Conservative government... good or bad?

That last comment is not what champagne socialists do. They would take the same amount of money from themselves before redistributing it.

They do contribute, they just don't give away all their money. Do you know why? Because they think they can use the money they have and the influence it affords them to change the way things systematically work in this country. Giving away their money is very much a short term solution. People like you may only think in the short term, but these champagne socialists actually think about what effect they can have on the country after their donations have run out.

Honestly, my argument is hardly radical. It came up in one of my Oxford critical reasoning tests It's really not hard to prove that your thinking is very uncritical and unintelligent here.

Why? Too stubborn to accept there's a problem?

The problem is that not everyone is feeling the benefit. Average wages still haven't returned to pre-recession levels, people are having to go onto zero hour contracts without knowing how often they'll be able to work, house prices are rocketing and pushing the younger generation away from housing, food banks usage has skyrocketed etc.

Nobody is advocating for complete socialism here, but the fact is the conservatives have done absolutely jack **** to protect the poorest in society.

Inequality is always going to happen, but that doesn't mean the government should turn their back on the poor.

I'm not sure where I stand on this, simply because all other choices are poor too. I want our government to be culturally liberal, but economically libertarian. Who would support such policies? We have the Tories being conservative, Labour being chavvy, LibDems being whimpy, UKIP being 'Republican', and Greens being very socialist. No where do we have the liberal parties found on Mainland Europe.

I do wish we had a more diverse government. If EU's parliament can be so diverse, I think Parliament can too.

Well of course not everyone will feel the benefit of the economy because we are still below our 2008 GDP. Fact is we are recovering much better and faster than the alternatives, and I wholly encourage every poor government-hating person to move out to Greece and Spain if they prefer their higher welfare.

First let's get one thing clear: A ban on zero hour contracts means that four fifths of those employed on them will become unemployed. Surely, any remotely-generous person would agree that employment is better than unemployment, both for the economy and wider society?

Also, two thirds of people employed on zero hours are happy with their work-life balance, compared to half on full time.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25098984

Considering that one fifth of food bank users are drug users, I don't actually care.

Many food banks have also reported that a small minority (10%) often enter and request support while intoxicated, even more reason for me not to care. If you can't sort out your household budget, then the state and society has no reason to support you - you failed at life and are wasting the money of taxpayers.

]11 million people in the UK are on welfare (excluding pensioners). Can you tell me why food bank use is less than 10%? Surely, if it is true that people must resort to charity food in order to survive because the welfare is so low, the number should be much closer to 100%?

I agree totally. I find it disgusting that the poor received a 4000 personal allowance intake during the life of the last Parliament.

If someone earns 15 000, their taxable income in 2010 would be 8600, which would mean they would keep 13 280 of their money and paid 1720 in tax.

If someone earns 15 000, their taxable income in 2015 would be 4400, which would mean they would keep 14 120 of their money and paid 880 in tax.

This means that the 12 million people working on the minimum wage contribute 10.56 billion in tax in 2015, whereas they would have paid 20.64 billion in tax in 2010 on today's wages.

We need to end the burden on the rich.

The poor have had it way too good over this recession.

Yeah too bad inequality today is on the same level as Thatcher before Labour ruined it and gave more cash to their cronies.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/jul/10/income-gap-narrowest-margin-25-years

Higher welfare =/= bankrupting the country. It is possible to have a sensible level (what we have at present) without completely crippling the economy.

I don't actually support a total ban on zero hour contracts. I'm merely using them as a point to display that more 'poor people' may be employed, but not necessarily in a secure and comfortable living/financial situation.

Well evidently. If you work less hours you're bound to be able to manage work-life more, but not necessarily your finances.

And the other 80pcnt would be... animals? plants?

Congratulations on completely disregarding all food bank users because a minority of them are drug users or intoxicated. You've managed to ignore the issue and treat it like the elephant in the room just to satisfy your false belief the conservatives aren't destroying the lives of the poor.

You know full on well this is going to depend entirely on the family/people receiving welfare. A family of five who rent will (most likely) struggle by more on welfare than a single person living with a relative...

Wonder if that 4000 increase was even worth it considering the amount of people employed in low-skill and low-hour jobs

Ahhh I see. So the government now increases the rate of personal allowance to = less tax = they have more reasoning to slash expenditure in areas such as welfare and education. Got it!

******* lold. If the rich have such a "burden" please do explain why their wealth has increased astoundingly over the past few years and why London has more millionaires compared to a few years ago?

Wow.

Hey great article. I love the part where it says "but coalition's benefit curbs may also reverse trend".

I'm not sure where I stand on this, simply because all other choices are poor too. I want our government to be culturally liberal, but economically libertarian. Who would support such policies? We have the Tories being conservative, Labour being chavvy, LibDems being whimpy, UKIP being 'Republican', and Greens being very socialist. No where do we have the liberal parties found on Mainland Europe.

I do wish we had a more diverse government. If EU's parliament can be so diverse, I think Parliament can too.

What are 'culturally liberal' policies?

Environment, LGBT, Animal Rights, Human Rights, Civil Liberties, Secularism, drug liberalisation, self-defence, lassiez-faire cultural polices*, no oil/gas, pro-automation, pro-offshoring, pro-globalisation etc...

A smaller House of Lords should be merged into HM Privy Council, and powers handed to our Royal Family. Instead of 'hiring' on heredity, it should be based on merit (a bit like the current Privy Council).

Parliament should have it's constituency boundaries redrawn, and be elected using D'Hont method.

Finally, everyone in the court system should be allotted.

Government should have five bodies: Crown, Parliament, Judiciary, Bank, and Ombudsman; Bank and Ombudsman should have a 'troika' of heads appointed by Crown, Parliament and Judiciary.

I am pro-EU and pro-Commonwealth, pro-devolution, and pro-secular.

I agree totally. I find it disgusting that the poor received a 4000 personal allowance intake during the life of the last Parliament.

If someone earns 15 000, their taxable income in 2010 would be 8600, which would mean they would keep 13 280 of their money and paid 1720 in tax.

If someone earns 15 000, their taxable income in 2015 would be 4400, which would mean they would keep 14 120 of their money and paid 880 in tax.

This means that the 12 million people working on the minimum wage contribute 10.56 billion in tax in 2015, whereas they would have paid 20.64 billion in tax in 2010 on today's wages.

You've ignored NI and the rise in NMW.

Unless I missed something in reading what they had to say neither is really relevant.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Well raise NMW and the numbers because wrong.

I'm kinda socialist; I had someone tell me that I wasn't socialist, but I do think we need a safety net (and ropes to allow everyone to climb up (think development bank)).

Sometimes I think I'm culturally left of the Greens but economically right of the Tories.
t.

I really don't see how the change in NMW is relevant since it was stated that the same figure is being used for 2010, no adjustments of any kind. Might not be representative of reality, but for the dodgy model NMW is irrelevant entirely, and NI irrelevant in that the amount is the same in both cases.

You don't have to be a socialist to support a welfare net. Indeed, the NHS and the welfare state were originally envisaged by:Liberals.

By the sound of it you';re basically a Centrist Liberal, like me!

The problem with saying I'm Centrist is that I support substantial privatisations, the only difference being that they are still liberal/socialist. I advocate systems such as German Healthcare, Dutch Media, and so on...

I am starting to think that I am actually more culturally Green. I can support Green on many of their policies.

The problem with Tories is that they are the wrong type of right-wing economics, and they generally seem to make a mess of privatisations (backdoor privatisations of NHS, stupid regional monopolies...).

But at least I'd be able to say I am Liberal Libertarian!

Nurses are already looking at substantial pay cuts