You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Yes, their tuition fees policy was so badly thought-out, that it has had the opposite effect of what was intended.
Absolutely unintended consequences
As a result, we estimate that around one quarter of graduates on the lowest incomes will actually pay back less than under the current system. We also expect that around one million students will be eligible for more help with their living costs than at present.
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/education/2010/dec/06/david-willetts-defends-tuition-fees-universities ]Guardian article[/url]
It's weird that you say "actual, useful" jobs because usually what people who are saying that are trying to do is sneer at social workers and legal aid lawyers and the like. But the examples of jobs you gave were being a hereditary farmer and military person - in other words, a government job and a job heavily subsidised by the government. That's not very capitalist!
"...usually what people who are saying that are trying to do is sneer at social workers and legal aid lawyers and the like."
Usually what people who make sweeping, unfounded generalisations such as yours are trying to do is validate their own small-world view by suggesting that opinions that differ from their own could only be held by unfeeling monsters that view the most helpless in society with scorn, derision and contempt. I could list all the social services and public servant type professions that my wife, my family and I either are or have been directly involved with, but seeing how the minds of some on here appear to work I guess that would probably end up looking like a "I'm not racist, some of my best friend's are black" post than the "you couldn't be further from the truth if you tried" post it would be intended as. So let's just say that you couldn't be further from the truth if you tried.
When I say "actual, useful jobs" I mean things like humanitarian efforts such as clearing landmines (outside of his military career) and VSO charity work, serving as a school governor, local business enterprise work, etc. As opposed to being a party apparatchik whose law degree and subsequent appointment to the back offices of national government apparently means he is eminently qualified to advise on policies as wide ranging as Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth, Infrastructure and Capital Investment, Environment and Rural Affairs, Europe and External Relations, and Energy and Climate Change.
Anyway, so what if my preferred candidate is from a farming/forestry/armed forces background? If your local area's economy, culture and population has deeply ingrained ties to a mix of farming/forestry/armed forces then why wouldn't you want someone representing you who has direct, hands-on experience of all those things and more, regardless of what colour tie they wear? I'd rather that than a career pen pusher and "yes" man from my preferred choice of party.
Aye, it's not just you! It's everyone.. more's the pity.
Quite. So why join in? 😉
Absolutely unintended consequences
Quite. Tuition fees were tripled in order to reduce costs. The effect of this policy has been to increase the proportion of unpaid loans to the point where it costs more than the old system.
The proportion of graduates failing to pay back student loans is increasing at such a rate that the Treasury is approaching the point at which it will get zero financial reward from the government's policy of tripling tuition fees to £9,000 a year.
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/mar/21/student-fees-policy-costing-more ]Guardian article[/url]
VAT regressive or Progressive? You can argue it either way - and people are doing exactly that. 😀
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12111507
The proportion of graduates failing to pay back student loans is increasing at such a rate that the Treasury
After a period of low income growth that is hardly surprising, with a recovering economy wage growth will continue thus reducing the problem. It is a long tail liability so short term movements are not necessarily the best indicator. However, the fundamental point is that the poorest have benefited the most as a result of the change. Hence the New Statesman attacking Miliband's proposal to reduce them.
[url= http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/01/reducing-tuition-fees-labour-about-propose-tax-cut-rich ]NS article[/url]
9bn added to public debt just through student loans last year, I cant see how thats gonna end well
outofbreath - Member
VAT regressive or Progressive? You can argue it either way - and people are doing exactly that.
Indeed, but it is neither strictly speaking (we have done this one before). You either have to not understand the terms, or deliberately be misusing them to make that argument
The reasons for the increasing worldwide adoption of VAT are very different and straddle party politics
After a period of low income growth that is hardly surprising, with a recovering economy wage growth will continue thus reducing the problem.
Assuming there are enough jobs with a graduate pay premium to employ all the millions of graduates we are creating. If they majority just end up working in bars and restaurants then we'll not see a return on the investment....
the charts of the deficit would show the Labour legacy was a massive deficit and the period in surplus was very short. The national debt started to spiral out of control under Labour due to the growing deficit and reliance on borrowing
Hmmm ... this chart shows something different ...
