Never mind who you WANT to vote for........

Who SHOULD you vote for


here is an interesting POV on voting for your next parliament
Prompted by a number of different posts in other sections

do you vote for

the person who will do best for the majority...(the greatest good argument)...regardless of what disadvantage that may bring YOU personally

the person who will look after YOUR own best interests, even if that means hades breaking forth for some others

or what



Now personally I see the following

lib dems are a wash out....forget them they are so slippery when wet (which they are ...permanently) and objectively liars and opertunists....

forget the greens....they are a sort of liberal liberalistic nightmare.....with less idea than a brick


so we have

cons

labour
and
UKIP



now....labour have promised all sorts of "social justice" type nonsense...and assured us its can be afforded....

yeah right I dont see no figures...just spin and promises, moreover they are islamist appologisers...and immigration gurus. Remember Mr Browns comments???? Remember their ADMITTED immigration ploy........
MOREOVER .......Labour are anti gun ownership full stop, the hunt sabateurs and "animal rights nutters are "labour friendly" and vice versa


AND more importantly have said that THEY WILL RAID PENSION FUNDS....again cheers lads.....thats really endeared you to me....2screw you mr worker that has paid in to boost your ension and be able to retire early....we are going to fuck you over and put you in penury...."



Labour would also take us into a "federal EU"



so tell me again why I should support them

whats "in it for me????


NOTHING...in fact it would be like a turkey voting for christmas




now the cons


are dopey dicks....

are doing all the wrong things to "solve our problems"

are needlessly attacking the poor and less fortunate (in line of course with the historical hared the tories have for the working people and the poor and less well off)

and are refusing to ht those who SHOULD be contributing but cheat the system....


BUT


they aint going to raid my pension pot.....

and they are ...in the main supportive of the shooting community, within the already strict and effective laws we have (no one is suggesting that the law should be weakened).


UKIP


are some what nutty

dont have settled policies ....YET

are suffering from "fringe groups" being held by a lying press to be representative of the main party


are not the cosy friend some social groups would like


BUT


aint intending to raid my pension pot


and dont seem to want to ban guns altogether....


and want us OUT of the EU....




NOW



I aint going to vote labour.....Thats a given considering their policies that will affect ME

so will I vote con or UKIP


well which ever I do means someone is going to ultimatley (if my vote has an effect) suffer


ukip is anti immigrant
anti gay
in fact pretty much anti a lot of things

but they DO have the advantage to me of supporting MY interests

as to an extent do the Cons.....



like I said at the beginnig


for who's benefit do i cast my vote.....mine...or every bugger elses....remembering of course that "every bugger else", doesnt give a toss about ME)

(nor that YOUR opinion will sway me...just interested)

Vict me darlin, you really need to get your facts right.


The cut will be financed by reducing pensions tax relief, including cutting the annual allowance eligible for relief to £30,000 and capping the total pension pot eligible for relief at £1m. In addition, those earning more than £150,000 a year would receive pension tax relief at only 20 per cent, the same level as basic-rate payers.

So nobody will be raiding your pension pot. The TAX RELIEF on amounts OVER £30,000 per annum will be cut. Now I'm bloody sure you don't put £30,000 a year into your pension pot.

risingsun wrote:Vict me darlin, you really need to get your facts right.


The cut will be financed by reducing pensions tax relief, including cutting the annual allowance eligible for relief to £30,000 and capping the total pension pot eligible for relief at £1m. In addition, those earning more than £150,000 a year would receive pension tax relief at only 20 per cent, the same level as basic-rate payers.

So nobody will be raiding your pension pot.  The TAX RELIEF on amounts OVER £30,000 per annum will be cut.  Now I'm bloody sure you don't put £30,000 a year into your pension pot.

hmm...THATS what the theiving basterd brown said LAST time when he stole milliions from (for instance) BEST (bus employees superannuation trust) meaning thousands got their pension cut.....and although in the end (afyter years (about 10 ) of fighting in court he had to pay it back.....the money that that could have been earning was NOT paid back...so everyone in the scheme STILL suffered a reduced pension....

