david cameron and tax credits

zagfles

andrewmp wrote: »

Surely only those who voted for them should be able to complain that they didn't fulfil their promises?

Didn't stop their opponents claiming they "failed" in their deficit reduction promises last time!

I doubt many who voted for them care about the working low paid.

What, even the working low paid who voted for them?

[strawman]Or do you think only rich landlords and fox hunting types voted for them? [/strawman]

NYM

andrewmp wrote: »

Surely only those who voted for them should be able to complain that they didn't fulfil their promises?

Anyone can complain. And they do....regularly. Especially Guardian readers,

andrewmp wrote: »

I doubt many who voted for them care about the working low paid.

I find comments such as that one, offensive. Rather like saying if someone disagrees with uncontrolled immigration, they're racists.

Equally illogical.

andrewmp

NYM wrote: »

[

I find comments such as that one, offensive. Rather like saying if someone disagrees with uncontrolled immigration, they're racists.

Equally illogical.

I'd imagine only a small minority of conservative voters will be low paid or care about the working low paid. If you're low paid/care and voted conservative, don't take offence, you'll be in the minority though for sure.

andrewmp

zagfles wrote: »

[strawman]Or do you think only rich landlords and fox hunting types voted for them? [/strawman]

Still not sure what this strawman stuff is but to answer your question. No, I do not think only rich landlords and fox hunting types voted Conservative. They got over a third of the total votes and unless I'm mistaken there aren't that many fox hunters and landlords?

zagfles

andrewmp wrote: »

I'd imagine only a small minority of conservative voters will be low paid or care about the working low paid. If you're low paid/care and voted conservative, don't take offence, you'll be in the minority though for sure.

You'd be in a minority if you voted Labour too! See the first graph here:

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/generalelection/to-explain-voting-intentions-income-is-more-important-for-the-conservatives-than-for-labour/

Once above £10k support for Labour isn't vastly different to the Tories. Plus of course as we saw in the last election, opinion polling tends to underestimate Tory support.

Fiscal policy isn't the only reason for voting of course, but even if it is, take a couple with no kids both on NMW who are certainly "working low paid" by definition.

They'd likely get nothing in benefits or tax credits. Over the last 10 years - Labour raised their income tax by abolishing the 10% tax band. The Tories/Lib Dems reduced their income tax by raising the personal allowance.

Under Labour council tax went up by way over inflation. Under the coalition they mostly stayed the same or went up by less than inflation.

Under Labour fuel tax went up by well over inflation, under the coalition they were cut in real terms.

VAT went up under the coalition, but that is easily less significant than the other taxes for those on low pay.

This might sound like a party political broadcast but that's not my intention - just to point out there are perfectly logical and rational reasons why some people on low pay vote conservative. Of course some people still vote based on tired old tribal stereotypes...

zagfles

andrewmp wrote: »

Still not sure what this strawman stuff is but to answer your question. No, I do not think only rich landlords and fox hunting types voted Conservative. They got over a third of the total votes and unless I'm mistaken there aren't that many fox hunters and landlords?

That's what a strawman is! In my previous reply to you just now - I addressed the point you raised.

In this one, I imposed a skewed and exaggerated view on you rather than addressing what you actually wrote.

The-Joker

poppasmurf_bewdley wrote: »

Which all achieved diddly squat, just like the city riots of 1981. Riots, especially when supported by idiots like Russell Brand, will achieve nothing. And the Poll Tax riots of 1989/90 didn't result in the abolishing of Poll Tax either. What got rid of it was the defeat of the Tory Candidate in the Ribble Valley By-election.

riots dont do any good, but it puts limits on what the gov can do, if they cut too much too fast there will be repeats of 2011 riots.

the housing crisis is getting acute, I can see riots and civil unrest soon, even if they don't go through with the cuts......

zagfles

The-Joker wrote: »

riots dont do any good, but it puts limits on what the gov can do, if they cut too much too fast there will be repeats of 2011 riots.

The 2011 riots were nothing to do with cuts, or even govt policy. They were a reaction to the police killing a man in London, and then turned into a looting opportunity. As soon as the police decided to take action instead of just watching it fizzled out quicker than it started.

System

lyrical_gangster wrote: »

I think people who lack the ability to work, or have restricted employment prospects because of disability should be provided with generous benefits. Same as when people are sick. I'd also rather money paid out in working tax credits is used to enabled disabled people to go work by funding specialist equipment etc - rather than cutting available funding for employers, as is apparently the case now.


I'd also like to see uneployment benefits paid at a higher rate to people who have been in work for some time - like the German model where they pay a percentage of a persons salary for a fixed amount of time.

I think disabled workers are going to get hit just as hard as everyone else...which is just bloody wonderful. If they get cut i'll have the choice between trying to survive on my part time hours, or risk another breakdown which will probably finish me off by trying to work full time (though that might be difiicult with having a fit note that specifically says i'm only fit to work if its not full time hours).

Bleh.

I don't want to go back to the way things were, work (albeit part time) has been something i've been trying my hardest with and in some respects it has massivly helped with my MH problems. I'm lucky my employer is understanding but there are only so many adjustments they can make before they decide i'm not worth the hassle and employ someone who is fit and well instead.

andrewmp

zagfles wrote: »

That's what a strawman is! In my previous reply to you just now - I addressed the point you raised.

In this one, I imposed a skewed and exaggerated view on you rather than addressing what you actually wrote.

Why is that known as a strawman?