Labour will most probably get voted in again.

#1
According to a statement by the Department for Work and Pensions, something like 33% of ALL families in the UK are dependent on state handouts for at least half of their income.

Reminds me of the old "being owned by the Company Store" idea.

So what chance do any of the other parties have of getting rid of the people who give away all this free money? You would have to be mad to vote for any one else.

Looks like we might be in for a few more years of pain.


Official government figures showed that more than seven million households are getting most of their income from government handouts
.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...AVCBQ0IV0?xml=/news/2007/02/12/nwelfare12.xml
 
#2
That corresponds almost exactly with an article I read about a year ago. It revealed that the government makes 22 million benefit payments per month.

Look on the bright side. The figures mean that about two thirds of us are being taxed to death to support the other one third.

Don't forget to vote at the next election. Also bear in mind that a Labour MP recently let slip that every poll Labour has commissioned shown Robin Hood - oops sorry I meant Gordon Brown - will lose to Dave at the next election.
 
#3
This includes every private who is married with children. And quite a few lance corporals?

Well done to Civitas showing the dire state of wages in this country.
 
#4
Don't think that the equation is that simple. First, not all of those dependent upon benefits will vote at all. Second, a fair proportion of those in this position will be pensioners. A number of these will have voted Tory or Liberal/SDP-Liberal Alliance/Lib Dem all their life and won't change now. Third, despite their dependency on benefits, yet more will vote against the government.

Then, the question of how many of these households are in Labour strongholds comes into play - the votes of these electors who do turn out, and vote Labour will simply boost the size of the sitting MP's majority, rather than translate into new seats.

Finally, more of those dependent on benefits may well blame the incumbent government for their plight (although many didn't between 1983 and 1997) and vote for an opposition party as well.
 
#5
And what proportion of these voters will be swayed by the stories and attitude of the red-tops?

I'm sure labours days are numbered.
 
#6
A good few of these sorts will find it hard to write an X in a box, and that is if they can find the Polling Station.
 
#7
I wish I could disagree... but Labour has not done enough wrong yet to lose the next election AND I don't think that Dave (aka the rump of the Conservatives) has done enough to win the next election, whatever the polls say.

Interesting article in the Telegraph over the weekend that the bulk of political donations to UKIP are sub-£1000 - which means that they are attracting "yer av'rige voter"!

Litotes

Edited for complete and utter stupidity on a Monday morning and guessing that it's going to be a very long week....
 
#8
Much as I detest Blur's Nue labour I still cannot see Cammeron as the next PM.
UK is lost until the great unwashed SEE just what the criminal Blur and his gang have done.
john
Blur has led the most corrupt government since Lloyd George.
 
#9
Interesting - and worrying. The figures would appear to bear you out as well:

Yesterday’s Sunday Times has the latest and in it the Conservatives are on 37 per cent, Labour 32, the Liberal Democrats 18 and the others, who include nationalists, greens, the BNP and the United Kingdom Independence Party, are on 13 per cent together.

Compared with the outcome of the last general election these are good figures for the Conservatives, but they are nevertheless disappointing. The Conservatives are still failing to break through the 40 per cent mark, which they would need to win a general election. The figures would produce a 4 per cent swing from Labour to the Conservatives, but that would probably leave Labour as the largest party in terms of seats. The Conservatives might pick up some 60 to 70 marginals, but they would be the second largest party in a hung Parliament; a long way from power.
 
#10
Storeman Norman said:
Interesting - and worrying. The figures would appear to bear you out as well:

Yesterday’s Sunday Times has the latest and in it the Conservatives are on 37 per cent, Labour 32, the Liberal Democrats 18 and the others, who include nationalists, greens, the BNP and the United Kingdom Independence Party, are on 13 per cent together.

Compared with the outcome of the last general election these are good figures for the Conservatives, but they are nevertheless disappointing. The Conservatives are still failing to break through the 40 per cent mark, which they would need to win a general election. The figures would produce a 4 per cent swing from Labour to the Conservatives, but that would probably leave Labour as the largest party in terms of seats. TheConservatives might pick up some 60 to 70 marginals, but they would be the second largest party in a hung Parliament; a long way from power.
And guess who will be holding the balance of power!!

PR and representative government here we come
 
#11
The Cons have a 5 point lead according to the above poll, and they haven't actually done anything yet. The next election is at least 30 months away, I really don't think Cameron is going to start coming out with good ideas so Bliar/Broon can nick them (let's face it, there are precedents)

The lead at the moment is due entirely to Labour's failure and implosion. When the Boy starts working, there could be a 1997 style Con landslide. Question is, considering how alike they are (at present) is that what people really want? And is the inertia that Cameron is indulging in now going to lose him enough votes to UKIP or BNP to make a difference?
 
