unclebuck

A bad day for those of us with enough brains to know what a third term of New Labour means for the people of this country.

Jap2Scrap

To be honest I'm amazed.

It all seemed so obvious when you've a bit of information to hand. I suppose there are those who love the current benefits system and there are those who are still fooled by Blair's mugging grin.

The only consolation is it's going to be harder for them to force anything through parliament in the next four years than it has been thus far.

Sad day though.

Iain Young

It would be interesting to see how many of those "terminally stupid" benefit spongers actually got off their ***** to vote though. If none of them did, then you may be directing your anger in the wrong direction....

Iain Young

I'm not imagining anything, just interested. I'd just like to find out the statistics about the cross section of the community that actually voted. I'd be interested to actually find out for sure the type of people who voted labour rather than just guessing (as in the previous posts)...

OllyK

They were queueing up at my polling station and while there was a reasonable showing of baseball caps and burberry, I think a lot was just down to being a mining town with a staunch Labour following regardless of what they do. Mind you the majority was still down.

Judy Mallaber Labour 21,593 45.6% -6.3
Gillian Shaw Conservative 16,318 34.4 -1.3
Kate Smith Liberal Democrat 6,225 13.1 +0.7
Paul Snell British National Party 1,243 2.6 +2.6
Alex Stevenson Veritas 1,224 2.6 +2.6
Hugh Price UK Independence Party 788 1.7 +1.7

Iwan

It's a vicious circle though. With so many sponging ***** out there, if you crack down on them hard they are going to vote you out next time round.

I agree a crackdown is needed, but maybe with changes to the electoral system. If you don't contribute financially to society, or are a net drain on the countrys economy (i.e. a scrounging pikey scumbag) then you lose your voting rights (same as criminals in prison).

chaos.

Our constituency has always been a labour stronghold, there's no point in voting.

Although my 'area' are probably all tory followers..

generally there's too many chavs.

Iain Young

In theory that sounds good, (and in principal I agree), but the rules determining who actually contributes and thus is elligable to vote would be very complex.

For example, there are people out there who seemingly "sponge" off the state, but spend their entire time at home as a carer for someone else (an elderly or sick relative for example). Now in theory, they are sponging because they are not earning a living, but if they did work, it would cost the government a lot more in carer fees / wages.

I also wonder if there are actually enough jobs in this country to support the population. It's a fact that manufacturing is declining in this country (it's just too expensive compared to China etc), and so the jobs that are around tend to require people of reasonable intelligence. This means that the "thick" people out there will find it increasingly difficult to find work. You can't blame the people for being thick (it's not their fault), so how can you deny them their democratic rights?

When you start thinking about it, it becomes very complex. Things are never "black and white" when it come to this sort of topic...

ozzy

The problem is people in certain areas just follow their family & friends and vote for the same party regardless. Some just don't vote, which is even worse.

The Tories will never be a reasonable threat to Labour until Labour f**k-up in a big way. It happened to the Tories with things like the Poll Tax. People just wanted them out regardless.

I'm from a mining area and the *only* candidates you see are from Labour. The village even has a Labour members club and the local representative was the only one welcoming people into the polling station (complete with big feckin Red rosette). People are just ignorant and blind to any alternatives. They simply follow like sheep. Wish half of them would follow like Lemmings over some cliffs

NewLabour

No, it's a good day for me and I know exactly what they stand for. It's just that my interests don't coincide with yours.

Peanuts

iTrader: (15)

if you dont pay tax or N.I. then you shouldnt be allowed the vote.
if you didnt vote at the last election then you shouldnt be given the vote this time round.

look at the gepgraphical/political overlay maps, affluent areas where people have high employment and jobs are daubed in blue, spongey whippet wearing northerners and the stinking (most racist people on the planet) welsh are all red.
a story is told

Peanuts

iTrader: (15)

maybe with a reduced majority, Blair will have to give up on presidency and settle for a senatorship?

Stueyb

HAve to agree UB. This is what I first thought when I woke up this morning. Some people have no idea. As a special prezzie to the morons that voted for him, watch the minimum wage go up another couple of quid a year and benefits go up by another £10 a week or something.

TBH, these morons that are on minimum wage and voted for em because they know they will be rewarded by T B. Liar Let the market decided is the best way. Dont want **** wages ? Find a better job/get trained!

Iain Young

Blimey, is everyone on here turning communist now?

So if you are made unemployed (e.g. rover employees) and there is no work in the area for your skillset, then you shouldn't be allowed to vote? How is that fair and democratic?

[/quote]if you didnt vote at the last election then you shouldnt be given the vote this time round.[/quote]
Surely that depends on why you didn't vote. Perhaps you were not in the country at the time, or in casualty after an accident, or didn't vote out of protest?

It certainly is. That statement you just made could be considered to be in fact quite racist.

Traditionally, manufacturing jobs have tendeded to be in northern England or south Wales, and now that industry is in decline, it's innevitable that unemployment is going to be higher in these areas (and thus have more people living off the state).

