If the General Election was tomorrow who would you vote for?

The amount of people voting for the Green party is disturbing, do you actually have a brain ?

1. Just because something worked in a previous society doesn't mean it'll work in the future. Societies change and so does the meaning of progress.
2. A rising GDP for the next 50 years isn't going to be of a lot of use if it results in an environmental collapse.

Greens won't get in. Labour won't win with Milliband, their economic policy is starting to make more sense but I don't think people at the bottom realise labour are going to put taxes up so there is less of an incentive to make it to the top. UKIP will get a few seats because they're just populists, they do have some very valid points but I think we should be in the EU the economic benefits are unquestionable, it's not a racist party they just don't think that 7 billion people should all be allowed to live in the UK. Conservatives are the party to go for, we're predicted to grow faster than any other developed economy and the deficit is falling some responsible economic policy.

Actually the deficit has increased in the last 4 years more than it did in the previous 13 years of Labour.

Pity the press won't tell us that though.

Actually the deficit has increased in the last 4 years more than it did in the previous 13 years of Labour.

Pity the press won't tell us that though.

Actually the deficit has increased in the last 4 years more than it did in the previous 13 years of Labour.

Pity the press won't tell us that though.

To add figures to what Rakas said:
They inherited the country with a budget deficit of ~3%, largely thanks to Tory policy within no time this was turned into a budget surplus, then within a couple of years they were doing what a Labour government does best: create jobs for the sake of creating jobs. So despite the strength of the economy we were still running at a deficit, at times worse than the one inherited. then the "financial crisis" comes along, everything goes to hell, they leave office with the deficit spiraling up and up, being 10.5% in 2009-10, in the March 2010 budget Darling forecasting it to be down to 8.5% by 2011-12 and in the June 2010 budget it being 11%. So Labour increased it from ~3% to ~10% of GDP.

So, for your statement to hold we now need to be at nearly 20% of GDP, well, we're not. 2011 budget saw it fall to 8.5%, 6% in 2012 and 2013, and 5% on 2014. So while Labour more than tripled the deficit this coalition halved it

I would vote UKIP all the way, immigration must be controlled this article explains exactly why

http://immigrationproblemuk.blogspot.co.uk/

This is taken from your article's synopsis:
Despite the claims of UKIP, immigration is a key driver of economic growth and benefits every one in society, affluent or otherwise. The evidence is clear and common sense dictates that low-skilled immigration only temporarily hurts low-skilled native wages and doesn’t actually affect the number of jobs available to natives. This is due to the demand that immigrants create for goods and services (adding to overall GDP) will create new jobs in order to meet increased demand. Recent research from UCL found that between 1995-2011 found that EEA immigrants contributed £9bn more than they consumed.

Your article might support some limits on immigration, however, it is clearly against UKIP on the topic of immigration.

Greens won't get in. Labour won't win with Milliband, their economic policy is starting to make more sense but I don't think people at the bottom realise labour are going to put taxes up so there is less of an incentive to make it to the top. UKIP will get a few seats because they're just populists, they do have some very valid points but I think we should be in the EU the economic benefits are unquestionable, it's not a racist party they just don't think that 7 billion people should all be allowed to live in the UK. Conservatives are the party to go for, we're predicted to grow faster than any other developed economy and the deficit is falling some responsible economic policy.

You fail to point out that the increases in taxation proposed by the Greens and (to a lesser extent) milliband's labour are unlikely to negatively affect 'those at the bottom', higher taxes on the rich allow increased spending in public services which benefit all of us (except those so rich they deem themselves above using them). I don't understand your 'incentives to get to the top' argument, if you are earning in the top tax bracket (£100,000 +) a 50% tax rate means you are STILL wealthy after taxation, while thousands of people are in poverty, surely ten people not starving to death is more important than one person being able to afford a nice car?


Posted from TSR Mobile

Why drag the top down? I don't see why income distribution and income inefficient are seen as an issue. The UK has a gini coefficient of 0.3 which is pretty equally distributed, even before tax it is 0.4. I think poverty is the issue, it doesn't matter how rich some people are. The conservatives are ensuring the highest growth of any developed economy, this means the poor can become better off without making anyone else any worse off. Why try and spread a small amount of money around when you can just get more?

Why drag the top down? I don't see why income distribution and income inefficient are seen as an issue. The UK has a gini coefficient of 0.3 which is pretty equally distributed, even before tax it is 0.4. I think poverty is the issue, it doesn't matter how rich some people are. The conservatives are ensuring the highest growth of any developed economy, this means the poor can become better off without making anyone else any worse off. Why try and spread a small amount of money around when you can just get more?