Forums Forums Wirral Information Ask - Wiki Wirral Did You Vote ?

You really do not have a clue, do you. It would be wise of you t keep away of these discussions with such a limited view. You are just making a fool of yourself.

Yes Deano, there is a huge amount of that. To actually believe that many work hard and accrue what they achieve in life is not always something many can accept. Woe betide them if they should be left a few bob in the Wills of their hardworking grandparents/parents. (The left would like that too)

Labour also lost because of the dreadful mess they left last time, and of course, Miliband was never going to be the leader that people had confidence in. Blame the people who told him he could do it ! They've made him look a fool.

So true.

The 'Miliband' comment is probably true. As for the rest, I suggest that you do what you usually do and search the web for the correct information. Then you can back come and do something you have never done. Admit you are wrong.

So far as I'm concerned, you don't believe in God and you don't believe in voting, so your opinion makes no impression on me. You obviously don't believe in the web either, so what are you doing on here ?

I voted labour, and value all the things that the majority of people strive for, I don't begrudge anything to anyone, in fact I go out of my way to help those less fortunate, if that makes me some kind of a leftie or whatever label someone wants to stick on me then so be it, there are two sides to every tale, and I really cant abide people that crave for all the trappings of the high life at the cost to others, those that would take anothers job by undercutting or by cutting corners lets be blunt or by shitting on others, it all boils down to how you were brought up, my kids are buying their own homes because they followed what we did they work very hard but they struggle as we did we help them as best as we can the same as our parents helped us, so to label Labour voters as jealous is just silly nonsense, there are reasonable people in all walks of life and in the different political parties, its those that carry extreme views the likes of DeanoBirko who open their mouths without thinking, perhaps when he has experience of life and as he grows up, he might realise that everything is not in black and white.

What the hell does religion have to do with it? I do not vote because I believe that the system is wrong.

If you do what I suggest you will learn that the Labour Party did not cause the financial crisis and that the are plenty of millionaires who vote Labour.

Did I say that Labour caused the financial crisis? You are putting words into your own head.
If I told you I was a millionairess , you would hate me all the more. So I won't tell you that, but you are obviously a recycled 'old member'.

Casper, you are a nice guy with your principles and not the type of person that the original point was directed at.

Getting more money is the main religion of many nowadays and for some there is no wrong about getting it.
I do believe in the old clause iv of the Labour party

The original version of Clause IV, drafted by Sidney Webb in
November 1917 and adopted by the party in 1918, read, in part 4:
To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service.

as opposed to unearned wealth such as
A recent Oxfam report found that the United Kingdom’s five richest families had a total wealth of £28.2bn (around $50bn) making them richer than Britain’s 12.6 million poorest residents.

The UK study follows an Oxfam report earlier this year which found that the wealth of 85 global billionaires is equivalent to that of half the world's population – or 3.5 billion people. The pope and Barack Obama have made tackling inequality a top priority for 2014, while the International Monetary Fund has warned that the growing divide between the haves and have-nots is leading to slower global growth.



[b][/b]

Thank you granny, just a point when we got a mortgage for our house my old dad said you are now "middle class" I couldn't believe he said that, but that's how that generation thought, the poor buggers had nowt yet they helped my sister and brother I don't remember them having a holiday,my dear old mum saved money from my allotment money that gave us a deposit for that house, I know from experience what it is to be stuck, and that comment by deanobirko really annoyed me.

No, its exactly the opposite, the left just hate people having little money and try to bring them up.

Who "owns" the world's resources, who "owns" the person's labour?

Right wing policies depend on the rich being philanthropic, even Maggie Thatcher later admitted her policies failed because she though the rich would be philanthropic like many were in the Victorian age, unfortunately the rich are now greedy instead of philanthropic.

Left wing policies realise that greed exists and once someone achieves financial dominance they can continue to escalate that dominance to the disadvantage of others. To counter this there must be a method of distributing wealth.