You've seen some benefit scroungers. You've no idea of the actual statistics have you?
they're on telly every night, scroungers every single one of them, same as all those immigrants, blocking our motorways and taking our jobs by doing three jobs at once and claiming benefits and sending all the money back home as well as buying up all the tunnock's plain caramel wafers so there's none left for us hard working brits.
statistics, who needs 'em, I know what blessed st nigel says, a breath of fresh air he is, because what this country needs is another public school educated ex city banker millionaire with his snout firmly lodged in the euro expenses trough.
😆
After a period of low income growth that is hardly surprising,
You're right - it was entirely foreseeable. The tories failed to foresee it.
Hey Junkyard, all those other EU countries with VAT on food (5.50% - 8%) those people must be so repressed ?
Never mind published research lets just do some back of the envelope calculations at some income points like £20k, £50k and £100k - then look at impact of welfare payments which are made by the government and effectively pay the VAT on the extra spending above rent/food which are non-VATable
@molgrips - just look at the numbers, its not hard for me to say the overall budget should be better divided. A cap on benefits makes total sense in particular when you think its a net of tax figure. Disability benefit used to be a payment made to disabled people, its become a catch all payment and a way to pay people who are unable work, or so they say.
Total Government spending £750bn - some of the larger items below
Welfare £112bn
NHS £130bn
Pensions £150bn
Education £92bn
Interest on debt £60bn
Defense £43bn
Local Authority spending is £170bn (might double count education but includes Police)
public school educated ex city banker millionaire
You're right, as countries without people like that are doing brilliantly without increasing levels of income equality and fabulous public services and no budget deficits etc etc. The grass is so much greener over there.
Couple of years out of date
[url= https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8512/8361851095_818227afbb_z.jp g" target="_blank">https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8512/8361851095_818227afbb_z.jp g"/> [/img][/url][url= https://flic.kr/p/dJUF1t ]Benefit spending breakdown 2011-2012[/url] by [url= https://www.flickr.com/people/75003318@N00/ ]brf[/url], on Flickr
Hi,
Question for all the responses who said you'd vote Tory. Are any of you on sub £20k, less abled, non UK resident, not heterosexual etc?.
Disability benefit used to be a payment made to disabled people, its become a catch all payment and a way to pay people who are unable work, or so they say.
1) What's the difference between being disabled and being unable to work?
2) So some people lie. Why should that affect actual disabled people?
[img] 
[/img]
Pretty current given the HSBC scandal...
http://www.theweek.co.uk/uk-news/62461/which-is-bigger-the-bill-for-benefit-fraud-or-tax-evasion
Just don't mention Lord Green
[img] 
[/img]
Hmmm ... this chart shows something different ...
It doesn't it shows that Labour were spending too much in the good years, hence ill prepared for the recession that would eventually happen.
@molgrips, it's just as anecdotal to imply that budget cuts are meaning that the disabled are bearing the brunt of the cuts. I come back to my point that this is real cost of the Labour excesses in the good years, it's become unaffordable to maintain the spending commitments
@jhj, I am all for cracking down on tax evasion. A very big part of the HMRC estimate is jobs done cash in hand which should be both VAT-able and declared for income tax purposes. I love the Aussie approach where they get the mortgage application form of self employed people and ask them why their income declared for tax purposes is different to that on the form. We are very lax here compared to the US and to the French in this regard (those being the two tax regimes I am most familiar with).
hence ill prepared for the recession that would eventually happen.
Ah yes the good old 'not fixing the roof while the sun was shining' chestnut. Ignoring of course that pre-2008 the tories were signed up to match labour's spending plans and were campaigning for tax cuts which would have resulted in an even worse position. These myths and fictions regarding labour's profligacy and the tories supposed frugality have been trawled over in numerous threads so unless there's anything new maybe leave it at that?
Hey Junkyard, all those other EU countries with VAT on food (5.50% - 8%) those people must be so repressed ?
Wow a straw man - I said research showed it was regressive not repressive 🙄 and a non sequitur - What exactly are you hoping to prove using unrelated countries on whether a tax is or is not regressive here
Embarrassing.
Never mind published research lets just do some back of the envelope calculations at some income points like £20k, £50k and £100k - then look at impact of welfare payments which are made by the government and effectively pay the VAT on the extra spending above rent/food which are non-VATable
Yes lets ignore the actual research and discuss something else using figures we just made up 😕
By any chance does that prove you were correct and negate the published research. What a very odd thing to say.