Those areas desperately need regeneration, and until there are real employment options for the people concerned, the benefits situation is not going to change. What youy are suggesting could be quite dangerous. All a government has to do to win an election is to allow an (opposition controlled) area decline, thus making their members unable to vote.

Iain Young

So, if a person lives in one of those areas that has very high levels of unemployment, how do you suggest they get a better job when there aren't any? If training is available, what do they live on while they are doing it?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending the layabouts, but the situation is nowhere near as simplistic as you are trying to make out...

Shark Man

I am I the only one who thinks the results don't add up??

Especially the Midlands, where by on record, corruption and vote tampering is well known. Thinking about it futher and looking at the Norththfield areas of Birmingham, where a significant Lab majority was recorded...it just doesn't add up! Think of where a local car factory is situated round there Also same goes for Coventry.

There is more going on here that meets the eye. Either votes are getting "lost", "accidentally spoilt" or just simply miss-counted. Things are not right, I suspect foul play in certain consitiuencies is rife - There is proof it has happened before and nothing has changed in the voting system to prevent it. And I'm sure the winning goverment would happlily turn a blind eye to it.


Does anyone know of any good engineering vacanicies within manufacturing control systems in Sydney?

As that is where I'll be if I have to suffer one more speed camera whilst some 15yr old gets off with an ASBO for nicking my missus's car

Stueyb

If there arent any jobs... move ! It really is that simple. As we all know, it taxes a mixture of society to fill the normal distribtion curve. Why should the ones at the bottom of the curve be artifically helped. Unskilled labour is plentiful so why should they be paid more than the market dictates ?

Iain Young

Erm, no it's not. For example, if you are in the north and have a mortgage on a house, how on earth could you afford to move down south where the jobs are? The price of a 3 bed house some places up north wouldn't buy a 1 room flat down south. Also you have to add in family commitments etc.

I never said they deserved to be paid more. I simply said that the solutions to problems are not as clear cut and simple as people are trying to make out.

OllyK

You can't seriously be suggesting if you are un-employed in Newcastle, the most northerly place you will find a job is somewhere south of the Watford Gap?

In many cases the distances involved are commutable unless you are north of Aberdeen.

Iain Young

<sigh> why does everybody always take things so literally (I did say "for example")...

Just illustrating a point that it's not always easy to move to find a job. Also, how do you commute if you rely on public transport and / or can't afford it? You have to remember that unskilled labour tends not to be highly paid and for most, commuting to a different area for an unskilled job would not be an option.

To tar everybody with the same brush and say they can just up roots and move to somewhere else to find a job is just silly.

Mrs WRX

What do you mean, if you dont pay tax or NI you dont vote? Well excuse me, i worked full time for 10 years till i had my children. I couldnt afford child care for them so i worked part time in the evenings for 3 years. As i was part time i didnt pay tax or NI, but I STILL WORKED and didnt claim any benefits etc which i could have easily done. I work full time again as the kids are in school, so does that make me a better person because i work full time? A lot of women only work part time because of the children situation, are you saying that we should all have the vote taken off us? Or would you prefer it if i had stayed at home and sponged off the state?

Iain Young

Agreed Mrs WRX. There are a great number of people who contribute greatly to the country, but don't pay tax or NI. If a law like this was brought in, it would either exclude a great number of deserving people, or be so complicated to manage that it would be unworkable.

OllyK

Perhaps because the way you portrayed it was that an extreme case was the norm.

I think it unlikely somebody that is unemployed in the North is going to be looking for jobs several hundred miles away in the South. More likey in the next city which may be commutable depending on transport links, but is also probably within reach from a housing cost perspective as well.

New_scooby_04

iTrader: (4)

Criteria for voting in the next election based on the answer to one question:

Q. Do you want Labour to win?

If yes, you may not vote!! :-)

Iain Young

Why not? Where I work, we have a few people that have moved down from Glasgow, Dublin, Cardiff etc to work here. Admittedly it's probably not a typical example, but it show that people will move if they can. Still doesn't mean that you can "expect" people to move to find work however.

Not necessarily. I know for a fact that house prices in Newbury are a great deal more than they are in Swindon, and there's only 20 miles difference. There's also practically zero public transport between them, (certainly nothing that a low wage earner could afford).

Iain Young

Ah, so what you people actually want is a dictatorship, not a democratic society at all?

OllyK

Can you make you mind up please, claiming people can't afford to move south and then promptly citing examples dis-proving your own argument seems a rather futile excercise. Or are you comparing apples with oranges here to suit?


Sure and the difference between Derby and Nottingham (a similar distance) is negligable and yet to Leicester (again a similar distance) is a good bit higher. So if you are out of work in Derby and there are no jobs where do you look next?

Are you saying that If you live in Swindon there is nowhere else to work within a 50 mile or so radius other than Newbury or should I not be taking you literally again?