UK Elections

[Saucedo]

A great announcement by the Conservatives today, no one on the Minimum wage will be expected to pay any tax.

Workers don't even pay tax until they earn 10k pen annum, many workers on min wage work part-time, this doesn't affect as many people as I'd like, if you earning min wage you shouldn't be paying tax in the first place. Of course I agree with it in principal, anyone would, but this is hardly a turning point for low-income workers to vote Tory - many already don't earn enough to pay tax and perhaps also collect benefits to boost their income and help finance their needs.

So, I agree with it, but I don't think it goes the right way, they should have used Lib Dems promise of no tax before 12.5k instead.

It's a step back in the right direction after scrapping the lowest income tax band and then giving an extra 5p in every pound back to high earners. It does mean money back in the pocket in real terms as opposed to the "jam tomorrow" plans of the past five years ... I think calling off the witch-hunt on state benefit claimants would do more for low earners

you realised it was labour that scrapped the 10p taxband right?
And its the current coalition that meant these people affected then paid nothing, instead of 20%

 

[Beth Pavell]

A great announcement by the Conservatives today, no one on the Minimum wage will be expected to pay any tax.

Workers don't even pay tax until they earn 10k pen annum, many workers on min wage work part-time, this doesn't affect as many people as I'd like, if you earning min wage you shouldn't be paying tax in the first place. Of course I agree with it in principal, anyone would, but this is hardly a turning point for low-income workers to vote Tory - many already don't earn enough to pay tax and perhaps also collect benefits to boost their income and help finance their needs.

So, I agree with it, but I don't think it goes the right way, they should have used Lib Dems promise of no tax before 12.5k instead.

It's a step back in the right direction after scrapping the lowest income tax band and then giving an extra 5p in every pound back to high earners. It does mean money back in the pocket in real terms as opposed to the "jam tomorrow" plans of the past five years ... I think calling off the witch-hunt on state benefit claimants would do more for low earners

you realised it was labour that scrapped the 10p taxband right?
And its the current coalition that meant these people affected then paid nothing, instead of 20%

Of course it was, silly me. The end of the last Labour government and the start of the coalition kind of blend into one, which doesn't say a lot nice for the fag-end of the Labour government. That aside I stand by my point regarding state benefits. This current government has done its level-best to try and turn it into a dirty word - the less said about the assessments for disability benefit the better

 

[Lysson]

Considering the Tories allowed gay marriage I think they're stepping in the right direction. A lot of aristocrats hate the Tories now because of their new morals and becoming a little more liberal.

Unfortunately the working class has been abandoned by all parties as it stands currently. Labour has turned its back on trade unions which is idiotic. The higher end of the middle class seems to be what most are focusing on.

 

[Beth Pavell]

Labour has turned its back on trade unions which is idiotic.

I completely disagree, and here's why. The Unions maintain this image as being the champions of the working man, but this is anything but true. For a start the Unions only really represent their members, which is a small slice of the working population. Secondly, there's a quite blatant attitude from the Unions that since the Labour party receives Union funding, that they therefore own it. These are the same people who throw a fit at the idea of paying for convenient policies by donating to the Tory cause, but apparently it's ok as long as you're a Unionist. I'm not exaggerating this: "It's our party" is a phrase I've heard time and time again.

The average teacher waving placards in annoyance because they're not getting their annual pay rise couldn't care less about the private sector worker who has to hope for a minimum wage increase if they want to cope with inflation. Trade Unions just represent another special interest group with money and privilege.

Regardless, I do agree that as a whole the working class has no true representation. Partly this is our - and I say our since I am working class - own fault, because we don't vote. This isn't just down to the recent trend of wearing V masks and making vaguely revolutionary statements. For as long as I can remember the general attitude has been "Them all the same, so can't be arsed". And surprise, surprise, look who stopped bothering to try to appeal to us

 

[Saucedo]

Considering the Tories allowed gay marriage I think they're stepping in the right direction. A lot of aristocrats hate the Tories now because of their new morals and becoming a little more liberal.

Unfortunately the working class has been abandoned by all parties as it stands currently. Labour has turned its back on trade unions which is idiotic. The higher end of the middle class seems to be what most are focusing on.

Despite whether you think the tories are good for the working class. David Cameron announced today, he wants the Tories to become the party of the working class. Now whether you think they will ever get there is another point entirely but I think you have to acknowledge, they are at least "trying" to make inroads with this demographic

And the big Trade Unions, Unite, NUT, etc do not have the working people in mind. They are self serving, and thankfully in decline.
Fyi I'm not opposed to the concept of Trade Unions, and its only the big ones I'm tarring with this brush.

Part of me does actually feel sorry for Labour, and other red left wing parties, in that they seem forced to choose between any shred of economic competence or their supporters.
Labour have finally started to acknowledge that limitless spending is not the answer, and we do need to live within our means, and people shout that they are now Red Tories and its a mass betrayal etc.

 

[dig]

Considering the Tories allowed gay marriage I think they're stepping in the right direction.