I really dont understand what you hope that post would prove.
this is real cost of the Labour excesses in the good years, it's become unaffordable to maintain the spending commitments
Its the lack of money coming in from the economic crash/downturn that has meant we cannot afford it. Govt spending did not cause the crash and govt spending was not in any way shape or form casual in the recession.
No govt ever saves for a rainy day tory or labour and labour has run more surpluses than the Tories and GO matched the spending pledges.
I am all for cracking down on tax evasion.
Unless you are a non dom
@molgrips, it's just as anecdotal to imply that budget cuts are meaning that the disabled are bearing the brunt of the cuts.
That wasn't my point. I was thinking more of the ATOS thing.
I agree. If we had been less helpful to the banking sector, we wouldn't be in this sorry mess.
If we would have been less helpful to the banking sector, we would be in much much more of a mess I'm afraid.
Don't really feel reading the front page of The Sun makes you an expert.
[img] 
[/img]
nearly everyone i talk to is voting labour or wasting a vote on ukip,and unless cameroooooooooooon can arrange a war before thursday theyre going to be whooped.
There are at least 26 seats where voting UKIP won't be wasted, or at least according to the Torygraph. But then they may be a tad biased?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/11582796/The-26-seats-where-a-vote-for-Ukip-could-make-Ed-Miliband-prime-minister.html
JHJ _ I have been a good boy and done my own research, unfortunately the only report I can find that might reference your figures is the NAO report which can be found [url= http://www.nao.org.uk/report/hmrc-the-compliance-and-enforcement-programme/ ]here[/url]. But this can't be the one you are referring to because it doesn't contain the figures that are quoted in the diagram.
Cool, you might want to research if this is legit too:
[img] 
[/img]
Edit:
[url=www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn06265.pdf]This report compiled for parliament seems to support the £70bn annual figure for tax avoidance[/url]
Only skim read, so not sure if it includes the many tax havens under the jurisdiction of the Queen and Privy Council
As it is posted by you I have a 90% confidence level that it is not and as the first statement is wrong I won't bother to look at the rest.
Can you substantiate your claims that the 1st statement is wrong?
Your account seems to contradict what is said here...
http://news.sky.com/story/1446174/coalition-promises-v-what-they-delivered
A least the last comment is accurate
Your account seems to contradict what is said here...
The graph
EDIT: BTW your earlier link doesn't work.
[quote=jivehoneyjive ]Can you substantiate your claims that the 1st statement is wrong?
Do your own research.
Gladly 😉 ... if you check the last post on this thread, you'll see my sources are generally pretty reliable:
anyhoo, back on topic
Direct link to pdf:
www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn06265.pdf
admittedly, it's debated rather than conclusive, but HMRC admit they haven't taken all tax avoidance into account
For example...
Q231 Chair: Am I right in saying that the sort of issues that we were discussing in relation to Starbucks, Amazon and Google … and the tax that could have been payable from those companies is not included, because it is not seen to be within the rules?Edward Troup: The tax gap that we measure is a compliance tax gap.
Q232 Chair: It does not include that. I am asking whether it includes the Starbucks scenario, the Amazon scenario or the Google scenario.
Edward Troup: It does not include the amounts of tax that some of the commentators have said these companies should pay. That is correct …
Q258 Chair: At the moment … your tax gap is purely the tip of an iceberg.
Jim Harra: Our tax gap is a complete measure of non-compliance with current tax law. It does not include a measure of how much additional tax might be collected if you changed the policy.
At one stage the annual figure for tax avoidance was touted as £120bn...
Have to Tory voters seen this? http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/feb/01/david-cameron-rebuked-over-debt-claims
Ah, a Richard Murphy report, the independent commentator funded by the TUC and Unison.
Have to Tory voters seen this? http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/feb/01/david-cameron-rebuked-over-debt-claims
Sadly he did get it wrong, unfortunately too many politicians and commentators from all sides do this.
[quote=aracer opined]
Do your own research.
Pwned and beautifully so 😆
Glad you admit it Junky...
I kick ass, as usual
8)
back on topic... for at least one post...
I won't be voting Tory as they have a 15% share of the vote where I live which is a Liberal/ Labour marginal seat.
tax evasion /avoidance are the same result--entities not paying their share -at even a low estimate of £70 Billion -then back date that , it runs into amounts that distort the economy to such an extent that every thing else is just meaning less, but the ruling order , have convinced many people that their woes lie at the door of the poor, sick , immigrants, people who have one more room than is deemed essential by people who live in mansions , often with wealth obtained by........tax evasive companies they have relations with......its some trick , i'll give them that....
