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.

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.

Labour targets gay vote with beermats

Tania Branigan, political correspondent
Saturday April 2, 2005
The Guardian
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/election/story/0,15803,1450747,00.html

Labour activists are hoping that gay voters will find inspiration at the bottom of their pints, by launching a beermat campaign to win their support.

The mats, distributed to clubs and bars by the Labour Campaign for Lesbian and Gay Rights (LCLGR), say a vote for the Liberal Democrats would "let Tory hate back in". Sponsored by the GMB union, they tell drinkers: "Go to bed with Charlie ... wake up with Howard."

inspiration at the bottom ..........LOL !

Worrying and sad that in Zimbabwe voters will queue 10 hours and more--in a hopeless cause to make their vote but over here the I'm all right jack mentality means people don't like what's going on but won't get up and use their vote. Polls predict the lowest turnout ever and there's not many new contributors to the debate on this thread. Apathy could lead us down the Zimbabwe path!

'But when there's no realistic choice, why vote?' would be the common answer. Personally I think there is a choice, and that Labour should be kept in, albeit with a far smaller majority.

Whether you agree or disagree with my political position, I believe there still is a choice. But most of the country doesn't. This is because all politicians do seem to do these days is resort to petty disputes about pseudo-policies in an attempt to win the grey/gay/youth/woman/etc. vote, rather than actually sticking to ideals and principles. A lot of people I know have told me they will not be voting, out of choice. To those people I always say the same thing; go to the polling station and actively abstein. Turnout is higher, and the politicians can't cling to voter apathy. Staying out of the polling stations is not effective. Going there and choosing to abstein sends out a message. Still, realistically no one will do that and the MPs will continue to have their excuses ready made.

Just my two pennies worth.

Yes private eye have got it, get out b'liar, get in brown.

Did you see the recent report where we are using the worlds resources up at unsustainable rate. Im afraid its time to make some tough choices and make some sacrafices. Are YOU (all) prepared too??????? if you dont our children are going to suffer (im lucky i havent got any). but greed as always been a great motivator and i cant see that changing.

So, they have found against the 'Birmingham 6'. And rightly so. Trust devious people to find ways to cheat.
And what about the six Barristers who gave their services without charge?
What were they defending? Certainly not some poor individual who had come up against the full might of the law.
Another way the Australians are showing us the the way to go! Compulsory
voting, in person or no vote. Signature checked against registration form if any doubt.