DD, the wealth was distributed by the last Labour government. They brought in minimum wage, which in it's own right was welcomed by the many. It also encouraged companies to employ more part time positions, with a top up of working tax credit to keep the unemployment figures down, which in turn saw the slightly higher paid positions to be redesigned ,allowing the previously higher wages to drop . They brought everyone down to the same level, which will not change now. It also gave companies the privilege of mounting their piles of profit and giving bonus payments to management. .... I would call it a false economy for those few years, but why did they do it and stifle those who were getting reasonable money at the time ?

If a company has an amount set aside for salaries and it is not used up, then it has to be used prior to the end of the financial year, to qualify for at least the same amount the following year. So instead of those in management having an increase in salaries, they received bonuses. The bonus culture has got out of hand and much always did make more.

The Government does not set the minimum wage increase, but what everyone was overjoyed about 12 years ago, all of a sudden it doesn't make them happy anymore. There are all sorts of people who struggle in this life and a foregone conclusion that poor people vote Labour and rich people vote Tory is probably the most ludicrous thought to behold.

Many of the most wealthy in this country are not even Nationals, but we seldom hear anyone moaning about the fees that our footballers earn and the high life styles they put on display for the minions to view and try to follow.
Now the person on minimum wage is no longer happy, they want more and yes, I admit they need more too, but unless the minimum wage is abolished, it's not going to happen.

Whose wealth would think should be distributed ? Surgeons, consultants, scientists, CEO's, Mr Whittaker of Peel holdings ? As we have globalisation then it will only get worse, as much will own more and more, globally.





.

Working Tax Credit wasn't a way of topping up part-timers, you need to work at least 30 hours a week to get WTC unless you are disabled, over 60 or have children in which case you have to work 16 hours (or 24 as a couple).

Nobody should have been paid at less than what the minimum wage was, but unfortunately they were. People on silly low money like £2 an hour needed protection and the Government rightly protected them. Yes it also sets an unfortunate target, is there a way round this?

If the minimum wage didn't exist, the people with less than the minimum wage would have to be propped up further by benefits - the state would be further subsidising an employer???

Looking at the situation now, the Eastern European immigrants would be driving the wages down if it wasn't for the minimum wage. There are many who already work (illegally) at less than minimum wage, sometimes this is fiddled by working longer hours than their payslip states.

The poorest need the most financial protection.

If an employer pays the minimum wage, he is paying the lowest wage he can get away with, do you really think he wouldn't pay less if he could?

The big mistake the lib dems made when offered coalition with the tories was that they didn't make tuition fees a "deal breaker", had they done so they would maybe retained their M.P.s and respect from Cameron and co.

Lib dems did make a big mistake, but I think Clegg fell down the minute he said he would drop into bed with anyone who was likely to be the major player. That took away any sense of commitment from him. Even so, I feel sorry for him really,he's the only one who does get my sympathy.

DD, I don't know whether or not £2 an hour was so widespread . Prior to moving back to this area, and receiving over £1.20 less per hour for the same job I had been doing in Suffolk, there were not any jobs in that area offering such low wages. Going into the job centre, when the jobs were listed on the walls, (remember) and anyone could pick a job, go to the desk and get an interview lined up there and then. No jobs with such low wages down there. Suffolk was a rural place with minimal opportunities at the time. It was only when I moved back here, that I realised how different things were here. Yearly contracts and have 3 months off to save them paying pensions, sickness and in some cases holiday pay.
So yes, certain employers must have been allowed to get away with such employment conditions, and it's gone from bad to worse. Zero hour contracts now but it wasn't all beer and skittles through from 1999 to 2010 when the figures below are seen. There was a bumpy ride . I must say, that IDS is not my favourite in fact he has to be the most loathed but today we hear they are going to look after our 'bread and butter' We'll see but they were still a better bet than Labour this time around at least.

http://www.poverty.org.uk/summary/key%20facts.shtml