I won't be voting Tory as they have a 15% share of the vote where I live which is a Liberal/ Labour marginal seat.
You won't be voting Tory because most other people near you won't. Not sure I follow that.
Interesting no one responded to my earlier post.
In a very informal way it demonstrates that Tory voters are on the whole at the higher end of the social stratification ladder/power tree/'haves' camp ...
Whilst there are many non Tory voters in these social and economic status groups, my opinion is they have a more critical view of the world and society and can see what is going on around them - and crucially see what the tory party stands for.
Tory's are all about exclusivity and subscribe wholly to the neo-liberalist agenda of individualisation...their slogan says it all.."hard working working families..." What if you cannot work? Born less able? Didnt get educated? Life opportunities not offered...?
Sorry, but my vote goes to a party that subscribes to inclusivity values, see humans as all the same and understands some people need more help because life can be shit and its not their fault. Not a party that puts responsibility down to the individual and blames everything on their life choices.. That is why the Tory party is still known as the nasty party...
[quote=edenvalleyboy said]their slogan says it all.."hard working working families..."
A phrase used repeatedly by Gordon Brown during his time in Westminster.
Emerging from some British newspapers around 1995,[citation needed] Gordon Brown expressed gratitude to Bob Shrum for suggesting the phrase between 1994 and 1997
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardworking_families
Anyway, carry on.
Allthepies, I see you succumb to the logic of the system.
How come your response is to critise another party, instead of defending what I guess is your Tory vote...that kind of response is a very lame argument - same as the majority of politicians..
I'm not critising anyone, you're the one doing that. I'm just pointing out that the phrase you feel so toxic is one which in not exclusively used by Tory governments.
Any system (communist, capitalist etc) is dependent on productivity. So what is wrong with appealing to, and incentivising those who enable us to have (and pay for) the NHS, social welfare etc?
You say "hard working" and "families" like they're dirty words.......
The Tory use of "hardworking families" is different to Labours use..its all contrxtual, not just a phrase that exists in its own separate space/vacuum..
My point definitely stands still (to all in this thread)...I challenge people to defend their political stance by not simply saying "well so and so did this.."
It shouldn't be about who 'supposedly' did best..imho it should be aboutnaspirational values etc...
Which is why the repeated use of statistics ti argue points is a waste of time. Statistics all depend on who writes/ccommisons them. There is no one definite version of reality so debating statistics I think is a waste of time..
😀
So tory hard working families are different to the hard working families referred to by labour?
It isn't about context, it's about votes. Neither are (or can afford to be) picky about who's they get.
Anyways it'll all be over soon, then whoevers party doesn't succeed can whine and moan about how rubbish things are for the next few years 😀
I am - and the simple reason is that they offer the best deal for me and my family.
In a perfect world, I'd love to take a broader view, but right now with a young family to provide for, the conservatives offer the best for me and seem most closely aligned to my views (not perfect fit by far, but nearer than anyone else).
I am duty bound to provide for my dependents first of all, so that's my reasoning. Flame away!!
Hi wrecker,
My point was that the phrase, in its context, excludes a huge group of people who cannot work..its not used in an inclusive way..a
If you are that poorly off the Tories won't help. If you are doing ok, then you would still do OK under labour, but the really poor people might also do better.
Do you really think your family will actually suffer under labour? I don't just mean a few quid a month on tax.
I am duty bound to provide for my dependents first of all
Molegrips nails why you can do this and also think of others
This is Britain and no one used to starve till the govt introduced sanctions and food bank use rose
Do you really think your family will actually suffer under labour? I don't just mean a few quid a month on tax.
I doubt that it will make much difference at all, but I do worry that tax will go up and they'll create an oversize public sector too.
I'm not aligned with the tories in terms of philosophy, I'm anti-privatisation, and very much in favour of closing tax loopholes and would prefer it be done in a very robust manner. I also want to see more banking regulation (although neither have a great track record on this), however it could be a waste of time is the US don't bother.
I don't want to see the needy go without any more than anyone else does. People do need to be incentivised into work (where available) whether it's by raising the minimum wage or putting JSA on a sliding scale, I don't know.
