Tories or Labour for those with high income and good savings?

bjorn_again

ses6jwg wrote: »

I really couldn't care less.

I have ethnic Chinese and Asian friends and don't take kindly to the idea that the BNP don't define them as British.

QUOTE]

How do they feel about Brits not being defined as Chinese in China, or Pakistani in Pakistan?

jdemaistre

Just to be absolutely clear, the Pope did not say that the Holocaust never happened. This is a blatant lie, in the tradition of Goebbels' "Big Lie". When Pope Benedict visited Auschwitz, he said:

To speak in this place of horror, in this place where unprecedented mass crimes were committed against God and man, is almost impossible - and it is particularly difficult and troubling for a Christian, for a Pope from Germany. In a place like this, words fail; in the end, there can only be a dread silence - a silence which is itself a heartfelt cry to God: Why, Lord, did you remain silent? How could you tolerate all this? In silence, then, we bow our heads before the endless line of those who suffered and were put to death here; yet our silence becomes in turn a plea for forgiveness and reconciliation, a plea to the living God never to let this happen again....

The rulers of the Third Reich wanted to crush the entire Jewish people, to cancel it from the register of the peoples of the earth. Thus the words of the Psalm: “We are being killed, accounted as sheep for the slaughter” were fulfilled in a terrifying way. Deep down, those vicious criminals, by wiping out this people, wanted to kill the God who called Abraham, who spoke on Sinai and laid down principles to serve as a guide for mankind, principles that are eternally valid. If this people, by its very existence, was a witness to the God who spoke to humanity and took us to himself, then that God finally had to die and power had to belong to man alone - to those men, who thought that by force they had made themselves masters of the world.

Don't try to smear the Pope with Griffin's filth.

Arthurian

Scooby_Man wrote: »

I think my choice of party might boil down to which one is best for my hard earned and hard saved (shallow, I know).

I like the fact that Tories will take people off benefits if they are not entitled (and also increase incentive to work), raising chance of less tax increases. It also sound like they want to reward hard workers and hard savers, even if only at face value.

I'm still not a fan of the 50p rate - but anything above that and, personally, I'd be better off leaving this country.

PS - sorry if this is the wrong forum for this post - but would like to get some thoughts...

I suspect the Tories are less likely to "soak the rich" - which in some politicians' minds means anyone with hard-earned savings. I'd vote for Vince Cable, but it does seem like a wasted vote when his party has no chance of winning.

RJP33

Never voted Tory before but I’m considering doing it next year. The benefits system has got completely out of hand and often rewards the lazy rather than the hardworking people of the country. Someone has to tackle this and it surely isn’t Labour.

Now we have even more high taxes and NI for people who work hard for their money, feels like Brown has been completely found out for not putting anything in reserve during the good years. Plus it might instil a bit more confidence in the economy and UK business to have a change.

Hungerdunger

Hungerdunger wrote: »

Bigoted, Nasty and Prejudiced?

Having watched Question Time last night, might I be permitted to change this to Bigoted, Nasty and Preposterous?

apt

Frugality wrote: »

A lot of personal prejudices are in this thread so be wary of opinions.

The markets tend to agree with the consensus when it comes to personal finance and who looks after prudent savers, etc and there is usually one answer: Tory.

Tax-free allowances introduced under Major, and Thatcher started a bit of an entreprise revolution with the start up programme.

New Labour, however, having been handed a perfect balance book and a golden ticket, have managed the economy reasonably like a Tory government would have, apart from the waste in the first half of this decade and the stupendous borrowing this half.

You can bet most of the City, small business owners, those with significant savings, etc will vote Conservative.

I suggest you learn a bit more about history Frugality. Anthony Barber, who hammered savers by letting inflation rip was a Tory (and a banker). Yes the present government is leaving a financial mess for its successors, but the Tory Chancellor and another city insider Reginald Maudling did the same in 1964. Maudling was also personally corrupt in a way which makes the current expenses scandal seem like very small beer.

bjorn_again

Hungerdunger wrote: »

Having watched Question Time last night, might I be permitted to change this to Bigoted, Nasty and Preposterous?

That is no way to talk about Jack Straw. Admittedly his father was the coward of the county, and son Jack looked like a village somewhere was missing him last night, but he is still a yooman bean.

Hungerdunger

bjorn_again wrote: »

That is no way to talk about Jack Straw. Admittedly his father was the coward of the county

This type of comment is exactly why I suggested the "N" in BNP stands for "Nasty".

I understand that Jack Straw's father was imprisoned at the beginning of World War 2 as a conscientious objector, but whatever you might think of him that has absolutely no bearing on Jack Straw or modern-day politics. It's just an extremely unpleasant jibe and is, I'm afraid, typical of BNP supporters.

ses6jwg

bjorn_again wrote: »

ses6jwg wrote: »

I really couldn't care less.

I have ethnic Chinese and Asian friends and don't take kindly to the idea that the BNP don't define them as British.

QUOTE]

How do they feel about Brits not being defined as Chinese in China, or Pakistani in Pakistan?

It's irrelevant because the British ethnicity doesn't exist.

It's a civic identity.

Unfortunately stupid people don't realise this.

bjorn_again

ses6jwg wrote: »

bjorn_again wrote: »

It's irrelevant because the British ethnicity doesn't exist.

It's a civic identity.

Unfortunately stupid people don't realise this.

OK, lets try the same question using "white British" - an ethnic based classification used by the 2001 census in the UK.