Election 2015 Issues

[SquashedCommuter]

What are the most important issues for you in this election?

[Eagle]

Living within our Means.

[somerandombloke]

Stop cutting public services.
Stop punshing the poor and rewarding the rich.
Stop creeping towards a police state.
Stop the rise of the far right.
Stop young Muslims feeling theres nothing for it but to become terrorrists.
Stop Cameron from breathing.

[Eagle]

I despair. However will treat you will politeness. I think perhaps you are misguided. Very sad.

You who are anti people with money and have two houses let out .

[somerandombloke]

I despair. However will treat you will politeness. I think perhaps you are misguided. Very sad.

You who are anti people with money and have two houses let out .

I have two houses let out for well below the market rent (recently refurbed two bed garden flats on a nice quiet streets one for for £800 pcm the other £825). Presumably if id sold the properties id inherited youd be bangin on about that somehow too there my pension! And im not anti people with money Im anti the super rich getting away with it over and over and over and over again.

[JimJeroo]

I found this website https://voteforpolicies.org.uk/ quite interesting to decipher which issues were important to me and consequently which party/ies I was more aligned to; it's not an exact science but could be helpful for people who don't really know the differences between the parties or the policies they stand for.

The issues I think are most important are:

The NHS
Redistribution of wealth in order to help the most vulnerable people in society
Youth unemployment

[somerandombloke]

I get 75% Green and 25% Labuor? Jayzuz. Thats quiet a surprise to me.

[Eagle]

SDB

I am not suggesting you are the new Rachman, however people who let , rather than let young people buy , are part of Tim's problem.

I would have thought with your other strange views you would have given your inheritance away to the poor.

I doubt if we will see much campaigning in LW. I think everyone will concentrate on marginals. Despite its growing affluence people still seem to stick with career politician and party stalwart JD.

[somerandombloke]

I did put them both on the market when I inherited them they were both empty. That was May 2008 and I think youll probably remember what was going on then in terms of the economy and the housing market. If Id been able to sell I would have had to pay off the two small to middling mprtgages and would have been left over with a decent wahck to put into my pesnion and would also have given a good few bob to Xfam and Shelter. However I couldnt sell so I refurbed both of them doing most of the work myself and rent them out for a very fair rent. The people I have in them are nice in both cases theyre young couple who i trust not to trash the place and who do a few bits and pieces too like decorating. Its the best of bth worlds for me and them. One of the mortgages ends in 3 years and one in 7 so in both cases Ill offer them at a good price to the tenants. Thats the best i can do for the moment.

[stuart]

however people who let , rather than let young people buy , are part of Tim's problem.

So are people who, like me, who let to young people who cannot buy Tim's heroes?
Or is the real problem moving 'social housing' from the community to the private sector?

So the two major election issues for me are:
* Housing
* Redistribution of wealth

One can help solve the other and many of its knock-on consequences.

Stuart

[Eagle]

True Housing a serious subject. Not a black and white issue.

Redistribution in wealth will end up with everyone poorer.

The only real election issue should be the economy . However that will not be the case.

I am not in 100% agreement with our Conservative friends. Disagree we need referendum on EU and also not happy with their new pension policies. There will be tears before bedtime.

Also Scotland should not get the 1000.00 per head that it gets than England. Disgraceful.

[stuart]

Redistribution in wealth will end up with everyone poorer.

Based on real evidence or shop window signage?


Stuart

[Eagle]

Based on historical facts

The Chinese only got rich when they allowed those creating wealth to get very rich.

This is the same world wide.

You do not make the poor more wealthy by overtaxing the wealth creators and indeed driving many overseas.

Have a great afternoon.

[stuart]

You do not make the poor more wealthy by overtaxing the wealth creators and indeed driving many overseas.

The wealth creators and the wealthy are not synonymous. Freeing up excess wealth from non-productive people and applying it to increasing education, health and living conditions for the community is surely a very good thing. It is also a driver for a better educated, motivated and healthy workforce to make ourselves more competitive.

Increasing wealth overall if done sensibly with good modelling and research rather than ideology and prejudice.

Stuart

[Smiffy]

Works for me.

[robbieduncan]

Reduction of the deficit with a long term plan to actually pay down debt

Realistic education policy. This is not "everyone goes to Uni". Create a culture where training as a plumber etc is seems as a good thing

Stop redefining "fairness" as "give money people have earned to those that havn't"

[Robin Orton]

Stop redefining "fairness" as "give money people have earned to those that havn't"

I thought the Tories had already (re?)defined 'fairness' as 'stopping giving money people have earned ('hard-working families who have done the right thing') to those who haven't (spongers etc).'

I am lucky enough to have been able to work throughout my life and, as a result, to be comparatively comfortably off. I think it is quite fair that some part of my income should be diverted to people who for a variety of reason haven't been so lucky

[_HB]

Stop redefining "fairness" as "give money people have earned to those that havn't"

Essentially the definition of taxation and the welfare state there. Down with this sort of thing.

[somerandombloke]

I thought the Tories had already (re?)defined 'fairness' as 'stopping giving money people have earned ('hard-working families who have done the right thing') to those who haven't (spongers etc).'

To that I would add stopping allowing the billions earned by those at the top to remain untaxed. Thats unfair 'earnings' too.

Create a culture where training as a plumber etc is seems as a good thing

And this is in fact very imporatnt. This country is crying out for tradeesmen electricians plumbers chippies etc etc an thats why there so many mostly Eastern Europeans filling those roles making the likes of Eagle and Nigel and that prat from LibertyGB whinge about immigrants. Cos we dont put any emphasise on how short we are of people who can do that stuffand we dont value those trades either. I am an electrician I am in fact one of the best electricians in the South of Engl;and and in fact in other countries too in the last 5 years Ive been in Quatar Dubai India Morocco Germany Thailand Turkey and Ireland helpign design electrical systems and teaching people how to build them proprly. I earn a lot of money doing so (though I had to take a few months off earlier in the year!). Yet electrician is seen as a 3rd or 4th rate choice of career for some stupid reason. I always knew I wanted to be an ele3ctrician since I was in school. So yeah lets do as robbieduncan says.

[robbieduncan]

Stop redefining "fairness" as "give money people have earned to those that havn't"

I thought the Tories had already (re?)defined 'fairness' as 'stopping giving money people have earned ('hard-working families who have done the right thing') to those who haven't (spongers etc).'

I am lucky enough to have been able to work throughout my life and, as a result, to be comparatively comfortably off. I think it is quite fair that some part of my income should be diverted to people who for a variety of reason haven't been so lucky

What was lucky anout working hard? I am not against welfare. I am against the claiming of a word to mean something it doesn't. I don't see how taking up to 60% of someones earnings (there is a band where this is true now) is fair. Everyone having the same is not fair if some are working harder for it. Did Labour not used to see this? "A fair day's wage for a fair day's work"?