Junkyard - lazarus
This is Britain and no one used to starve till the govt introduced sanctions and food bank use rose
Really was it all perfect? When was this time of utopia?
If we would have been less helpful to the banking sector, we would be in much much more of a mess I'm afraid.Don't really feel reading the front page of The Sun makes you an expert.
If we had been less helpful to the banking sector, they would've been much less inclined to take risks they couldn't afford.
I expect you'll learn about it when you go to school.
Ah, a Richard Murphy report, the independent commentator funded by the TUC and Unison.
Yes, he's been paid by the TUC to do research for them, I know this because he put his name to it, so hardly a shocking revelation.
How is he wrong, btw?
You won't be voting Tory because most other people near you won't. Not sure I follow that.
You'd be surprised, I"ve lost count of the number of people I've come across who vote according to who they think is going to win. Seems they just want to be on the winning team 😯
and the simple reason is that they offer the best deal for me and my family.
See my comments earlier about being honest about not giving a sh*t. As molly says, it will make very little difference to you, but a huge difference to those dependent on the state. Sorry to sound pious, but if you're happy to swallow more homeless people sleeping on the streets, people going hungry, the disabled and infirm stranded in their homes, persecution of the jobless etc for a few quid more a month in your pocket then fine. Personally I'd rather live in a world where my kids don't ask me questions like 'why is that man sleeping on the pavement in the rain?' or 'why do some people not have enough to eat?'.
If we had been less helpful to the banking sector, they would've been much less inclined to take risks they couldn't afford.I expect you'll learn about it when you go to school.
Perhaps you should consider who took their main constraints away in May 1997? That was the catalyst for the s**tstorm that followed.
I believe it may have been the same person who told us all "the age of boom & bust is gone" and proceeded to spend the budget surplus he had inherited plus every other penny he could get his hands on. I'm no Tory fan but someone, somewhere within Labour really needs to admit that they really did get it monumentally wrong instead of just pointing at the global recession.
All the time Ed 'the note in the Treasury was just a joke ha ha' Balls is likely to be let loose with the UK finances I can't vote for them again - it actually feels like I'm being asked to vote for the 'least bad' rather than the 'best' option for the UK.
See my comments earlier about being honest about not giving a sh*t. As molly says, it will make very little difference to you, but a huge difference to those dependent on the state. Sorry to sound pious, but if you're happy to swallow more homeless people sleeping on the streets, people going hungry, the disabled and infirm stranded in their homes, persecution of the jobless etc for a few quid more a month in your pocket then fine. Personally I'd rather live in a world where my kids don't ask me questions like 'why is that man sleeping on the pavement in the rain?' or 'why do some people not have enough to eat?'.
Viewing political parties solely in terms of the pennies in your pocket is a failure of imagination, even if we're restricting the argument to purely selfish terms. I want to breathe cleaner air, have better cycling infrastructure, and better public services. That costs money.
I believe it may have been the same person who told us all "the age of boom & bust is gone" and proceeded to spend the budget surplus he had inherited plus every other penny he could get his hands on. I'm no Tory fan but someone, somewhere within Labour really needs to admit that they really did get it monumentally wrong instead of just pointing at the global recession.
This.
So many people have forgotten how much they destroyed the economy. You can't just keep spending your way out of trouble. A return to labour would in fact make everyone worse off in the long term, especially the next generation who will be responsible for paying off our excesses.
Perhaps you should consider who took their main constraints away in May 1997? That was the catalyst for the s**tstorm that followed.
You'll have to explain why you think my comment was aimed at the conservative party.
So many people have forgotten how much they destroyed the economy.
Labour's light-touch regulation was enthusiastically supported by the tories, and George Osborne committed himself to Labour's spending plans.
Really was it all perfect? When was this time of utopia?
Have you considered addressing what I said rather than defeating a point I never made?
You'll have to explain why you think my comment was aimed at the conservative party.
I'm not sure I did - it was more my (mis)interpretation of being helpful to the banks. I still believe, knowing a couple of them, that taking their muzzle off in '97 was enough to start the snowball rolling and even they didn't expect it to keep going unabated for so long. They didn't need help, they just needed letting loose.
I'm not sure I did - it was more my (mis)interpretation of being helpful to the banks. I still believe, knowing a couple of them, that taking their muzzle off in '97 was enough to start the snowball rolling and even they didn't expect it to keep going unabated for so long. They didn't need help, they just needed letting loose.
