No country for young men — UK generation gap widens

thorsoak

I know it's an old one - but when do you know that a politician is lying?

When his or her lips move!

Cynical? Moi?

Graham_Devon

CLAPTON wrote: »

I've found that all parties have plenty of principles but the devil is in the detail (that often has the exact opposite effect of that intended).
It is certainly strange that this new principle emerged in such a sudden way or perhaps it had been long planned.

I'm never quite sure what to make of your posts clapton.

It seems, no matter what it is a select number of posters say, you'll disagree with it.

Even if that disagreement means you have to complete disagree with what you have wrote your very self in the past.

Were all free to change our views on information presented, but I'm pretty damn sure if I'd said I'm voting tory as they rejected the vote, you'd take issue with that too....as put simply, you have too take issue.

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I'm never quite sure what to make of your posts clapton.

It seems, no matter what it is a select number of posters say, you'll disagree with it.

Even if that disagreement means you have to complete disagree with what you have wrote your very self in the past.

Were all free to change our views on information presented, but I'm pretty damn sure if I'd said I'm voting tory as they rejected the vote, you'd take issue with that too....as put simply, you have too take issue.

I wasn't commenting upon who to vote for but the issue of what exactly Ed was 'promising ' to do and why it suddenly become a new principle when the issue of MPs having outside interested has been discussed for my entire lifetime.
Your personal decision to vote Labour was not an issue.

In any event I have been a consistent advocate of MPs having outside interests although I believe the rules should be reviewed and punishments for wrong doing increased.

N1AK

chucknorris wrote: »

These two statements IMO are contradictions.

That I will entirely accept I got too drawn into the bizarre £10 million house scenario, in which inheritance tax would be a huge headache. With house prices around the current level inheritance tax is a non-issue for most.

N1AK

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Labour?

You might be trying to forget how long of you've defending, and championing, UKIP on here but everyone else won't. I've told you repeatedly in the past that it was an embarrasment, and self-denial about it now isn't making you look any better. It's good to see that you've finally stopped though!

mayonnaise

N1AK wrote: »

You might be trying to forget how long of you've defending, and championing, UKIP on here but everyone else won't. I've told you repeatedly in the past that it was an embarrasment, and self-denial about it now isn't making you look any better. It's good to see that you've finally stopped though!

Come on N1AK, be nice.
It's good to see Graham has turned his back on the dark side and we should all rejoice.

N1AK

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It seems, no matter what it is a select number of posters say, you'll disagree with it.

I think he makes a fair point here. Labour's move was obviously political rather than principled. They didn't make any noise about this issue before the current scandal, and knew that the vote would fail, but that they would be able to 'blame' the conservatives.

I'll give Labour the benefit of believing they have conviction when they include a promise to do this in their manifesto for the next election.

All that said, a huge amount of what every party does is politics. Labour like lowering the voting age in no small part because they'd get their votes. The conservatives fawn over pensioners because they want to secure their votes. UKIP policies have changed constantly as they try desperately to jump on whatever populist bandwagon is going.

Ultimately, you're best off ignoing conviction and selecting whichever party is offering the set of political policies that you like most (or dislike least).

Graham_Devon

N1AK wrote: »

You might be trying to forget how long of you've defending, and championing, UKIP on here but everyone else won't. I've told you repeatedly in the past that it was an embarrasment, and self-denial about it now isn't making you look any better. It's good to see that you've finally stopped though!

I don't know who you think you are, but this high ground you appear to believe you are on is making you look a bit stupid.

I will still defend UKIP against the unwarranted claims many band around on here. Defending a party does not mean you HAVE to vote for them.

Loughton_Monkey

mayonnaise wrote: »

.....It's good to see Graham has turned his back on the dark side and we should all rejoice.

Indeed.

.... large gin & tonics all round.... :rotfl:

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Labour?

That's who my vote is going to. Made up my mind last night based on the fact that they at least had the principle to try and stop corruption in government.

We can only admire the decision making process....

After all, the flavour of our government is extremely important - affecting almost every facet of our lives. Most of us choose to weigh up the whole shooting match of policies regarding the economy, education, the health service, immigration, foreign policy, taxation, how it affects our own finances and way of life etc.

So we can only admire someone who can base such an important voting issue in a single flash of inspiration, one evening, based upon a miserable failed attempt to make marginal changes to a huge set of rules aimed at governing the behaviour of our elected representatives.

Some would call this highly 'woolly thinking', but personally I think it's very cavalier. Maybe all your other posts should be the same...:D

fed_up_and_stressed

lisyloo wrote: »

There's a reason for that.
If you're working age (and able) hen you're able to do something about it for yourself and SHOULD BE doing so rather than waiting for a handout. If you're working age (and able) then you should be getting a decent income for yourself rather than relying on handouts.

We shouldn't be expecting our elderly who have already worked all their lives or the disabled to work.
We should be expecting younger and able people to work.
So YES it's different.

Can you not see the difference between people who've done their fair share (and offen more) and people who are of working age?

p.s. I'm working age and able.

Not all pensioners are retired ..plenty still work and a lot of the working age welfare reforms have hit working age disabled people.

Yet we have situations such as this reported in the telegraph where pensioners get full housing benefit (no bedroom tax for pensioners) and have 6 SPARE bedrooms !

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/11436320/What-if-pensioners-paid-the-bedroom-tax.html