I beleive the labour lies abour as much as I believe the con ones....

smoke and mirrors...


and besides THAT is only ONE issue.....

No he didn't.  He taxed pension funds, he didn't reduce tax relief on paying in to pensions.

which will amount to the same thing as the BIG contributors stop contributing....or only contribute up to the limit....

so the overall "pot" becomes worth less and thus earns less "interest" thus reducing everyones pension in the end....

Labour...thieves to the end.....

ALL labour want is TOTAL dependancy on the state...and will do ANYTHING to cripple someone who has "independance"

and YET......wont do anything to stop that dependancy being dependancy on the smallest budget possible

pensions at poverty level and no chance to independantly top it up is their goal....

and what of the other issues

and anyway...on the pension issue...I have seen what they did once....I'm not voting for more of the same.....

Now isn't that illogical? You have screamed blue murder about what the Tories have done for years, but you are willing to vote for them. You use the NHS, the Cons have just give a contract to a company with Malcolm Rifkind on the board at a cost of £7million MORE than the NHS could have done it for, thats £7million out of the NHS budget + what they would have got for doing it.

https://tompride.wordpress.com/2015/02/24/rifkind-firm-awarded-nhs-contract-despite-charging-7-million-more-than-nhs/

As for saying where are Labour going to get the money from, all their costings are up for public scrutiny and have been passed by accountants.

risingsun wrote:Now isn't that illogical?  You have screamed blue murder about what the Tories have done for years, but you are willing to vote for them.  You use the NHS, the Cons have just give a contract to a company with Malcolm Rifkind on the board at a cost of £7million MORE than the NHS could have done it for, thats £7million out of the NHS budget + what they would have got for doing it.

https://tompride.wordpress.com/2015/02/24/rifkind-firm-awarded-nhs-contract-despite-charging-7-million-more-than-nhs/

As for saying where are Labour going to get the money from, all their costings are up for public scrutiny and have been passed by accountants.

exactly....I DONT like them


BUT


i like liebour even less....

hells bells...I can get an accountant to pass MY books....It doesnt, of necessity, mean a damn thing....

if their "costings are up for public scrutiny"...why havnt they been trumpeting it from the roof tops...instead of making air head promises....

labour DO NOT represent MY interests

they would increase immigration even further (because as before it increases their voter base)
they intend to do absolutely bugger all about the problems their insane policies last time round caused....

(a full half of the NHS problems are down to these jerks and their immigration policies...)

as are problems with some schools in "certain" areas

they would sooner appoint a "human rights" manager or a LGBT overseer in the local council ...at a vastly inflated salary than make provision for a bus to get elderly residents to and from shops.....(and YES ...that happened...last time round)

and if you believe for one instance that they are any less likely to put money into the pockets of the "right people" than the cons, you are deluded....

They have been trumpeting it from the roof tops, but they can't make television companies put it out there, and all this tosh about a LW BBC is just that, tosh. TV is run by RW, for RW and I've yet to see an unbiased news programme.

I simply cannot see why ANY of your points, which I have to say come from a very false premise, can hold a candle to the fact that Tories work for the interests of tax dodgers and Banks that steal billions and billions of pounds, which are then lost to the economy. How that can be in your best interest beats me.

risingsun wrote:I simply cannot see why ANY of your points, which I have to say come from a very false premise, can hold a candle to the fact that Tories work for the interests of tax dodgers and Banks that steal billions and billions of pounds, which are then lost to the economy.  How that can be in your best interest beats me.

clearly it isnt...BUT...

since liebour wont actually change anything...merely hide it in a different guise...theres nowt either way in it for me....


other issues however are more clear cut.....

Always knew that baloney about you not being RW or LW was ... baloney. Glad you're admitting it!

When the government doesn't seek the greatest good for the greatest number, what do you call that? Something like an oligarchy, where the powerful tilt the field to benefit themselves even farther.

