The 2005 general election is nearly upon us. Which way will you vote, and you reasons why. Here is a brief list of the potential contestants, please add your own.


More tax!
Less tax!
Dont know!
Death to all infidels!
Who gives a shit?

The great pretender.

Historically we used to get a 70 to 80% turnout at general elections. Last time though it fell from 71% in '97 to 59% in '01 - I'd love to see it fall below 50% this time because then these professional politicians really couldn't pretend they had a mandate to govern.
No wonder TB is encouraging postal ballots and the obvious abuse that goes with it. Ironical though that this is probably yet another reason why many of us have lost faith in the present system and deliberatly won't take part!

Reading the postings boys it looks to me we don't like any of them. It's Hobson's choice.

MS

brianboru.

Every man and his dog knows that postal ballots are wide open to abuse.
The Socialists won't put the block on and stop it. They're the ones that gain.
Is there any recorded history, prior to about 1960, of vote rigging or postal fixing? (Other than maybe 100 years ago).
The four vote fixers in Brum (allegedly ~:-)) )appear to have got away with it. And they were caught red-handed. The voting commissioner said: ' he was not sure that the rights of the defendants were safeguarded'. Wot a load of...........

Bollocks is the word you are looking for perhaps standber. No doubt they will all be voting tory.....:-)

Stanber, Yes. Many many think when the Parlimentary Boundaries were redefined a short time ago. (In years)
Maybe it would be interesting, if proportional representation was introduced.
Many think that it is is a fairer system.

MaxK
Hi, Max!

Fred1new.
PR? No way. Ask the Eyties. After WW II, they had an election and new Gov every 12 month for about 20 years. Sheer waste of time and effort. The idea sounds good but it just does not work. Cheers.

Cows coming home.....



Britain



March 31, 2005

Tax assault on middle class cuts incomes as poll looms
By Jill Sherman and Gary Duncan






AVERAGE household incomes have fallen for the first time in almost 15 years, according to new government figures.
The middle classes were hardest hit, with people earning more than 27,000 suffering a 1 per cent fall in their incomes last year.

The disclosures will come as a blow to Labour as it prepares to place the economy at the centre of its election campaign.



A further blow to the Governments economic track record came as a key high street spending survey dropped to its lowest level since last September.

The Tories last night seized on the figures from the Office for National Statistics, saying that the income drop was a direct result of the taxes Labour had introduced since 2001.

An analysis of the data by the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) showed that the average household income after tax and benefits 21,000 fell by 0.2 per cent in real terms between 2002-03 and 2003-04 from 409 to 408 a week, or 52 in the year. The last time average incomes fell was in the early 1990s.

But the middle classes, whom Labour is desperate to court, were hardest hit between 2002/3 and 2003/4 by the tax changes. A single-earner couple on 40,000 with one child would have lost 117 per year a loss of 0.4 per cent. A couple with two earners and two children on a combined income of 60,000 would have lost 841.25 a year a loss of 1.9 per cent.

The IFS said that the drop was due to the 1 per cent increase in national insurance rates in Gordon Browns 2002 Budget and his decision to freeze personal allowances. But it also claimed that above- inflation increases in council tax had reduced average incomes by a further 0.3 per cent.

Andrew Shephard, an IFS research economist, said: Without the two tax changes and the hike in council tax, average households would have been 0.9 per cent better off.

The new figures will embarrass ministers today as they hold a pre-election Cabinet meeting at which the economy will be confirmed as the centrepiece of Labours campaign.

David Willetts, the Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary, said: This is a devastating evaluation of what Labour have done to hard-working families. On average, they got poorer last year compared with the year before.

Tony Blair is widely expected to announce on Monday that the election will be on May 5 and the first seven to ten days will be dominated by a campaign that focuses on Labours economic vision for Britain.

The Chancellor, who is back at the centre of Labours election effort, and Mr Blair will urge minsiters to exploit to the limit the gaffe by Howard Flight, the former deputy chairman of the Conservatives, suggesting that his party has hidden plans to cut spending.

