Marple Glass and Glazing

Author Topic: Hazel Grove - General Political Discussion  (Read 49397 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Melancholyflower

  • Guest
Re: Hazel Grove - General Political Discussion
« Reply #102 on: January 06, 2015, 01:46:43 PM »
Getting back to the original thread subject, as I've only lived in Marple for 2 years, I will be very interested in the outcome of the election in Hazel Grove.

It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if the Tories got in. Lib Dems have come out the worst of the coalition partners, and the Tories have more campaign funds - it could make a difference.

Forgive me for going on about the voting system, but I really do feel voters missed a huge opportunity to give British politics a shot in the arm when they rejected AV. Like it or not, it would have ensured a much more closely fought election in much more parliamentary seats than is the norm with the usual marginals.

Someone mentioned party organisations earlier, and I do feel that this has a disproportionate effect in marginal seats. The Tories concentration and funding on these seats in 2010 was pretty crucial.

Duke Fame

  • Guest
Re: Hazel Grove - General Political Discussion
« Reply #101 on: January 06, 2015, 01:04:30 PM »
Whatever happened to Cameron's 'compassionate conservatism'!  If Duke spoke to anyone who volunteers at a food bank, or works at the DWP (my next door neighbour does, and his reports are heartbreaking), he would know better than to write anything like that. 

Food banks are the last resort of the desperate.  They exist because, sadly, they are necessary.  You can only use a food bank if you have been referred by the DWP or other recognised agency.  People forced to use them are so impoverished by benefit delays and 'sanctions', the bedroom tax, and the abolition of council tax benefit  that they cannot otherwise put food on the table for their children.

Of course, there's no poverty on Planet Duke, so that's OK.

I quite liked the Labour government's scheme to issue food vouchers to ensure benefits were spent in the right way.

ringi

  • Guest
Re: Hazel Grove - General Political Discussion
« Reply #100 on: January 06, 2015, 11:33:52 AM »
I was told yesterday by someone on benefits that run out of money within hours of getting the benefits, that she does not have time to take back the cloths she buys on impulse that she then never uses, but yet she still has time to go to the cloths shop as soon as the benefit is paid.   

Therefore if her child needs anything in the week he does not get it until the next week this extends to running out of some food etc.

Clearly she needs help, but she sees no need to change her life.

Food banks will ALWAYS be needed, and are a lot better option than giving out even more money to people that refuse to control their spending.

Another person I know on benefits will not risk taking a short term job, due to the delays in getting the benefits back, so clearly delays are a BIG problem as well.

Dave

  • Guest
Re: Hazel Grove - General Political Discussion
« Reply #99 on: January 06, 2015, 09:35:26 AM »
Food banks will be used if you supply them, there is no need for them if people prioritise their spending as food is very cheap.

Whatever happened to Cameron's 'compassionate conservatism'!  If Duke spoke to anyone who volunteers at a food bank, or works at the DWP (my next door neighbour does, and his reports are heartbreaking), he would know better than to write anything like that. 

Food banks are the last resort of the desperate.  They exist because, sadly, they are necessary.  You can only use a food bank if you have been referred by the DWP or other recognised agency.  People forced to use them are so impoverished by benefit delays and 'sanctions', the bedroom tax, and the abolition of council tax benefit  that they cannot otherwise put food on the table for their children.

Of course, there's no poverty on Planet Duke, so that's OK. 

Duke Fame

  • Guest
Re: Hazel Grove - General Political Discussion
« Reply #98 on: January 05, 2015, 11:27:53 PM »
UKIP is a lot less predictable then labour, I expect they will come 4th place here, however labour winning would sock me more than UKIP, given recent UKIP results that we would have thought unthinkable a few months ago.

Although ukip will poll decent numbers, I suspect we'll only see a few seats go that way.

Duke Fame

  • Guest
Re: Hazel Grove - General Political Discussion
« Reply #97 on: January 05, 2015, 11:26:02 PM »
This would be a hilarious proposition, but the food banks, the drop in living standards for all but the very rich, the increased national debt, and right-wing media fed hysteria about immigration tell a story that is tragic rather than funny.

A Happy New Year free of this government. Yes please!

Yawn, change the record. We all know why debt wet up, we were spendin more than we earnt, we had to drop living standards because the lifestyle we had was not affordable, govt spending was based on huge income from banks which turned out to be unsustainable. Food banks will be used if you supply them, there is no need for them if people prioritise their spending as food is very cheap.

By all means come up with an argument but not the tired bbc/guardian/mirror rhetoric

ringi

  • Guest
Re: Hazel Grove - General Political Discussion
« Reply #96 on: January 05, 2015, 10:05:11 PM »


Meanwhile, following up BG's post, I found myself on the Ladbrokes site, and stumbled across their odds for this constituency:

Lib Dems 3/10
Tories 5/2
UKIP  33/1
Labour 50/1

That's probably pretty fair, although I'll be surprised if the number of UKIP votes is higher than Labour's.  After all, this isn't Essex - people round here have got more sense than that!