#12
In the old days this would have been called "buying votes". In these more Orwellian and PC times, however, it is called variously "social justice ", "wealth redistribution", "being fair", "helping hard-working families", and other such trite and meaningless phrases.

In simple electoral terms I see it as the Labour Party buying the votes of their target audience with money expropriated from the Conservatives' target audience.

Countdown to Sven having a fit in three... two... one...

(Edited to correct a lefty buzzword)
 
#13
It's really blindingly simple.

All the Tories need to win, is a charismatic no-frills, sleeves-rolled-up leader.

We're doomed aren't we :(
 
#14
Archimedes said:
Don't think that the equation is that simple. First, not all of those dependent upon benefits will vote at all. Second, a fair proportion of those in this position will be pensioners. A number of these will have voted Tory or Liberal/SDP-Liberal Alliance/Lib Dem all their life and won't change now. Third, despite their dependency on benefits, yet more will vote against the government.

Then, the question of how many of these households are in Labour strongholds comes into play - the votes of these electors who do turn out, and vote Labour will simply boost the size of the sitting MP's majority, rather than translate into new seats.

Finally, more of those dependent on benefits may well blame the incumbent government for their plight (although many didn't between 1983 and 1997) and vote for an opposition party as well.


I agree with everything you say matey, especially the phrase in bold. The majority of chavscum out there (and before the incoming starts, I'm not saying everyone on low incomes or benefits is chavscum) can't be arrsed to go out and vote, it'd detract from sitting at home drinking cans of Norseman and eating takeaways. Seriously though, I bet you that if you asked some of them who the PM was, or which party is in power, they wouldn't be able to tell you, guarantee it!
 
#16
Regardless of who wins the next election one thing is certain - they will inherit public finances that are in a critical state due to the current administration's incompetence. The result of this is that taxes must rise, or public services be cut, or a combination of both.

The question now is:

Is it best for Labour to win another term and complete their destruction of the economy, so paving the way for a Conservative (there are no other viable alternatives) administration to be elected thereafter for 3 or 4 terms and rebuild Britain (read Thatcher onwards)?

Or

Is it best to hope for a Tory win at the next election, and hope they will not be blamed for the economic carnage that will be their inheritance from Labour, and be thrown out at the first opportunity thereafter.

My money is on the first option and for the first (and hopefully only time in my life) I will probably vote Labour.

PAW
 
#17
Sorry the idea that what the uk populance want is some reborn thatcher to sort this mess out.
is a fantasy.
beloved of right wingers there making the same mistake that militant did in the 80's they lost so they thought the answer was to be more left wing.
"DAVE" gets it along with blair we are naturally a conservative sort of nation as in we not into to big a change and we don't favour radical ideas much.
I think brown is going to do a major while "dave" trys to get the torys in order
 
#18
Litotes said:
...but Labour has not done enough wrong yet to lose the next election...
Strewth fella, what else do you think they need to do?!

It isn't that they haven't done enough to lose, it is more that the apathetic and unconvinced middle third have no interest in voting. Why, because they cannot see how it would materially affect their status. As that old badge or "splash patch" had it, whoever you vote for the government gets in.

As long as only a third or so of the franchise care enough to vote, the distortions which produced a crippling majority for the Blair "project" will maintain. You can see why the populist parties of extremism think their time has come, given the atrocious state of the realm but they will never engage enough people across the piece. So 29% of a third of the franchise will continue to be enough. This means that "convincing" something like 10% of the population will be sufficient for one faction to achieve leadership.

Now how does government by 10% equate to democracy??
 
#19
Just to add, I am almost tending to agree with Sven and his LD cohorts that PR is a better solution, for a fairer more democratic elected government. Unfortunately I remember the great Belgian PR governments of the 80s - Martens and co. - where nothing got done...

Its a worry...
 

OldSnowy

LE
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#20
Don't underestimate NuLabour efforts to wriggle around possible electoral 'difficulties' such as not enough people voting for them! There is of course the introduction of widespread postal voting.

Remember the Birmingham Council election in 2005? The QC who reported on it said:
"Anybody who has sat through the case I have just tried and listened to evidence of electoral fraud that would disgrace a banana republic".

"The systems to deal with fraud are not working well," he said.

"They are not working badly. The fact is that there are no systems to deal realistically with fraud and there never have been. Until there are, fraud will continue unabated."

Birmingham was not part of the postal-only experiment undertaken in some areas at the last local elections.

Both the pro-Kashmir People's Justice Party (PJP) and the Liberal Democrats claimed local Labour activists used forgery and deception to collect votes - something the candidates denied.


Needless to say, postal voting, far from being scaled back, has been pushed forward very fast indeed. Why? - because it is seen as benefiting Labour MPs; no other reason (Certainly not any interest in democracy).
 

Similar threads

Top