The free market is a great thing and the fact that we live in a capitalist society is good as it benefits many people. That said I support some aspects of socialism such as national health and socialized education, the country would not be able to achieve what it can without them. Guaranteeing everyone a minimum quality of life in these areas is essential for the growth of a population.

As for taxes, yes they are f*cked up in the UK. My dad pays half of his wage in taxes because of the amount he earns. But to be honest I have not heard any plans from any political party for a tax reform I think would work in benefitting both someone in the higher income range like him and someone in the lower income range like me.

It's all perspective though really lol.

Somewhat... I mean the EU Liberals still hold a huge lead... it's just not as vast as it was before the election.

You are perhaps working more hours than others, but you are less valuable, more replaceable (greater percentage of population could do your job), your decisions count for less and affect less, you make more mistakes than them (on average, I mean, not specific to you. Newer people take more resources and make more mistakes when accomplishing tasks) and the company wants to keep them working for them more than you. So, yes, you deserve a lower standard of living than someone earrning more. Thinking otherwise is just envy because you're not as economically valuable as them but you want what they have.

The free market is the best tool we have found for improving human standard of living. Therefore if it values one person more highly they deserve a better standard of living as they are contributing more to the economy in general. There are cases of unfairness and imbalance, but that's mostly due to artificial restrictions on the free market (lack of transparency, existence of public sector workers, nepotism/corruption) all of which could be solved by removing regulation and forcing companies to be more accountable for poor decisions by not bailing them out.

That's what I believe, anyway. Too bad no party is free-market enough for me to vote for them. Not even the ultra-right-wingers.

--

@kowenicki

I agree. Everyone who is capable enough should have the opportunity (i.e. tuition paid if they absolutely can't afford it; current grants are far too high and give them a higher standard of uni living than the 30k+ earners, which is ridiculous.). But many people do not require a university education for the job they are capable of. These people should be found more appropriate education paths (e.g. apprenticeships instead of A-levels). That isn't discriminating against them because people are suited to different things, and you can earn more being a tradesman than a businessman or academic.

Pretending everyone is academically gifted enough to go to uni is ridiculous. Most of them take pointless degrees (Psychology or Media Studies*) and their final job ends up not even needing a degree or anything in that subject. They've just wasted 4 years where they could have been economically active, paying taxes and progressing in a career.

*It is possible to study these seriously of course. But most courses called this at low-tier universities are just jokes.

Okay that all depends on perspective. Some people have been 'working' for at my firm longer, and therefore earn more. I generally know out of the things above many of it doesn't apply to me. I mean I have to deal with others mistakes every day, if I left tomorrow the company will be at more of a loose end then if some others left in my firm. It's all down to an individual circumstance really, time in work, age, all of it works this stuff out.

But there is one thing, I DO deserve the same standard of living as anyone at my firm, I deserve it as much as you deserve it, the single working mothers do but whether I can afford it is the difference. A 22k wage person cannot AFFORD a better standard of living than a 40k wage person..

I'll copy and paste one of my views about what should be done in the UK from another forum:

------

Since the Labour Government were first elected in 1997, they've been slowly devolving powers from Parliament, and moving them throughout the rest of the nation.

The Conservatives, who were against this (they're a pro-Unionist party), have become more-and-more for it, as they have found, in recent times, that they're benefiting more from it (winning last years London Mayoral elections, for example). In fact, Cameron has even stated that if/when a Tory Government comes in, they're going to continue devolution, if at a slower rate, like creating more elected Mayors, and barring Scottish MPs from partaking in votes on English/Welsh/NI only matters.

It, was, of course, the Labour party who started the devolution, but it's been put on the backburner for a while, due to the economic crisis, and that's led to a rather messy "finish". The Liberal Democrats are renowned for being the most pro-devolution party.

My views? Well, if I was elected to become Prime Minister, I'd make sure (in quick time) that I'd be the last PM in UK history:

- First of all, I'd give England, Wales, Scotland and NI their own Parliaments. Powers devolved to these Parliaments would be: health, education and crime.