Vic, I'm surprised at you, you keep coming out with all this guff without actually looking at the policy:

Legislation that would have ensured that the City traders behind the Libor interest rates scandal did not escape prosecution is to be promised by the shadow home secretary, Yvette Cooper, on Wednesday.

In her conference speech she will pledge that the next Labour government will introduce the first-ever Economic Crime Act in a drive against the "grey and murky area" of financial crime, including fraud and money-laundering.

The legislation would make it a criminal offence to manipulate interest rates to make money, while victims pay more.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/oct/02/cooper-banking-reform-conference-speech

That was set in stone two years ago.

Labour set out “major reform” to the banking sector – including extending banker bonus clawback
February 13, 2015 8:38 am

Labour have published an outline of how they’d reform the banking sector today.

The paper is spearheaded by Ed Balls, Shadow Chancellor, and Cathy Jamieson, Shadow Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who are in visiting a business in Bedford.

In the paper, the party will lay out a serious of measures such as introducing legislation that will allow government to retrospectively claim back bankers bonuses from those who have been involved in “inappropriate behaviour” in the last 10 years (currently this stands at 7 years) and introducing a one-off tax on bankers’ bonuses – the money would be used to help pay for Labour’s Compulsory Jobs Guarantee.

Labour also explain in this report that they’d create a British Investment bank to help fund small and medium sized businesses and extend the levy on the profits of payday lenders, which would be used to fund alternative credit providers.

Balls explained the importance of these measures, particularly given scandals in recent years:

“Too often in recent years our banks have fallen far short of the standards expected of them. After so many scandals we need major reforms and long-term cultural change to restore trust and ensure our banks start working for consumers and businesses again.

“Banks are essential to our economy, but we need them to work better for the businesses and working people who rely on them.

“We need much more action than this government has been prepared to take. So Labour’s banking reform paper sets out how we will change rules on bonuses, increase competition and get more lending to small and medium-sized businesses.

“We will extend to at least ten years the period bank bonuses can be clawed back in cases of misconduct. As we have seen in recent days, wrong doing can take years to uncover. The current proposals to claw back bonuses are too weak and do not cover a long enough period of time. We will ensure people involved in misbehaviour and misconduct would have to give back their bonuses for at least a decade after they have been paid out.

“And we will establish a proper British Investment Bank to help growing businesses get the funding they need to expand and create jobs. Because it’s only when working people and businesses succeed that Britain succeeds too.”

http://labourlist.org/2015/02/labour-set-out-major-reform-to-the-banking-sector-including-extending-banker-bonus-clawback/

thats all very well....

but who deregulated the bakning sector in the first place

who FAILED, despite warnings to head off the incomming crisis....


@ BEN


and your point is....


if you read you will see I dont like EITHER left or Right....

not one bit...

both are bastards


but one bastard isnt out to ruin my pension
cuddle up to a cozy federal EU
remove my right to enjoy a hobby...which does no harm to anyone

micro manage my life (as is the penchant with lefties)

and has been a TOTAL failure EVERY time it gets power....?

the other bastard of course is just a bastard out to line its mates pockets...

but it doesnt go against my personal interests.....so far....


You dont get it do you...

as far as I personally am concerned,

I'm going to vote for the one who represents the least "threat" to me...

NOT the one who is "best for every other bugger"

(since every other bugger aint going to stand up for me.....)

So, you've made a values decision on which political party/movement best represents your worldview and you ... wait for it ... came down on the right. Which makes you a right-winger. You might be a right-winger who isn't entirely happy with what the conservative politicians do in your country, to which I say ...

WELCOME TO POLITICS, hope it's not too bright for you out here compared to under that rock.

You vote your own narrow interests over the greater good, which basically makes you a textbook conservative. Conservatives see the world as a dog-eat-dog competition in which one group's success is inevitably harmful to another group.

Total failure Vic?  Until the BANKS fucked us up we had the best standard of living for years, and you are happy to put us back in the hands of the banks, because the Tory party are the voice of the banks.