Well sure, but given enthusiastic Tory support for deregulation and support for Labour spending from 2007, it's curious people are trying to draw a distinction between the two parties on the economy.
I am - and the simple reason is that they offer the best deal for me and my family.In a perfect world, I'd love to take a broader view, but right now with a young family to provide for, the conservatives offer the best for me and seem most closely aligned to my views (not perfect fit by far, but nearer than anyone else).
I am duty bound to provide for my dependents first of all, so that's my reasoning. Flame away!!
I'm not going to flame you but I am going to say I don't understand how people (and maybe you aren't saying this) can say "I'm going to vote Tory because I can't afford to vote for a party even though I believe would do right by broader society". I can understand why people say "I don't think Lab/Lib would actually do right by society"; I can understand people that say "I don't care about broader society"; I can understand people that say "I'm rich and I don't want to prop up broader society". But I don't see how someone can say they can't afford to vote for someone that they actually believe would be better for society.
For all those people who are claiming they're voting in the best interests of their family...what do you make of the extenisve research by Richard Wilkinson..as put in his popular book "the spirit level".. Do you subscribe to it or think its tosh?
So many people have forgotten how much they destroyed the economy.
If you repeat this often enough, will it change history?
One mo' time :
> http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/the-myth-excessive-government-borrowing-got-us-into-this-mess-8601390.html
Some labour policies I agree with some I dont
However, when it comes to Balls and Milliband I can not stand the pair of them
I feel that we would have failed as a country if these two ass clowns end up running the country.
It would be embarrassing.
But I dont think Labour are doing anything for the country especially.
Certainly no different to the Tories, when it comes to looking out for people.
Do you think the use of Foodbanks will stop under Labour.
Will the running of Hospitals change?
Will the benefits system be that different.
If you believe the spin then fine.
Whoever gets in it will be the same old same old.
So the decider is the people you choose to represent you.
So I am looking at my local candidates on what they represent.
Do you subscribe to it or think its tosh?
tosh
So I am looking at my local candidates on what they represent.
100% this. My choice happens to be Conservative, but I'd honestly vote for him regardless of his party given the current candidates. He's just - in my eyes - the best individual to represent our community.
Will he though? Or will he vote how Dave tells him to?
If your constituents disagree on a particular vote, is he really likely to go against his party? Very few open votes in the commons, I think - which really buggers up the concept of representation.
so much like the wider polls, STW is happy to continually bicker about the lack of difference between the self serving capitalist scum in the Labour party and the socially responsible Conservative party.
knowing they are all a bunch of liars who will say one thing and then do what they want.
another five years gone, no change. sorry thats not entirely correct is it, now instead of indistinguishable single party politics, we have single party plus libdem coalition politics. woo and ****ing hoo.
many people fought, suffered, died to give us this choice. it makes me sad.
I may be wrong, molgrips. But that's the point. You vote based on what you feel, be that as a result of actually researching the candidates and their policies, because it's what your parents told you, or somewhere inbetween. I've researched the local candidates, and I've made my choice. He's a first time candidate so I have no idea whether or not he's going to be a "yes" man. He has done a lot of good things in this area and overseas. He appears to have some relevant life experience. The other options I have are either proven "yes" men, career politicians with a record of voting very much against the will of the community or deluded extreme right & left wingers. There's not much competition, if I'm honest. Others will most definitely disagree.
another five years gone, no change. sorry thats not entirely correct is it, now instead of indistinguishable single party politics, we have single party plus libdem coalition politics. woo and ****ing hoo.
You are right, but until the revolution comes, it's what we've got, and even though the differences between parties are miniscule, they have a massively disproportionate effect on those who find themselves reliant on the state. If as your post suggests you are concerned about those people, then the choice is pretty simple, even if it's unpalatable from an ideological point of view.
Here's one for the hard working families:
[url= http://www.stylist.co.uk/people/new-figures-reveal-huge-spike-in-house-of-commons-champagne-bill ]House of Commons champagne bill rises 72% since 2010[/url]
As for the unelected House of Lords, [url= http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/21/revealed-link-life-peerages-party-donations ]nomination to which has proven to be related to party donations[/url]:
[img] 
[/img]
Chin Chin...