- Each of these Parliaments will form a Government, and so we'd have a Prime Minister of England, Wales, Scotland, and NI.

-The Parliaments would be made of two chambers, akin to the one we currently have. But, the upper chamber would be elected, unlike the Lords, however, the elections will not be held in the general public. Instead, the seats will be held by representatives of key groups. Doctors, for example, will be able to elect a representative for themselves. Large pressure groups will also be given a seat. The lower chamber will be the same as the Commons (though, of course, smaller), except votes would be counted using the Additional Member System

- However, these Parliaments will not hold all of the power, there'll also be Assemblies within each of the countries. These Assemblies will be given a budget by each of the Parliaments to spend on what they wish for the citizens. But, basically, the Assemblies will be run in competition with each other, and they'll be trying to reach certain targets (crime rates, wealth, poverty levels, etc).

- You'd then have councils, within the Assemblies, which essentially do the same things they do now (deal with recycling, litter collection, etc).

- On top of all this, you'll have the UK Executive Branch. This will be made up of two halves: an elected President and his team, and the four PMs of the UK.

- The UK Executive Branch will deal with the economy, Europe, foreign policy, and immigration.

- The President's specific powers would be to dissolve any of the four Parliaments, to call elections for the before-said Parliaments, to call legally-binding referenda, and to have control of the Armed Forces. None of these powers can be interfered with by the four PMs.

- The President appoints the Chancellor, Foreign Minister, and other Ministers to help with the areas of which he controls. Any of the decisions made here can be vetoed if 3/4 of the PMs vote against them. This also includes the power to declnister, and other Ministers to help with the areas of which he controls. Any of the decisions made here can be vetoed if 3/4 of the PMs vote against them. This also includes the power to declaare war/peace.

- Oh yeah, and no Queen (just thought I'd slip that in there :p).

- Terms for Parliaments will not be fixed, but will be capped at five years. UK Presidential terms fixed at four years.

So, what are your views, and what would you do? Nothing? The same as me? Reverse what Labour have already done? Something else?

---

My views have changed ever-so-slightly since I made this post, and I think that the President would have to appoint people to work with the ministers of the country to come up with specific targets (so a head of education, who meets with each of the education ministers to discuss targets and initiatives for the next three months, that kind of thing)

I also think that the upper-chamber should be directly elected by the entire people, but using a regional list system (like used in the Euro elections), and the upper chamber's elections should be fixed at every three years, to try and keep the upper chamber more up-to-date with the electorates mood).

---

One final question: do you think we should lower the minimum wage? Having a minimum wage reduces employment, it hasn't been shown since 1997 because the economic growth offered more jobs than what the minimum wage lost, however, it's effects can be felt now.

Lowering the minimum wage by a pound an hour would increase employment, as firms would be able to afford to hire a greater number of people, but it would reduce the living standards of those already in work for the minimum wage.

Just throwing that out there, I'm not stating my view on the matter (though some people may be able to work that out, anyways).

UK poltics are weird...

As SS your views generally would be seen as a "conservative" plan over here... in a LARGE way.

Conservatism in this country is often seen as being rather pragmatic, ie - take things as they come, making slow decisions, nothing too radical (in that sense Thatcher wasn't your typical conservative). Also, as for the UK Conservative party they are a highly unionist party, and they opposed Labour's devolution every step of the way (hell, the full name of the Conservative party is "The Conservative and Unionist Party"), so my plans of completely removing a UK Parliament and handing lots of power to the individual parts of the UK would not be seen as Conservative at all.

Where's Mo Mowlam when you need her?

It's blatantly obvious that the only reason Blair put her into his cabinet was to shut her up ("better inside the tent pissing out, then outside the tent pissing in"). All I know of her, though, was her huge criticisms of how Blair ran his Cabinet, what else was she famous for?

The Good Friday Peace Agreement for one. She was very popular in Labour MPs and public before she retired from politics. If Mo wasn't there, I don't think Blair would have done as well as he did.