Ben_Reilly wrote:So, you've made a values decision on which political party/movement best represents your worldview and you ... wait for it ... came down on the right. Which makes you a right-winger. You might be a right-winger who isn't entirely happy with what the conservative politicians do in your country, to which I say ...

WELCOME TO POLITICS, hope it's not too bright for you out here compared to under that rock.

You vote your own narrow interests over the greater good, which basically makes you a textbook conservative. Conservatives see the world as a dog-eat-dog competition in which one group's success is inevitably harmful to another group.

yes but in THIS CASE there is a defined intent to harm my interests....

You mean guns?  When has anyone ever said they are going to stop hunting guns? Slight increase in the Licence fee, boy that is some reason to vote for people who want to grind the majority into the dust and allow the richest to dodge taxes so that you have to pay more.

Sorry Victor, but it appears to me that you are not going to vote Conservative for logical reasons.

risingsun wrote:You mean guns?  When has anyone ever said they are going to stop hunting guns?  Slight increase in the Licence fee, boy that is some reason to vote for people who want to grind the majority into the dust and allow the richest to dodge taxes so that you have to pay more.

Sorry Victor, but it appears to me that you are not going to vote Conservative for logical reasons.

actually I support the increase in licence fees....(though there is a valid argument that the licence is there to protect the public...therefor the public should pay)

although for that increase I would want the licencing to become a hell of a lot more efficient .....

clearly you only hear what you want to hear...when we have labour spokes (in this case) woman harping on about how they will make it harder to get a licence...It is quite sufficiently hard as it is thank you....

how the labour govt (in the guise of various excuses) are going to restrict some shooting activities...on the grounds of evidence, and demonstrably "planted" evidence too, provided by such paragons of virtue as LACS.

how the leftie in defiance of all evidence to the contrary are attempting to bluster through a ban on lead shot...(THATS not going to ruin shooting ...is it????)

ey=tc etc etc...


NON of which actually would survive a proper "evidence based study" but the lefties dont care for evidence...if it doesnt suit em..ignore it...after all banning the gun owner makes a nice sound bite doesnt it.


BUT YOU are the one tied up on THIS SINGLE argument


what about the rest ???


Oh I forgot....this is easier ...the nasty old gun owner is complaining.....


WHAT ABOUT THE REST


like f**ked up pensions

the EU you do reaise what a federal europe would mean dont you???

do you realise that EVEN NOW ....if you were to go on a german internet site and deny the holocaust (which would I agree be a stupid thing to do) ...
the german police could come over here...kick down your door and haul you off to trial in germany...

FOR DOING SOMETHING WHICH IS NOT A CRIME HERE

and there is damn all that anyone could do about it....

all thanks to the europen arrest warrant

which gives police in one country the right to arrest the citizens of another country IN THAT OTHER COUNTRY....even when what they have done IS NOT A CRIME IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY

nice one EU......

I like the EU, it should be reformed and some countries should never have been allowed to join. But the potential and economic clout of the union is not something we should be working against- its in our interests long terms with the rise amd rise of China, India, Brazil, Indonesia etc.

So even with all the bigoted wingnuts aside, I'd never vote UKIP.

I hate Labour and Tory, the latter more but both nonetheless. One is unreliable economically and the other couldn't care less about working people- both are prone to short term headline chasing.

Liberals, where my allegiances traditionally lay, for me would still be my choice. They have raised the incone tax threshold massively (a manifesto pledge), helped ensure that although tuition fees rose (so they were compromised, they weren't the majority) the payback conditions actually improved- which they have, substantially over Labour. They are also pro-EU and don't chase RW media xenophobic immigration reporting.

So I WOULD still vote Liberal, IF I thought they weren't to be obliterated this election (based entirely on unfair views of their term in government- people don't realize Tory alone would have been MUCH worse).

So if I vote this year (which is questionable on the count I really hate the main choices, my UK address is guaranttef Labour and I'm not sure its worth the effort of registering to vote overseas...) it would probably be Tory- reason being none are particularly favourable BUT the economy IS improving broadly speaking, and why risk that now by changing the government?