Dorset Girl wrote:I've just done a quick Which party should you vote for? quiz. It's only short, and only includes summaries of some policies, so it doesn't give a definitive outcome by any means. It also concerned me that apparently one of the major parties doesn't have a policy on education, which does make me wonder about how well the quiz was thought out! Like the 'Political Compass' test though, I was just interested to know what my results would be. They were:
28% Conservative
38% Labour
33% Liberal Democrat
So if there's any merit in the quiz at all, that could explain why I'm so undecided.
At any rate, it was fun to do and got me thinking about a few issues.
Dorset Girl wrote:Well, I've ruled Lib Dem out of the equation, as I won't be voting for our local candidate after what I learned today.
A teacher at our local school made a complaint against one of the cleaners, saying that he assaulted her. From her description, after months of verbal assault, he made unwanted physical contact of a sexual nature with her. She reported him, he disappeared for two days - no one knew where he'd gone - then he turned up again and denied the claims. I don't know if he did it or not - it's her word against his. The case has been through court, and he has been found 'not guilty' due to lack of evidence.
The local Lib Dems posted a campaign leaflet through our door this week. The headline was something like 'We have supported a local man through his legal hell.' The article then went on to say about how the teacher had lied, and how the man had now been found totally innocent.
Unsurprisingly, it's emerged that our local candidate has a personal connection to the accused. I don't think it's right that a political party should get so involved in a case like this, and I really don't understand them using it as a major part of their election campaigning.
So, no Lib Dem vote from me. I definitely wouldn't vote BNP or UKIP. The Green Party seem to me to be more about ideals than reality. So that just leaves Tory and Labour - I'm siding towards Labour at the moment.
Dorset Girl wrote:The manifesto launches over the past few days have given me further food for though, so I still haven't selected a poll option above.
As for the 'wanky' Child Trust Fund - again, I think perhaps we've been swayed by our own experiences. We invested Keren's about a month before the voucher ran out. We deliberately waited as things were so uncertain with the economy. It paid off - it has almost doubled already. But yes, I can see why it would actually put people off voting Labour, particularly people without children.
Mr Blue Sky wrote:That one policy perfectly highlights the difference between the philosophy of the two major parties IMO. The Tories stand for self-reliance and responsibility for your own actions, whereas Labour want much more state intervention in people’s lives.
Dorset Girl wrote:Yes, that sounds like good common sense. We've got a separate account that we pay into for Keren, we haven't added anything to the Trust Fund account ourselves.
Moon-Crane wrote:The Tory party will skirt around cutting certain things that aren't really significant, but if they said, for example, that they were completely scrapping income support for people who are able to work but choose not to (which doesn't seem to be seen as too terrible an idea either around here or in the odd unscientific straw poll) they'd be lambasted and various groups would start kicking up a stink. Surely that would save a signicficant amount of wasted tax and spending?
Moon-Crane wrote:If it were as straight dforward as that, i'd probably vote Conservative without a second thought. In reality, i find that they simply want to interfere in slightly different things to that of Labour (although there is huge crossover). I don't think there's one party in this country that i know of that stands on a pledge of minimal goverment interference in your life. All parties, as far as i can see, like to tell people how they should be living their lives, and implementing laws that take away different parts of that self-reliance and responsibility. Obviously Labour are more direct in this tactic.
All parties are scared to death of anything that involves seriously cutting the level or types of handouts we give in this country. The Tory party will skirt around cutting certain things that aren't really significant, but if they said, for example, that they were completely scrapping income support for people who are able to work but choose not to (which doesn't seem to be seen as too terrible an idea either around here or in the odd unscientific straw poll) they'd be lambasted and various groups would start kicking up a stink. Surely that would save a signicficant amount of wasted tax and spending?
Mr Blue Sky wrote:Again, the principle of paying benefits to only those people who are unable to work is sound, but some people are in situations that aren't quite that cut and dried.
Mr Blue Sky wrote:Moon-Crane wrote:If it were as straight dforward as that, i'd probably vote Conservative without a second thought. In reality, i find that they simply want to interfere in slightly different things to that of Labour (although there is huge crossover). I don't think there's one party in this country that i know of that stands on a pledge of minimal goverment interference in your life. All parties, as far as i can see, like to tell people how they should be living their lives, and implementing laws that take away different parts of that self-reliance and responsibility. Obviously Labour are more direct in this tactic.