UKIP is a lot less predictable then labour, I expect they will come 4th place here, however labour winning would sock me more than UKIP, given recent UKIP results that we would have thought unthinkable a few months ago.

tonysheldon

  • Guest
Re: Hazel Grove - General Political Discussion
« Reply #95 on: January 05, 2015, 07:36:11 PM »
I think the coalition have done a very good job and the pnly govt that has had to create it's own divisions, I think Blair said it's a lot more together than his governments (hinting at The Scottish PM's madness not helping)

This would be a hilarious proposition, but the food banks, the drop in living standards for all but the very rich, the increased national debt, and right-wing media fed hysteria about immigration tell a story that is tragic rather than funny.

A Happy New Year free of this government. Yes please!


Dave

  • Guest
Re: Hazel Grove - General Political Discussion
« Reply #94 on: January 01, 2015, 08:21:37 PM »
Does it prove that individuals' skill and motivation is more successful in creating wealth than the state?

Yes, it does.  I think that's self-evident, and borne out by history.   But for free enterprise to prosper, it needs the infrastructure provided by the state: law and order, defence of the realm, education, transport, health, social services etc etc, plus freedom from institutional corruption and those 'nice-to-have' things such as facilities for sport and the arts, that give people quality of life.

Bowden Guy's bookies' odds are fascinating, but I'm not convinced by the identical odds for both an outright Labour victory or an outright Tory one.   I don't think either of the two big parties is likely to come out of it with an overall majority, but I'd give Labour a slightly greater chance than the Tories. (History tells us that the party in power very rarely increases its number of seats when seeking re-election.)

Meanwhile, following up BG's post, I found myself on the Ladbrokes site, and stumbled across their odds for this constituency:

Lib Dems 3/10
Tories 5/2
UKIP  33/1
Labour 50/1

That's probably pretty fair, although I'll be surprised if the number of UKIP votes is higher than Labour's.  After all, this isn't Essex - people round here have got more sense than that!

Happy New Year to my sparring partners Duke and BG, and to all on this excellent Forum.   :D

Duke Fame

  • Guest
Re: Hazel Grove - General Political Discussion
« Reply #93 on: January 01, 2015, 12:04:57 PM »
Have just been looking at the bookmakers'' odds for the outcome of the General Election.....

Con/Lib Dem coalition      4/1
Conservative majority      9/2
Labour majority               9/2
Labour minority               9/2
Labour/Lib Dem coalition  9/2
Conservative minority      7/1
(No odds for Labour/SNP coalition, btw)

Personally, I think it will be 'business as usual" after the May 6th so I'm going to take some of that 4/1 action.

Happy New Year to everyone on the Forum.

I think the coalition have done a very good job and the pnly govt that has had to create it's own divisions, I think Blair said it's a lot more together than his governments (hinting at The Scottish PM's madness not helping)

Bowden Guy

  • Guest
Re: Hazel Grove - General Political Discussion
« Reply #92 on: January 01, 2015, 09:37:59 AM »
Have just been looking at the bookmakers'' odds for the outcome of the General Election.....

Con/Lib Dem coalition      4/1
Conservative majority      9/2
Labour majority               9/2
Labour minority               9/2
Labour/Lib Dem coalition  9/2
Conservative minority      7/1
(No odds for Labour/SNP coalition, btw)

Personally, I think it will be 'business as usual" after the May 6th so I'm going to take some of that 4/1 action.

Happy New Year to everyone on the Forum.



Duke Fame

  • Guest
Re: Hazel Grove - General Political Discussion
« Reply #91 on: December 31, 2014, 09:54:48 PM »
Of course I'm not suggesting that. The point, and I apologise for not spelling it out clearly enough for Duke, is that the entire UK budget deficit amounts to just a fraction of the personal wealth of some of our fellow citizens.  Think about it........

Does it prove that individuals' skill and motivation is more successful in creating wealth than the state?

Bowden Guy

  • Guest
Re: Hazel Grove - General Political Discussion
« Reply #90 on: December 31, 2014, 06:14:05 PM »
So, Dave, in 2015  these people either voluntarily give up 20% of their wealth, or it is expropriated by the Government, and the deficit  for that year disappears. I only have one question - what happens in 2016 when the country's expenditure is still massively greater than its income?

My login is Henrietta

  • Guest
Re: Hazel Grove - General Political Discussion
« Reply #89 on: December 31, 2014, 05:51:48 PM »
With the greatest degree of respect, you don't have a clue what happened in "Moor End Road" or whether "abuse" or "murder" took place there.
The OP was speaking figuratively, I think

However, wasn't there a murder up there a few years ago?

Harry

  • Guest
Re: Hazel Grove - General Political Discussion
« Reply #88 on: December 31, 2014, 05:29:54 PM »
All this talk about the better off paying more, and someone commenting about how the top rate was reduced by 5% (without mentioning thousands at the same time being taken out of the tax system altogether), reminds me of a story that explains the tax system. After a little searching I found it, and include it below.


Our Tax System Explained: Bar Stool Economics

Everyday ten men go out for beer after work and the bill for all ten comes to £100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay £1.
The sixth would pay £3.
The seventh would pay £7.
The eighth would pay £12.
The ninth would pay £18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.
So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by £20." Drinks for the ten now cost just £80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. What about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that £20 divided by six is £3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid £2 instead of £3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay £5 instead of £7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid £9 instead of £12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid £14 instead of £18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid £49 instead of £59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the £20,"declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man," but he got £10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I got"
"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get £10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.