To be ashamed dh is voting conservative

[Jacobsmum1972]

I'm very left wing dh is centre right Aibu to not want friends or family finding this out.

Think that when posters go round calling people names then they have lost the arguement. I must be either thick or horrible because I am certainly not super rich. (Although a lot depends on your definition of being rich as I am part of a middle income family.)

I feel that Labour's policies are ill thought out. They are not good for the country and will lead to greater long term poverty. They are popularist rather than practical. Thankfully many voters have the sense to realise that the country cannot go on spending money it does not have. I am hoping the majority of voters do not want to leave their children a massive debt that we cannot hope to service.

Merse If austerity economics don't work then why is the UK doing better than most of mainland Europe? I want an end to austerity when the country is financially in a better state. I am praying for a Lib Dem/ Tory coalition as I hope that Nick Clegg could moderate the more extreme tory policies.

Hi ReallyT. I share your views entirely - and am hoping for the same outcome (only choice being whether to vote C or LD).

The reason I highlighted the arguments against austerity economics was really to show that I am prepared to listen to and consider alternative points of view (hoped it might influence our dear friend Bubbles)…

My DH (signed up member of Labour Party, incidentally) and I were talking last night about the folly of the left not using that anti austerity economic argument more as it would be a gift for them if they could get a summary of the main arguments across in an easily comprehensible way. But that is a comment on what would make sense for the Labour campaign from a strategic POV, not a reflection of what I believe or hope will happen.

I am not an economist (altho am part way through a post graduate degree that involves quite a bit of reading around the subject), but I was very interested to hear the anti austerity view expressed so intelligently by one of my lecturers. Not argued in terms of 'horrid people making the poor suffer', but in terms of 'it doesn't WORK and actually makes the economy contract'. On balance, I still feel that a moderate austerity approach is the most sensible one, but I suppose I am merely saying that I don't have contempt for people who disagree with me (are you listening, Bubbles?) and can see that it is entirely possible to make a very convincing counter-argument.

This stuff isn't easy; would that it was. It's childish in the extreme to imply otherwise in my view.

Good leader article in today's Economist. They come down in favour of DC and the coalition on balance, but plenty of sensible analysis - and criticism - of both main parties. They are highly critical of the Tories for offering the EU referendum. But they do point out that, although things have been very tough for many over the past 5 years, the richest 10% have borne the burden of extra taxes. Of course, that is entirely as it should be; those with the broadest shoulders should contribute most - which is already happening under the current system! Ultimately it's not about absolutes, but about degree. Most people would probably agree that a top rate tax of 90% was unwise/unfair, for instance. But would 55% be fair, perhaps? The other powerful fact, I thought, was that inequality has NOT grown under the current govt - unlike in the US. True, it hasn't narrowed either, but claims about 'the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer' don't seem to be borne out by statistics.

Some of the things I love most about my DH are his compassion, caring for others, ability to think about the greater good rather than himself, his lack of materialism, his passion at fixing injustice, his strong ethics.

We are the same. We sponsor a UK student , we are volunteers in the community, support ( to the tune of thousands a year) two charities close to our hearts, host foreign students, campaign on local issues, host community events.

We are all round Jolly Good Eggs.

We also vote Tory.

Some of you absolutely MUST start seeing things in shades of grey . I dont; vote Tory because I want poor people to starve to death, I vote Tory because without a strong economy the poor suffer MORE.
I'll give an example. If we rae taxed further I will have to let my lovely cleaner go. I pay her well and she enjoys her job. If I let her go because we rae being taxed harder, chances are all her other employers will too. Instead of eating out at a local excellent restaurant one a fortnight, you've taxed my friends and I so hard we go once every six weeks. As do all his regulars. My best friends reduce their workforce from 6 to 4 because of increased corporation tax. We use the local pub less and the local deli. Everyone suffers when our Govt over spends and over taxes. When you hit The Rich - you don't. They can afford the hit. The people you really hit are those who depend on them as customers.

The thing is, Bubble is not a political campaigner: she is posting on a thread which is essentially about emotional responses to political allegiance. And where we have people citing the niceness of Tories they know as evidence that Tories are the bestest, then the conversation about nice/thick/shame is perpetuated on both sides, after all.

With things like the bedroom tax, (for example) I do think you have to be reasonably unpleasant or really quite obtuse not to think it's an unpleasant measure, but you also have to be quite illogical to think it's a good or workable idea. So many places where there just aren't smaller houses to move to, so many people losing space they actually do need, as carers or parents or whatever, that I can only think Tory supporters find the idea of any poor person having even a square foot more than they can fill so distressing that they find the essentially punitive nature of the tax is enough to justify all that. Which makes them, in my opinion, thick or nasty.

