I'm now convinced that Labour will win an overall majority in 2015 despite Ed's relative unpopularity. Some great policies announced this week including freezing gas and electricity prices for 21 months, extended childcare and not renewing the Atos contract in 2015, which may affect me in years to come.

Ed Milliband is not Prime Ministerial material, and Labour will not win an absolute majority with him at the helm, unless he can pull something spectacular out of his cheese tin in the next 18 months.

Having a quick read of the BBC, I'm actually quite impressed with some of the policies. It's as if Labour has finally woken up from a 3 year slumber!

 

I don't think they will win a majority. More likely I foresee a hung parliament once more with Labour leading a grand coalition of the Centre-Left.

Ed Milliband is not Prime Ministerial material, and Labour will not win an absolute majority with him at the helm, unless he can pull something spectacular out of his cheese tin in the next 18 months.

 

Well the bookies all disagree with you. ;)

I really hope they make 'One Nation Economy' available to read in pdf format on the Labour site!

One of his better speeches delivery wise and some very grand pledges

 

But

 

WHERE WILL THE MONEY COME FROM?

 

It is all the well talking about taxing hedge funds and bankers bonuses but it will cost a damn slight more than that, watch tax or stealth taxes shoot up

 

His pledge to freeze energy bills, fascinating, and very good intentions, but

 

1) What is stopping energy companies putting up prices 20% the night before the election to compensate for the 2 year freeze?

 

2) What happens if in those 2 years the price of wholesale gas/electricity goes DOWN? if prices are fixed by Ed then the falls wont be passed onto the consumer

 

This was a speech aimed at Sun readers

 

Will they be taken in? doubt it

I'm now convinced that Labour will win an overall majority in 2015 despite Ed's relative unpopularity. Some great policies announced this week including freezing gas and electricity prices for 21 months, extended childcare and not renewing the Atos contract in 2015, which may affect me in years to come.

 

It was preaching to the converted Chris

 

People on benefits and people who are disabled or/and poor or are struggling because of high energy bills would by and large vote labour anyway

 

If Ed wants to win he has to attract professionals and the middle classes

The middle classes are comfortable enough to know who they want to vote for and Sun readers generally need a bit of guidance when it comes to who to vote for though. It seems like a perfect strategy to me. I'm glad to see everything fall into place for Labour now.

 

Also, off-topic, but I've been recently wondering if you're allowed to vote in two or more constituencies without anyone noticing. There must be a way you can do it but yet I've never heard about anyone actually doing it.

Edited September 24, 201311 yr by Tommy G

The middle classes are comfortable enough to know who they want to vote for and Sun readers generally need a bit of guidance when it comes to who to vote for though. It seems like a perfect strategy to me. I'm glad to see everything fall into place for Labour now.

 

Also, off-topic, but I've been recently wondering if you're allowed to vote in two or more constituencies without anyone noticing. There must be a way you can do it but yet I've never heard about anyone actually doing it.

 

No idea tbh, although i would imagine it to be illegal

 

One of the most barmy things Ed talked about was lowering the voting age to 16

 

Its one of the most insane ideas I have ever heard of in politics, very few 16 year olds have any interest in politics and we risk MP's being elected on the basis of who is the best looking as opposed to who has the best policies

Edited September 24, 201311 yr by Sandro Ranieri

It's voting fraud and thus illegal no?

 

 

There's nothing 'barmy' about giving vote to the 16-17 year olds. There is an experiment with it for the Referendum and it'll be interesting to see what the turn out and interest is from that age group.

It's voting fraud and thus illegal no?

 

How would they know that it was voting fraud though?

Taxing bankers' bonuses now? Really? "Oh here's a sum of money for your excellent contribution this quarter. BUT... ACTUALLY, let me take some of that back because really, it's not a bonus it's just some amount of money you're getting before the government steal some of it from you!" :/ The government really need to suggest better means of fuelling money back into the economy.

It's voting fraud and thus illegal no?

There's nothing 'barmy' about giving vote to the 16-17 year olds. There is an experiment with it for the Referendum and it'll be interesting to see what the turn out and interest is from that age group.

 

I have about 30-40 that sorta age follow me on Twitter, I follow most back, but in all the time i have followed any of them i don't recall a single tweet or opinion about politics from any of them unless it involved animals (fox hunting etc), ok that is not representative of 16-17 year olds as a whole but they have been prolific in tweeting about TOWIE, Geordie Shore, Big Brother etc so my opinion is that the number of 16-17 year olds in this country interested in politics does not justify lowering the age of voting, people under 18 with no interest in politics just voting for sake of it could make a lot of difference to the end result

 

I would rather voting was kept to people who are likely to be paying tax or have interest in politics, 18+

How would they know that it was voting fraud though?