The ONS figures also confirmed the Chancellors determination to redistribute wealth. The income of the poorest fifth of the population grew by 1 per cent between 2002-03 and 2004-05 while the income of the richest 5 per cent fell by 1 per cent.

The incomes of poorer households were boosted by new and more generous tax credits, while the better-off were hit by rises in income tax, national insurance and council tax, Mr Shephard said. This redistributive package has nudged inequality lower, although the Government cannot yet claim that it is definitely on a downward trend.

The IFS said that pensioner poverty fell slightly but suggested that Labour would miss one of its key child poverty targets.

The ONS figures showed there were 100,000 fewer children in poverty, after housing costs, in 2003-04 than in 2002-03. But the IFS said that to meet its target to cut child poverty by a quarter by 2004-05 Labour would have to ensure a further 500,000 children were lifted out of poverty next year.

At least you wouldn't have a government for very long. But I don't think the result would necessarily be the same. It doesn't have to produce instability.

This seems to be the usual thing Labour diehards blaming Tories and Tory diehards blaming Labour.
There is only one Question how come Labour has not improved anything when Tony said he would correct everything at his first election and don't say the economy because he inherited that and anybody with a miasma of brainpower knows that.
Please tell me what he has reversed in any way.
Don't go on about Tories bonking, because Labour are just as bad and they also hound people like Dr Kelly who paid the ultimate for speaking the TRUTH.
Think bonking is safer.

Fred1new
PR means an unstable gathering wherever the seat of government is.....it certainly 'aint a legislative body. Nobody will agree with anyone else.
The best to be got out of PR is; 'I'll vote for what you want if you will vote for what I want'.
In this country it would mean Lab or Con in cahoots with Lib.....always.
Plus a string of other 'Parties' with one or two MP's.

YOBS --be afraid-be very afraid!! Nice one Michael we need more like this followed by action when they get in.

Whoops!


No feelgood factor as house prices suffer worst fall in 10 years

Larry Elliott
Friday April 1, 2005
The Guardian

Tony Blair's plan to make the economy the centrepiece of Labour's re-election strategy suffered a fresh blow yesterday when Britain's biggest building society reported the sharpest fall in house prices for 10 years.

http://money.guardian.co.uk/news_/story/0,1456,1449876,00.html

MaxK
The seams are beginning to pop.
As I used to say to lardy; 'The ratshit will build and build then you will be out.' The usual pattern with these people.

Did you see Question Time last night? Margaret Hodge gave a long diatribe about how wonderful Labour are and how well they had done. Not a single handclap!
George Galloway performed very well. He gave Tony and Labour a real right bollocking. The audience loved it.
Hope all ok. Rgds. S.

I see a report out today states that in the early years of labour a company pensioner retiring got 4 times what he gets today the reason being the billions of pounds G Brown has taken out of the pot in TAX.
I can assure you he did'nt help me because my pension is down due to him and I will probably have to work and I thought I had done my stint after 40 odd years of unbroken employment.

I thought George Galloway was superb--if only he could control his tendency to temper and some of his more daft ideas he's worth backing and has gone up in my estimation pity he's in the wilderness! Margaret Hodge was pathetic, Lembik Opik a clown but David Cameron was impressive--a future Conservative leader I think.

cavman2
..........but you must feel very good and proud that YOU have provided some of the money that gives kids 30 a week to go to school? And another 100 at the end of term if they have been good. The whole lot stinks.

Who would want to lead the Tory Party other than into the wilderess.



Forgot they are already there!!!











8-)))

moneyplus.
Hodges stupid grin when someone disagrees with her. Grrrrrr
Cameron was good. I'd like to see David Davies at the top though....no baggage like MH.

Wisest thing David Davies could do is go cap in hand to the Lib Dems and beg to be let in.





:-)



Happiness is here again!

Standber,
No not really I feel great giving it to illegal immigrants who have never paid in a penny to the system and of course trying to heal those ones that bring disease with them like TB.