Some of you absolutely MUST start seeing things in shades of grey . I dont; vote Tory because I want poor people to starve to death, I vote Tory because without a strong economy the poor suffer MORE.
I'll give an example. If we rae taxed further I will have to let my lovely cleaner go. I pay her well and she enjoys her job. If I let her go because we rae being taxed harder, chances are all her other employers will too. Instead of eating out at a local excellent restaurant one a fortnight, you've taxed my friends and I so hard we go once every six weeks. As do all his regulars. My best friends reduce their workforce from 6 to 4 because of increased corporation tax. We use the local pub less and the local deli. Everyone suffers when our Govt over spends and over taxes. When you hit The Rich - you don't. They can afford the hit. The people you really hit are those who depend on them as customers

That's the funniest thing I've read all day! You keep up the selfless charity work in eating out at your local excellent restaurant and hiring your lovely cleaner, bless you.

Perfectly missing the point, Nit. Brilliant.

I think we all agree (with a great sigh of belief) that Bubble isn't a political campaigner….

But SteamingNit, I think the point that many are trying to make is that the issues are complex. I would love to be able to vote on individual issues rather than parties - or do some sort of pick and mix. There are many Tory policies that I am not happy with. As there are with the policies of other parties. ON BALANCE, when I weigh everything up, I have reached the conclusion that the Tories offer the best chance for the UK. That is my view. I don't think you are stupid to have reached a different conclusion.

The other thing is this: It is terribly easy to criticise any taxes/cuts in spending etc. Of COURSE no government 'wants' to implement policies that will be unpopular or difficult. But if you are trying to do the sums - some tough decisions need to be made. I often have this discussion with my DCs who are getting quite interested in politics. It is all very well to say the bedroom tax is a disgrace (and, incidentally, I am not a fan of it), but if they were to scrap that - what alternative cut should they make? NHS, education, policing? Not EVERYTHING can be solved by taxing the evil rich to death. Not only because it isn't fair (it IS fair, of course, that they should pay higher tax rates which they do), but because it wouldn't work. Some people would leave - with all their juicy public-service funding money. Not all, of course, but the young/mobile types would find it easy. And if top rates got really really high, then even families might start to consider moving - taking kids out of schools etc. Plus all the arguments made above by Erudite.

So by all means disagree with particular taxes or cuts - but remember that if you are going to make any attempt to balance the books one abolished tax will have to be replaced with another one - or cuts in spending. People seem far less keen to name the ones they'd be in favour of choosing.

Perfectly put, Merse and that is exactly how I feel. It's about a best fit.

Agree with merse

most of the parties have policies you may agree with and some you won't

I wish we could pick and choose...or quite literally vote for policies

Merse, your views are idential to mine. Like you I would love to be able to vote on individual policies rather than parties, but realistic I don't have the time to analyse every policy and the information to hand like an MP. I feel that the Tories offer the best chance for the UK. (But I hope enough people vote lib dem so that they don't form a coalition with UKIP.)

Its all every well to want the rich to pay for everything, but the rich are a small proportion of the population. Even if you taxed the rich at 100% you would never raise enough revenue.

We need a country where there is the moviation to work and take risks. Many rich people have created jobs (better jobs than being Erudite cleaner.) Some taxes like taking away child benefit from those who earn 50 to 60K cost more to administer than they save. The rich (or even middle income families) often employ an accountant to help them with their tax return. If people do not gain from hard work and risk taking then they will do neither.

I think you should be able to rescind your vote if the "winner" has a coalition with someone you don't want

Or a re vote or something

Nobody wants 'the rich to pay for everything' - but I do have issues with things like not going any where near the wealthy elderly, and targeting instead the young and the poor - which is what even the currently Tory-supporting Economist have said is happening. Cameron is always going to go straight to welfare cuts, and his rationale and ideology are very clear. And it's nothing to do with the global credit crisis.

I'd struggle to vote for a government who presided over a system which necessitated food banks anyway - but that David Cameron thinks they are a good thing and indicate that the 'Big Society' is working well, I just find intolerable.

People do benefit from hard work and risk taking, and always will - nobody's going to tax a company director until s/he is on the same as a nurse or a teacher!

I'd agree with much of that to be fair, Nit .

