[Aj12]

Many people will change how they vote once they have families and are earning fairly large wages. It could go either way though, Tory or Labour.

[Bhumbauze]

(Original post by chrisawhitmore)
Quick check: Labour's contributions to helping the poor: massive benefits increases, abolishing the 10p tax rate. So, essentially, the unemployed win under Labour, and the working poor are screwed.

Conservatives: Cuts and caps on benefits, but succesive increases in the personal allowance reducing the amount of tax payed overall, and removing many low-earners from tax entirely. So, essentially, the working poor win under the tories, and the unemployed get screwed.

It all depends on which type of poor person you would rather see helped.

You're simply incorrect here; low paid working families are seeing fairly substantial cuts in household income under the Tories. Decrease in Housing Allowance and Council Tax rebates, decrease in level of tax credits, increase in the working hours threshold for receipt of working tax credit meaning that some working poor won't get it at all, requirement for both parents in a working family to be in work when the youngest child reaches 5; essentially forcing childcare costs on the family. Also, under the proposed Universal Credit system, the working poor will be considered "semi-unemployed" and made to attend jobsearch "meetings" if they're working less than 35 hours per week (i.e. if you're working a 34 hour week, you'll be told that you need to find a better job ). These requirements make it largely impossible for people to take on, for example, part-time further education or start their own businesses in order to increase their prospects, meaning they are trapped - permanently - in unskilled, low wage, full time employment with little to no hope of advancement.

The household income of those on unemployment benefits remains largely unchanged, other than a small decrease in housing benefits of roughly £40 per month.


I really do wish people who are completely uninformed about the low-wage family benefits situation would refrain from talking about it as if they "have the facts"... when actually they're just regurgitating some nonsense they've read in the papers, or from Joe Next Door.

[Thatcuber]

(Original post by MasterPotatoHead)
I'm always going to be a Labour guy.

You see this is the problem, this is why labour got away with so much over the years. I think if Osama bin laden had stood as a labour candidate in some places he would have got elected.

[nonotrly]

(Original post by chrisawhitmore)
Quick check: Labour's contributions to helping the poor: massive benefits increases, abolishing the 10p tax rate. So, essentially, the unemployed win under Labour, and the working poor are screwed.

Conservatives: Cuts and caps on benefits, but succesive increases in the personal allowance reducing the amount of tax payed overall, and removing many low-earners from tax entirely. So, essentially, the working poor win under the tories, and the unemployed get screwed.

It all depends on which type of poor person you would rather see helped.

This seems a bit inaccurate. As one of the unfortunate souls to have had the opportunity to be unemployed under both governments, I can say the only difference I've seen is that the DWP under a Conservative government are handing out random sanctions to anyone who sneezes, in an attempt to recoup money, and hit targets with that aim. Then hope the person does not appeal, or at least appeal intelligently enough, at which point they're left with no choice but to give the money back.

Other than that, and the annual increase, I've seen no difference in being unemployed. Just the same mistakes and the same circumstances.

(Original post by Thatcuber)
You see this is the problem, this is why labour got away with so much over the years. I think if Osama bin laden had stood as a labour candidate in some places he would have got elected.

People who vote one party all the time don't make the difference and aren't part of the important majority. In 1997 Labour won by a landslide because they had a young, somewhat handsome and nice-looking bloke as leader against John Major. In 2001, Labour had done nothing wrong so far, so they won again.

Yes, it's quite possible some political analysts have something different to say about that, but the millions of the undecided public don't understand any of what they blog about, nor care enough to read it. That's not what wins elections.

In 2005, after the beginning of Iraq and Afghanistan, Labour still won, simply because of Michael Howard . Who on Earth would want to vote for a creepy looking guy with a rapeface who looks like the a-hole History teacher that shouts at everyone?

So if Osama was leader of Labour, chances are he wouldn't win because he's not handsome to westerners. Though in 2005 he'd have a chance.

The Conservatives needed someone who, if he had to be posh, could at least hide it well, he also had to be handsome and relatively young. David Cameron becomes leader and wins a hung parliament. No doubt the fact Gordon Brown, the moody old fart, was PM lost the election. Hung parliament is the best the Conservatives could've hoped for in 2010 as the gap was still insurmountable even after the 2001 and 2005 elections.

[jacketpotato]

(Original post by chrisawhitmore)
Quick check: Labour's contributions to helping the poor: massive benefits increases, abolishing the 10p tax rate. So, essentially, the unemployed win under Labour, and the working poor are screwed.

What specific benefits do you have in mind?

Unemployment benefit didn't really change under labour. JobSeeker's Allowance is £67.50 a week for over 25s and people now have to prove they are looking for work, something they didn't have to do in 1997. The benefits Labour did introduce and increase - child benefit and working tax credit - are paid to the working poor.

[Aleandcynicism]

Oh yes, I've got the date I'm gonna turn Tory marked down on my calender

(Original post by When you see it...)
How about some proper democracy rather than being 'allowed' to vote for our philosopher kings.

Protip: Referencing Plato incorrectly doesn't make you look intelligent.

[Chris22]

(Original post by chancellorroberts)
I decide who to vote for at the time of the election, I don't support a set political party.

Same.

Many people who do, will vote for their set party regardless of their policies. I think it's better to weigh up the options of who you think would be better running the country as opposed to voting for a party blindly.