Honestly, I don't think it matters too much that the Tories pushed for that, it was bound to happen eventually and it just so happens that the Tories were in that time slot. Could have just as easily been a Labour/Lib Dem/etc policy. However, there's no point in discrediting them, at least they actually pulled through for gays that want to wed.

 

[Lysson]

Labour has turned its back on trade unions which is idiotic.

I completely disagree, and here's why. The Unions maintain this image as being the champions of the working man, but this is anything but true. For a start the Unions only really represent their members, which is a small slice of the working population. Secondly, there's a quite blatant attitude from the Unions that since the Labour party receives Union funding, that they therefore own it. These are the same people who throw a fit at the idea of paying for convenient policies by donating to the Tory cause, but apparently it's ok as long as you're a Unionist. I'm not exaggerating this: "It's our party" is a phrase I've heard time and time again.

And the big Trade Unions, Unite, NUT, etc do not have the working people in mind. They are self serving, and thankfully in decline.
Fyi I'm not opposed to the concept of Trade Unions, and its only the big ones I'm tarring with this brush.

When I said about trade unions it's because of the fact that they are the reason Ed is the leader and not his brother and yet Ed couldn't care less about trade unions. That's what I meant xD bit of miscommunication on my part.

Considering the Tories allowed gay marriage I think they're stepping in the right direction. A lot of aristocrats hate the Tories now because of their new morals and becoming a little more liberal.

Unfortunately the working class has been abandoned by all parties as it stands currently. Labour has turned its back on trade unions which is idiotic. The higher end of the middle class seems to be what most are focusing on.

Despite whether you think the tories are good for the working class. David Cameron announced today, he wants the Tories to become the party of the working class. Now whether you think they will ever get there is another point entirely but I think you have to acknowledge, they are at least "trying" to make inroads with this demographic.

I haven't seen that yet O:
I was wondering whether they'd try to reach out to the working class eventually as I originally thought the Tory party was a party for anyone with a job. I am leaning more so to Conservative as I like where they're going (hopefully they've learnt from the last term) and I do love my current MP who is a Tory. Plus my constituency is a Tory safe seat soooo

 

[Beth Pavell]

@Lysson: right, I understand where you're coming from now

The Conservatives have announced an image change before - before the last election, funnily enough. And over the past five years they've proven to be the same old party, supporting the interests of the wealthy. I think this current announcement is nothing but empty words

 

[Lysson]

Just read the Tory manifesto. One of my main areas of concern is animal welfare. It was looking all good with banning animal testing for cosmetics, making sure slaughter houses are the most humane, banning animals in circuses and pushing the EU to make all countries in the EU ban it.
Then it said they'll protect ritual slaughter in this country. That just completely juxtapositioned the whole animal welfare section for me. Ritual slaughter is one of my pet hates and it is evil and inhumane.

I'm all for people being able to have their beliefs and practice them but NOT when it hurts people or animals!

Can't have everything I suppose.

 

[Saucedo]

Just read the Tory manifesto. One of my main areas of concern is animal welfare. It was looking all good with banning animal testing for cosmetics, making sure slaughter houses are the most humane, banning animals in circuses and pushing the EU to make all countries in the EU ban it.
Then it said they'll protect ritual slaughter in this country. That just completely juxtapositioned the whole animal welfare section for me. Ritual slaughter is one of my pet hates and it is evil and inhumane.

I'm all for people being able to have their beliefs and practice them but NOT when it hurts people or animals!

Can't have everything I suppose.

I agree ritual slaughter is wrong and needs to be banned. Sadly it's a quick fire way to get people to shout racist at you if you suggest that.

 

[Beth Pavell]

Just another reminder that I still need to find time to do some election reading

 

[Lysson]

Just read the Tory manifesto. One of my main areas of concern is animal welfare. It was looking all good with banning animal testing for cosmetics, making sure slaughter houses are the most humane, banning animals in circuses and pushing the EU to make all countries in the EU ban it.
Then it said they'll protect ritual slaughter in this country. That just completely juxtapositioned the whole animal welfare section for me. Ritual slaughter is one of my pet hates and it is evil and inhumane.

I'm all for people being able to have their beliefs and practice them but NOT when it hurts people or animals!

Can't have everything I suppose.

I agree ritual slaughter is wrong and needs to be banned. Sadly it's a quick fire way to get people to shout racist at you if you suggest that.

Yeah that annoys me so much! If it's that important they can just go vegetarian/vegan which is what I always say!

I've had people shout at me in class because I have said it is morally wrong but they don't even know how the animals are killed (even when I explain they don't believe me). Opinions seem to change demographically though; I used to live in Dorset and most of the farmers there love their animals and we see where our food comes from so of course we'll care about animals because we see them each day. Whereas the city I live in now has the complete opposite opinion.

I thought it was the popular opinion and belief of people that they can practice their religion as long as it causes no harm. Obviously people only use this opinion in favourable circumstances.

 

[dig]

I thought it was the popular opinion and belief of people that they can practice their religion as long as it causes no harm. Obviously people only use this opinion in favourable circumstances.

I guess people would argue that ritual slaughter doesn't harm people, so it's nothing to complain about.