Agree it's all about balance - and a perfect one is nigh on impossible to find! The ultra low interest environment that we've had for quite a few years now has really hurt savers (typically the elderly) whereas it has been good news for those with mortgages. I can see the logic in trying to shift the focus and give something back to the group that has been hit quite hard from the low rates - effectively being punished for having been prudent.

Also, when did DC ever say he thought Foodbanks were a good thing? Semantics get tricky on that anyway; clearly if people are in poverty and struggling to feed their families then having Foodbanks is a 'good thing' (certainly better than having them starve). But the fact that there are people in our society who really are in such dire straits is clearly not a 'good thing'. So depends what one means by 'foodbanks being a good thing'.

Incidentally (and I am preparing to get flamed over this - already taking cover), does anyone know why food banks often insist on such unhealthy food? Maybe it's not always the case, but we regularly donate to ours and they provide lists asking for bags of sugar, tinned puddings etc and specifically saying please DON'T give us any more pasta/jars of pasta sauce/tinned fruit in juice etc. Just seems odd to me that people who are literally on the bread line want things that are so lacking in nutritional value.

Oh for gods sake. Yes it is unreasonable, I'm voting Tory, for my own reasons, DP is voting labor for his reasons. It's full acceptable. His parents don't vote, mine do. It's their vote. Whether they choose to use it and who they choose to use it in is absolutely none of my business.

Democracy, innit?

What a brilliant story of how you met your DH, Malice. I love it! And agree - avoiding boredom at all costs is a v. good idea! We have a great deal of 'lively debate' at home.

Thanks for the comments about the food bank. I totally get why fresh food could be an issue (going off etc), but what you say does make sense. I suppose endless do-gooding types like myself donate tons of healthy stuff and so they are long of that anyway. Fair point and good to hear the explanation from someone who actually knows. So thank you (had always wondered, but been slightly nervous about asking).

That's not to say their aren't nice Tories. Them polices in my opinion are shameful. In 2010 I probably would not have been as embarrassed but voters are aware of these polices now know these polices so.

Think you're a tad bit obsessed with the police OP

The comment about the bedroom tax and how tories can't bear the thought of someone having space and therefore penalise the poor for having the space is such a distortion of the situation its unbelievable.

My 96 year old grandfather (whom I love to bits) lives in a large council house with a very good sized garden. He's lived there for donkey's years. My DM is retired now and she grew up there. He clearly doesn't need the space and doesn't go into two of the bedrooms ever. That house could be used by a family and he could be in a smaller property. The rationale behind the bedroom tax was to encourage people to give up those properties they don't really need given our limited resources and the need to be able to provide council housing for families.

Nobody denies that it makes things difficult for some and there are of course examples of people with particular issues such as disabilities who really do need the space but really, people living in council housing with disabilities who need the extra space for carers must form a very small proportion of the people in council accommodation.

So there you go, I guess I'm "reasonably unpleasant or quite obtuse."

Maybe obtuse if you don't see that it won't work unless there are properties for people to move to, so it penalises people who have no way of changing that situation and instantly moving themselves into a place with fewer rooms?

Of course I recognise that there has the be the property to move into. Clearly.

The principle of the spare room subsidy ( it isn't a tax ) is okay but yeah - needs improvement possibly to work in practice!

NOBODY goes for the elderly and wealthy, all the parties go for the young and poor. Conservatives do it, Labour do it. For the simple reason that they're far more of them and they're much more likely to vote.

The last Labour government managed to con most elderly people that they still cared for poor people by being generous with benefits for those who didn't work. But they never did anything about the cost of housing, fuel, public transport and childcare rocketing whilst wages fell in real terms. Which impoverished poor working people massively.

Their equalities agenda was also a huge con. They focused on equality on the basis of your colour or your religion, your sexuality or where you were born. This was a huge distraction from the fact that they had completely abandoned any pretence of tackling the biggest inequality of all which is financial inequality. Regardless of the colour of your skin etc, if a country has good financial equality and social mobility you can prosper no matter what.

I should be a natural Labour voter, I am a poor working person. But after the last Labour government I would never, ever vote for them again. I saw it go from a situation where people who were, for a example, a secretary and a semi-skilled construction worker could lead a fairly decent life and afford a home, a car and a holiday a year to people on incomes like that being crippled by the cost of housing, childcare, fuel and travel and living hand to mouth and month to month. The fact that happened under a Labour government says to me they have absolutely abandoned their founding principles and I will never, ever trust them again.