You do realise they keep a register and you can only be registered in one constituency at any one point. They know for sure because ahead of an election you are sent a polling card that tells you where you are to vote on polling day and when the polling station is open.

 

Taxing bankers' bonuses now? Really? "Oh here's a sum of money for your excellent contribution this quarter. BUT... ACTUALLY, let me take some of that back because really, it's not a bonus it's just some amount of money you're getting before the government steal some of it from you!" :/ The government really need to suggest better means of fuelling money back into the economy.

Bankers are the reason there is a need to fuel money back into the economy in the first place.....

I have about 30-40 that sorta age follow me on Twitter, I follow most back, but in all the time i have followed any of them i don't recall a single tweet or opinion about politics from any of them unless it involved animals (fox hunting etc), ok that is not representative of 16-17 year olds as a whole but they have been prolific in tweeting about TOWIE, Geordie Shore, Big Brother etc so my opinion is that the number of 16-17 year olds in this country interested in politics does not justify lowering the age of voting, people under 18 with no interest in politics just voting for sake of it could make a lot of difference to the end result

 

I would rather voting was kept to people who are likely to be paying tax or have interest in politics, 18+

Just because they don't tweet about it doesn't mean they don't have an interest in it. There is also a chance for schools to educate them and introduce them to the political system with an adult to help them through the experience.

 

In the lead up to the election you would be able to educate them on each parties policies and encourage them to gain some interest in the wider issues and the things that effect them, like education reforms.

Bankers are the reason there is a need to fuel money back into the economy in the first place.....

And taking bonuses from people who work as hard as they possibly can for however many months is the solution to a couple of money problems? They're not really compulsory for somebody to be able to get through a job, nor are any employees hard done by for not receiving a bonus, but should people who are working their arse off to pay bills, mortgage, feed a family and bring them up, etc. have things that help them achieve that stripped of them because the government needs to make money from somewhere? A good place to start would be slashing benefits from junkies who don't even need them but end up better off than the rest of us.

Just because they don't tweet about it doesn't mean they don't have an interest in it. There is also a chance for schools to educate them and introduce them to the political system with an adult to help them through the experience.

 

In the lead up to the election you would be able to educate them on each parties policies and encourage them to gain some interest in the wider issues and the things that effect them, like education reforms.

 

That could work as long as it was imposed in law that teachers have to be impartial and not force their own agendas, certainly in my day teachers tended to be pretty left wing

And taking bonuses from people who work as hard as they possibly can for however many months is the solution to a couple of money problems? They're not really compulsory for somebody to be able to get through a job, nor are any employees hard done by for not receiving a bonus, but should people who are working their arse off to pay bills, mortgage, feed a family and bring them up, etc. have things that help them achieve that stripped of them because the government needs to make money from somewhere? A good place to start would be slashing benefits from junkies who don't even need them but end up better off than the rest of us.

You do realise that they are referring to the big 6 figure bonuses that the investment bankers in the city (i.e. the 'Square Mile' i.e. the centre of London) take home and not the extra couple of hundred quid most people get at christmas or the end of the financial year.

 

Plus Bonuses are liable and subject to standard income tax as is. It works like Income Tax does and would kick in at a certain threshold.

 

From the FT (Financial Times): [Full article: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e3d6dcee-247f-11...l#axzz2fqDf497i]

 

Mr Miliband will also use his conference speech in Brighton to target the “privileged few”, in a clear signal that the rich will be expected to alleviate the “cost of living crisis” endured by many households. He is proposing a bank bonus tax, a mansion tax on properties worth more than £2m and a possible increase to 50p in the top rate of income tax.

 

 

Quite explicitly not targeting the people you described there.

And taking bonuses from people who work as hard as they possibly can for however many months is the solution to a couple of money problems? They're not really compulsory for somebody to be able to get through a job, nor are any employees hard done by for not receiving a bonus, but should people who are working their arse off to pay bills, mortgage, feed a family and bring them up, etc. have things that help them achieve that stripped of them because the government needs to make money from somewhere? A good place to start would be slashing benefits from junkies who don't even need them but end up better off than the rest of us.

 

I am in 2 minds about bonuses

 

When a company has made a profit it is totally right that bonuses should be paid

 

In many cases the company has made a loss and bonuses are still paid, not just banks

 

Bonuses should only be paid as a reward for doing a good job and making a good profit

That could work as long as it was imposed in law that teachers have to be impartial and not force their own agendas, certainly in my day teachers tended to be pretty left wing

When i did Modern Studies in first year and we had a mock election with fake parties. There was no pushing of personal agenda's and it was actually a really fun couple of weeks. I would have liked to have revisited it when I was closer to voting age using real parties and their real policies.