I won't be voting Labour because

But you might want to mention where the headquarters of the Banks that required bailouts are...

Whoops dropped a U. Sorry Alouiseg.

Aloiseg - would you rather money is spent where it is LESS needed than where it is MORE needed?

The SE gets taxed more than the rest of the uk due to it's higher house prices for a start. The GDP of the city of London puts the rest of the country in the shade. Stamp Duty, income tax, inheritance tax et al add up to being the financial powerhouse for the country yet the money is reinvested elsewhere. The new high rate of stamp duty will mainly affect the south east, especially London where a semi detached house can often fetch over a million.

Not just those eitehr LF (I live in South W now but caome from a place called Bridgwater that is pretty similar)

I do think it is ahrd to live in the4 SE- bloody expensive- though. The economy here is shot to death and my city is tranked in the top 3 worst hit by the recession but at least that's balanced by being set up for it IYSWIM. The mortgagtes and rents are relatively small if you are trying to scrape togetehr enough to cover them.

For all those moaning about DC and GO being ex Etonions, just remember that GB and AD are both Scottish and have given Scotland sooooo much more money for health and education. They have penalised the English, taxed the south east to death and have sent all the money up North.

I've said this on another thread but these are just a couple of reasons why I will not vote for manipulative, meddling, inept politicians who have spent all of our hard earned money on tweaking social engineering.

AND if Lady Thatcher was an option i'd be voting for her.

I find your opinion absolutely revolting skihorse. So if I should lose my job, then Ive "got my hand out" and come in for your contempt.
Yuk.

you missed my point, which was about what is necessary. What's considered necessary round here, is far, far more than is considered necessary in the UK.

OK so way I see it is this:

In 2 years we will be abck to being net givers as we were before, and will be apying oney we coudl well use to the state.

Will I be annoyed? No.

Why not?

Because if in 40 years (as a random example) ds2 contracts a disease that means he can no longer work and I am too old to help I want to know there is a net to pick him up.

I will never be rich, as any parent of disabled kids can tell you whatever you bring in can be easilty spent ten times over in disabililty therapies etc. And any savings we have (and we will, we are natural savers- thank god after the last year) will keep away the wolves in old age. The best way I can ennsure my boys ahve a safety net for tehmselves is not to complain when I hand over my portion to the state each month. And if my boys never need it then fine, it's the same as house insurance: just ebcuase you pay it doesn't mean you actually want to use it.

Oh and Ski- I think everyone almost feels pissed off they pay for the feckless.

With a very few exceptions thats a given.

your taxes don't just pay for the feckless though do they? They pay for the recently redundant or those whose pensions ahve collapsed otrthjopse who are seriously ill.

Ski I am not claiming unemployment benefits and only ahve claimed any at all for a very short time: my view howecver was the same when we both worked, would you perhaps have taken them more seriously then? Im was a manager for a national charity and Dh a logistics manager- I didn't have an ideology transplant teh first day I claimed CA you know. Or a avlidity removal either come to think of it, and as Dh is still employed we still pay tax. Do you seriously imagine my £53 p/w CA would keep a family of 2 adults and 4 children?

both I'd love a house full of children, you know, like "The Sound of Music" or something daft like that. How much do you think you'd need to earn to support 6 children? More than I earn I guess... I don't expect others to pick up the bill. It's just normal isn't it? Not to expect others to pay for your "wants". My mum wanted 4, their budget went to 2. I think it's a very modern phenomena to expect others to pay.

When it boils down to it I personally am very fucked off that I'm expected to pay for the feckless. Every extra quid I have to pay in taxes is one less for my kid. How simple does it have to be for people to comprehend?

Exactly clar, if you're claiming benefits, of course you're going to have a very different view to mine.

nightby simply if you've got your hand out you can't afford it. I want some new gear for my horse... who should pay for that? We all make our choices.

Whats your definition of afford, skihorse?

Many Germans probably think I cant afford my children, and shouldnt have had them.
I think that their 1 or 2 children have far, far too many material things.

