with a Bsc degree and I'm working in a factory. No delusions about walking into a top job here!

I couldn't care less what happens in this election but for 3 things:

1) I want there to be a more stable economy and the deficit situation improved

2) I absolutely want to see the NHS improved, not cut, and definitely not privatised

3) I want people to realise just how flawed UKIP is and ultimately reject it

The Greens are laughable, only matched by how hard I'm going to laugh when the Liberal Democrats get wrecked this election, and UKIP are literally beyond a joke now as their new masses-inspiring stupidity is actually a concern instead of just something I can sit and laugh at

unfortunately this puts me in a dilemma between Labour (the anti-thesis in intentions towards 1) and Conservative ( very suspiciously leaning against 2), but I'll probably take my chances and vote Conservative

 TheSecretSquig wrote:
The uni leaver with his degree won’t wash cars, it’s beneath them. Then there’s the other side, “why should I wash cars when I can be paid benefits to sit on my backside and do nothing”. If we didn’t pay benefits, people would be forced to find work.

I believe we had a system like that once, you know, back in the days of work houses, indentured servitude and transportation.

 TheSecretSquig wrote:

Let’s discuss a few topic’s here. Job’s. Anyone can get a job in this Country.

Your fundamentally wrong there. I hear this again and again from people who have been lucky enough to grow up in affluent areas. I grew up in South Yorkshire in the 80s. I have seen almost entire towns go from people working in mines, doing hard, dirty, dangerous and highly skilled jobs to being out of work and stuck on benefits. Are you telling me those people, some of whom are still stuck in a trap of short term work with periods of unemployment are lazy? You can't set up a car wash if no one can afford a car. Where I live now there are hand car washes all over. When I go up to see relatives in Yorkshire... Not so much. Few people in a pit village can afford £8 to get their car washed when they could do it them self.

 TheSecretSquig wrote:

Disability Benefits. Why, just because you are disabled, you receive enough benefits to have a brand new car every 2 years? (I know, because I have family on disability allowances). Sorry, I work, I contribute, but money is taken from me, preventing me from owning a new car, and given to someone else so they can have a new car every 2 years. It’s wrong. Whilst I agree they need help, here’s some vouchers that entitle you to free public transport. Not, here’s a free, brand new car every 2 years. “oh, I don’t live near Public Transport”. Well move house then!

How on earth can you argue DLA is wrong? For a start, to get higher rate DLA (Now PIP) you have to be unable to walk more than 25 meters. How exactly does public transport help with that? Even if it did, many people on higher rate DLA have modifications to their house to live as independently as they can. Ramps, stair lifts, low worktops, etc... Ignoring the difficulties of moving house for an able bodied person (you can't just move if your in social housing, and if you own it costs tens of thousands) if you have these modifications it can make it very difficult to sell your old house and cost to do the new house, and social housing is just as much of a problem. Higher rate DLA provides people with transport who would otherwise be housebound. It's actually quite economical compared to the alternatives. And if you know so much about it because of your family you would realize that DLA/PIP is primarily not about "getting a free car" but about the many other areas of support it provides. Someone who needs motorbility would give it up in a heartbeat to have enough mobility not to use it. Be thankful you have never been in the position of having to claim PIP/DLA.

 TheSecretSquig wrote:

This is an English School. Speak English, or leave. Why should all the English speaking children have their standard of education cut, because the School now needs to fund Translators for a small number of Children? If you want to be taught in Polish, fine, but pay for it yourself, this is an English School.

So the children should now suffer because they have been moved to another country? The kids will pick up English quite fast, but what do they do until then?

You show the exact problem of UKIP. It is based on lies and fear. So much of what you are saying is twisted or outright tabloid lies mixed with anger. They are hoping that they will pick up enough votes from a divide and concour strategy to get in. They don't have to tell the truth, just twist reality enough that enough people will believe them so they can get enough votes to get a few seats. They know no one will form a coalition with them. Even the Tories know it would be suicide for them.

I think we are probably going to end up with a short term Lib/Lab/Con or possibly a Lib/Lab/Green coalition which will brake down within a year. No one will want to join up with UKIP or SNP. It would be politically disastrous.

 Steve steveson wrote:

 TheSecretSquig wrote:

This is an English School. Speak English, or leave. Why should all the English speaking children have their standard of education cut, because the School now needs to fund Translators for a small number of Children? If you want to be taught in Polish, fine, but pay for it yourself, this is an English School.

So the children should now suffer because they have been moved to another country? The kids will pick up English quite fast, but what do they do until then?

So ALL the Children in a School must suffer because they now can’t afford the new books required for next term because they are funding x2 £17,000 translators? And diverting funds from the rest of the School to allow to foreign nationals who can’t speak English to be taught is acceptable? I have no issue in teaching these students. My issue is that we go out of our way to accept them at the sacrifice of everyone else.

And this is the problem. We, as a Country, bend over backwards to assist people, instead of ourselves.

The DLA question. I’m sorry, but you’ve not addressed my question. How is it fair, that you are given the means to buy a new car every 2 years just because of your 'disability'?

I did not grow up in an affluent area. Where I lived, there isn’t a great deal of opportunity. So I moved to be where the work is. If your Mining Village in South Yorkshire doesn’t provide you work, then move to where the work is. But, being in the pay of Benefits means there is no motivation or incentive to get off your backside and find work. Why bother when I can live a life on Benefits? Reported in the press yesterday, a single mother who’s only income is ‘Benefits’ afforded a £3,000 round the world holiday, all paid for by the taxpayer :

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2963750/Benefits-single-mother-admits-spending-3-000-taxpayers-cash-dream-round-world-trip-Australia-Bali-Dubai.html

This alone tells me all I need to know about Benefits. It’s too much. But I suppose for other voters, this isn’t an issue and is perfectly acceptable?