 

[Lysson]

I thought it was the popular opinion and belief of people that they can practice their religion as long as it causes no harm. Obviously people only use this opinion in favourable circumstances.

I guess people would argue that ritual slaughter doesn't harm people, so it's nothing to complain about.

And that's exactly what is wrong with most of humanity and why animal cruelty has been allowed to go on for so long (Fox hunting only being banned in 2005 is disgusting! It should have been long before!). This is shown by the fact that the Green party is so new as people just didn't really care about the environment until now. I was reading the Lib-Dem's manifesto and was surprised but disgusted by how long it has taken for gay rights and other civil rights to happen.

Maybe in another 100 years people will respect the environment and animals before we ruin everything.

 

[Beth Pavell]

Distasteful though it is, I don't think it's at all just to ban a religious practice that doesn't harm people on the basis that one (That is, the non-specific "you") personally finds it immoral. You could use the same argument to ban homosexuality

 

[Lysson]

All major parties have released their manifestos. Most seem alright but will probably not be fulfilled if they do get elected.

I'm quite pleased with where the Lib-dems are going at the moment.

 

[Saucedo]

Distasteful though it is, I don't think it's at all just to ban a religious practice that doesn't harm people on the basis that one (That is, the non-specific "you") personally finds it immoral. You could use the same argument to ban homosexuality

Remind me again which of the partners gets his slit throat while he's hung upside down and blood rushes through his lungs causing him to die in agony for an extended period of time?

Cruel animal slaughter rituals are nowhere near similar to homosexuality. 2 consenting adults of the same sex don't harm anyone.
But halal slaughter does cause barbaric and needless suffering to animals, and would fall under animal cruelty if it wasn't protected by this anachronistic umbrella called religion!

 

[dig]

Guys, could we veer the topic back to the general election, and not animal cruelty?

Cheers.

 

[Beth Pavell]

Distasteful though it is, I don't think it's at all just to ban a religious practice that doesn't harm people on the basis that one (That is, the non-specific "you") personally finds it immoral. You could use the same argument to ban homosexuality

Remind me again which of the partners gets his slit throat while he's hung upside down and blood rushes through his lungs causing him to die in agony for an extended period of time?

Cruel animal slaughter rituals are nowhere near similar to homosexuality. 2 consenting adults of the same sex don't harm anyone.
But halal slaughter does cause barbaric and needless suffering to animals, and would fall under animal cruelty if it wasn't protected by this anachronistic umbrella called religion!

Hypothetically:

"I want to ban homosexuality! I don't care that it doesn't affect me and that it doesn't hurt anyone, it's morally wrong!"

"I want to ban ritual slaughter! I don't care that it doesn't affect me and that it doesn't hurt anyone, it's morally wrong!"

Both arguments insist on turning a private act into a criminal offence based on someone else's moral code. I find such slaughter methods uncivilised as well, but I still have no right to impose that on other people, just as there is no justification in forcing me to eat halal

 

[Saucedo]

Distasteful though it is, I don't think it's at all just to ban a religious practice that doesn't harm people on the basis that one (That is, the non-specific "you") personally finds it immoral. You could use the same argument to ban homosexuality

Remind me again which of the partners gets his slit throat while he's hung upside down and blood rushes through his lungs causing him to die in agony for an extended period of time?

Cruel animal slaughter rituals are nowhere near similar to homosexuality. 2 consenting adults of the same sex don't harm anyone.
But halal slaughter does cause barbaric and needless suffering to animals, and would fall under animal cruelty if it wasn't protected by this anachronistic umbrella called religion!

Hypothetically:

"I want to ban homosexuality! I don't care that it doesn't affect me and that it doesn't hurt anyone, it's morally wrong!"

"I want to ban ritual slaughter! I don't care that it doesn't affect me and that it doesn't hurt anyone, it's morally wrong!"

Both arguments insist on turning a private act into a criminal offence based on someone else's moral code. I find such slaughter methods uncivilised as well, but I still have no right to impose that on other people, just as there is no justification in forcing me to eat halal

Cruelty to animals has been illegal for a long period of time. It's only when the umbrella of religion is brought in that somehow it's protected.
If I chopped off a part of my newborn son's body I'd rightly be seen as a danger to the child and sent to jail. But if I chop off a part of his body and say well, I believe that my deity told me to do it, then suddenly, well that's ok then.

And actually a society does have the right to have its morals reflected in its law. Try stripping down to a Bikini in Saudi Arabia.

In this country we do have animal rights, animals must be killed in a humane way, I think its wrong for parties in this election to promise to keep an exemption because 5% of the population say that their book tells them its ok. If you are prepared to make an exception for animal rights and child rights, where does it end, what other rights are we as a country prepared to sacrifice in order to cater to religion?
All the progress we've made in this country towards liberalism, equality and humanity are being eroded by religious exemptions.

Take another example the equality act finally abolished discrimination in the provision of goods and services, but when the same sex marriage act was finally passed, inequality was given a free pass back into UK law, as once again religions are excused and are allowed to discriminate in the provision of wedding services.