Well Ski I doubt anyone woulod argue that teh economy is just peachy- they'd ahve to be dim.

And you know, above the maybe one or two children (I know you will disagree on that, shall we just assume unmendable difference?) I think you need to take finance into account and only have children you can afford, absolutely.

But there will always be famillies who can afford their children and who become affected by bad luck- illness, unemployment, aprental death etc. Assuming that every family with children in poverty should ahve done some suns and used a condom misses those entirely. And of course most of thsoe famillies will ahve spent years upon deacdes paying their taxes into a system designed as national insurance for just that eventuality.

If every feckless non paying in so and so was childless then I would be the first to say link benefits payments to tax paid: heck there'd be more in the pot for us should we ever need to claim JSA or whatever. But the creation of a generation of children who think they exist outside of society and have been abandoned by us all beciause of their parent's decisions is not something worth even contremplating unless you want a woprld where crime rates spiral ever higher and you see satrving children on the streets and are happy to live with it. I cannot ever do that. And deciding that those who have bad luck should be abandoned - well if that's your view so be it as long as you accept it may be you or your children.

In response to those who think the UK economy is just peachy fine:

www.mckinsey.com/mgi/reports/freepass_pdfs/debt_and_deleveraging/debt_and_deleveraging_full_report.p df

See pages 10, 11, 18 (incl. footnote), 20 (wrt household debt), etc., etc. There are more than enough pages (94) for those actually interested in economics to get their teeth in to.

We are no there to discuss eugenics, however it is only common sense to say that if you can't afford them, don't have them. Much in the same way that the rest of life operates, if you can't afford it you don't buy it. "Contraception fails"? Abortion doesn't.

WRT to the 'we need change' thing: well yes but the trick is to know what to change and what not to- we need stability too, in an awful lot of ways. Change for teh sake of change is not a good thing, and I don't want somebody to try and eprsuade me by a random statement that we need cahnge- I want to be told what in their opi9nion needs changing and that is where both major parties are letting me down.

Absolutely I want to see changes to MOD funding and the costs of bureaucracy adn expenses. I know that civils ervice positions must drop but I don't want whatever government we have to sacrifice those people to necessity and then dump them into a system which they also simultaneously pull the bnottom from. I want to know the SN units will stay open, so that we don't spend the next X years facing battles that cost us and the LEA for something that will be pulled anyway. If I set up the asd realted support group I am trying to I want to know that whichever budget we access whetehr it be charity or LA is not pullede as soon as I get it running.

Only when I know what individual party's takes on that are can I make an informed opinion and yet there is only silence.

Love thy neighbour eh? Not if they happen to earn less than you or are more needy. If they're unemployed, well, lets just get the firing squad out now.

As no contraception is 100% safe so maybe we should just sterilize the poor?

The expenses issue was emotive - in terms of actual cost, and in terms of the degree to which it reflects actual corruptions it is pretty trivial. It DOES make MP's look terrible, but there was very little criminality, and a lot of people accepting what they were told they were entitled to, in leiu of increased salaries. It's just at the end of the day, really not very important.

www.theregister.co.uk/2009/05/15/eurofighter_tranche_3/

www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/02/type_45_viper_paams_fail/

All I know is I won't be voting Conservative. Probably not Labour either, but definitely not Conservative. All those that say 'we need a change' need to actualy look further to what those changes may be DC hasn't really come up with much yet - wait for the Manifesto first, then think hard.

Or we could stop basing MoD procurement on propping up employment in the Midlands.

I don't think that expenses were an emotive issue - more one of honesty and integrity and in some cases fraud.

Agree about procurement, but if the govt didn't keep asking the MoD to slash budgets and do the same and more with less money, perhaps the contracts wouldn't be put back to save the money that the Treasury wants saved. Give the MoD a decent budget and then stick to it; stop bloody chopping and changing and asking them mid financial year to make more savings when there is a war going on (£90 million from the core budget to finance Afghanistan this year instead of it all coming from the special reserve as it should do).