I agree that no party offers completely Libertarian policies but then they'd basically be standing on a platform of "Vote for us - you don't need us!"
I'm also broadly on your side over small government and less regulation but there are certain areas where this has proved a disaster. Look at the banking sector over the last three years - capitalism run amok. Action was needed (as Vince Cable famously said back in 2003) to prevent the huge casino operations large investment banks were running bankrupting the country, but even the Labour government at the time was unsympathetic to this view, and remember Labour had the banks down as a target of their proposed Nationalisation program back in their 1983 manifesto. The Tories were calling for even less regulation during this period (DG's favourite politician John Redwood even held the post of 'Shadow Minister for Deregulation' back in the mid 00s even when no government post mirrored this position.) So yes, on the whole I do believe the Tories stand for less rules and regulations and more emphasis placed on self-reliance, even when it sometimes leads to detrimental consequences.
All parties are scared to death of anything that involves seriously cutting the level or types of handouts we give in this country. The Tory party will skirt around cutting certain things that aren't really significant, but if they said, for example, that they were completely scrapping income support for people who are able to work but choose not to (which doesn't seem to be seen as too terrible an idea either around here or in the odd unscientific straw poll) they'd be lambasted and various groups would start kicking up a stink. Surely that would save a signicficant amount of wasted tax and spending?
Again, the principle of paying benefits to only those people who are unable to work is sound, but some people are in situations that aren't quite that cut and dried. For example, a single mother could be offered work but can't take it up due to childcare commitments. A man of, say, 60 years of age may choose to be at home to look after his wife with Alzheimer’s rather than bring carers in (which saves the tax-payer billions each year). Unfortunately (again, I've had personal experience of this) people who care for relatives are treated very poorly by the state and can claim a pittance of a carer's allowance to enable them to continue looking after loved ones. If you deprived them of income support as well they'd be in real trouble. There are all sorts of people in situations like this (as well as the well-documented 'spongers' ) but in a modern, caring society you have to put up with a few people who will inevitably abuse the system.
Dorset Girl wrote:Mr Blue Sky wrote:Again, the principle of paying benefits to only those people who are unable to work is sound, but some people are in situations that aren't quite that cut and dried.
That's a good point. How would you determine whether someone is capable of working?
A while back, I mentioned a man I know who had to leave his manual job due to physical disability. I explained that he wanted to work, but that he was finding it exceptionally difficult to find a non-physical job that he could do. He was in his fifties at the time, and attempted to learn to use computers - but try as he might, he really couldn't get his head around how even the basics worked. That ruled out office work and any shop work where EPOS systems were used. Besides, he wouldn't have been physically able to stack shelves or anything. So reluctantly, he went on to benefits, and stayed on them until he reached retirement age.
Moon-Crane wrote:Of course, again it's not a straight forward situation to sort out, but i think we all know the area i'm talking about. Those factors you mention certainly go towards being unable to work rather than unwilling. If a household has two fit and healthy people who are not working and have been drawing benefits since leaving school, i don't think their situation is that difficult to work out. You have to start somewhere to start cutting things back. i do bear your points in mind.
Mr Blue Sky wrote:We've only to look to the example of the Child Support Agency to realise something like that would probably cost more money to implement than it ever could save. I totally agreed with the principle of the CSA too - forcing absentee fathers to pay towards their children seems only right and proper. But after a few years it became clear the CSA was costing far more to the taxpayer than it ever recouped in money from absentee fathers, which is why the laudable scheme was dropped a couple of years back.
Above all, I'm a pragmatist. I'd love to be able to completely eradicate false or unworthy benefit claims from the system but if it's going to cost more money to the taxpayer than simply putting up with a few benefit fraudsters (and I still believe that's a small minority) I'd prefer to leave things as they are. An easy to implement single rule such as 'refuse three job offers and your benefit is stopped' takes no account of the grey areas mentioned previously so would be too hard line, in my view.
Return to Off Topic Games / Polls / Quizzes
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests
© Site contents are copyright Stuart Lee 1999 - 2024. This is a Frasier fan site and is not affiliated in any way with the program, Grub St Productions, Paramount or NBC. |