[Chris22]

(Original post by Thatcuber)
You see this is the problem, this is why labour got away with so much over the years. I think if Osama bin laden had stood as a labour candidate in some places he would have got elected.

The point applies to the Conservatives too. Some people will always vote for their party without considering any factors apart from the party's name.

[hughcapet]

Neither. They're both crap.

UKIP all the way

Neg away, tofu-chewers.

[CyclopsRock]

Does anyone honestly not see how dumb it is to say "I'll always support XYZ!!" ?? The Labour Party post 1997 were very different to the same party pre-1997. Likewise, the Tories changed a lot under Cameron vs his three immediate predecessors. How anyone can say they'll always support such a fluid group of policies is mad.

[Schmokie Dragon]

I went to uni conservative and came out undecided, but with green and libertarian views.

[KimKallstrom]

I know the OP is getting negs like there's no tomorrow but that's because a lot of students genuinely believe that they'll be thinking the same way they do at 40 as they do at 20.

Let me break this to you. Hardly anybody does.

The second you start to actually work all the time and pay taxes half of you will be doing a 180 on your views.

[pol pot noodles]

(Original post by Bhumbauze)
You're simply incorrect here; low paid working families are seeing fairly substantial cuts in household income under the Tories. Decrease in Housing Allowance and Council Tax rebates, decrease in level of tax credits, increase in the working hours threshold for receipt of working tax credit meaning that some working poor won't get it at all, requirement for both parents in a working family to be in work when the youngest child reaches 5; essentially forcing childcare costs on the family. Also, under the proposed Universal Credit system, the working poor will be considered "semi-unemployed" and made to attend jobsearch "meetings" if they're working less than 35 hours per week (i.e. if you're working a 34 hour week, you'll be told that you need to find a better job ). These requirements make it largely impossible for people to take on, for example, part-time further education or start their own businesses in order to increase their prospects, meaning they are trapped - permanently - in unskilled, low wage, full time employment with little to no hope of advancement.

The household income of those on unemployment benefits remains largely unchanged, other than a small decrease in housing benefits of roughly £40 per month.


I really do wish people who are completely uninformed about the low-wage family benefits situation would refrain from talking about it as if they "have the facts"... when actually they're just regurgitating some nonsense they've read in the papers, or from Joe Next Door.

It's a bit unfair to take the government's welfare reforms, considering the state of the economy, as a measure of their general policy on the poor.
When New Labour came into power back in '97 the UK economy was running like a Rolls-Royce engine. If that was the case today, the Tories too would be able to bribe the electorate by throwing tens of billions at welfare and the NHS.

[nonotrly]

(Original post by KimKallstrom)
I know the OP is getting negs like there's no tomorrow but that's because a lot of students genuinely believe that they'll be thinking the same way they do at 40 as they do at 20.

Some might say I only hold this view now because I have red dots (woe is me), but it seems if you get neg repped a lot on The Student Room, you're totally spot on. (unless what you've said is plainly violent, stupid or discriminating). The OP might be feeling vindicated and smug, then.

[When you see it...]

(Original post by Aleandcynicism)
Oh yes, I've got the date I'm gonna turn Tory marked down on my calender



Protip: Referencing Plato incorrectly doesn't make you look intelligent.

What?

[LETSJaM]

(Original post by Simplicity)
Like a lot of students probably vote Lib dems because they would get rid of student fees. However, when they leave uni, they probably change to Tories as they are more for the middle class.

So was wondering is this generally true?

Also, did your views change when you left uni?

Personally, I have never liked labour and can't stand Tony Blair. So never voted labour.

You voted Lib Dem last time...

What a mistake!

<3 x

[biggie]

Why would anyone vote for ANY of the three main parties? You're basically voting to be run by the rich backers for 5 years at a time.

[tehFrance]

Already a voting Tory... although I do think they can improve themselves vastly. I am also a card carrying UMP member

[Bhumbauze]

(Original post by pol pot noodles)
It's a bit unfair to take the government's welfare reforms, considering the state of the economy, as a measure of their general policy on the poor.

Not really - not if you look at the overall effect of the reforms. It's not about "moar money"... it's about the fact that the structure of the reforms has made it mor difficult (near impossible) for working families to progress upwards, regardless of ability or determination. The Tories like people to "know their place" - don't be naive - they don't want people from poorer families gaining education / skills that elevate them "above their place", no matter how able the person in question happens to be. They want them locked into full time, minimum wage, prospectless employment. Their policies make this abundantly clear.

[pol pot noodles]

(Original post by Bhumbauze)
Not really - not if you look at the overall effect of the reforms. It's not about "moar money"... it's about the fact that the structure of the reforms has made it mor difficult (near impossible) for working families to progress upwards, regardless of ability or determination. The Tories like people to "know their place" - don't be naive - they don't want people from poorer families gaining education / skills that elevate them "above their place", no matter how able the person in question happens to be. They want them locked into full time, minimum wage, prospectless employment. Their policies make this abundantly clear.

Here I was hoping for a mature discussion on the subject, but you've dashed my hope by straight away off the bat spewing out a loard of anti-Tory garbage rhetoric and nonsense. 'The Tories like people to 'know their place'? Did Bob Crow tell you to type that?