Ex Lion Tamer

To be fair, your logic is pretty sound

My prediction: Tories ahead by 9 seats. but can't get enough support for Queens speech. Labour forms minority government. Clegg and Cameron both resign. While not easy, government gets surprising amount done, with support of SNP on some bills and tories on others. Of course, I could be very wrong so don't throw this back at me in a month's time!

LD as well informed as ever there

The Indie generally supports the lib dems although the tone of the piece is a little surprising

I thought they have failed to clean up their human rights record and so aren't eligible. It's actually a textbook example of why the EU is good - respect your citizens' human rights or you don't get the economic benefits of joining our club

The Tories has given us the longest fall in wages in the last 150 years

Apparently the BBC is biased but I cant remember when they've made an apology like this from the Times

For the record. I do think a late swing to the tories is still very much on the cards. For all the complaints about the QT audience, labour has not won the economic argument or even really made it properly

First thing is that as the largest party, the Tories will put forward a Queens speech. Lab and SNP will vote it down. That means Labour, as the second largest party, will put forward its own Queen's speech, and dare the SNP to vote it down. The SNP won't because at least its better than the Tories, and they have to be seen to be constructively trying to get the UK to have a working government. Labour therefore becomes a minority government. Then in every subsequent bill, if it doesn't get passed then Labour will blame the SNP. There will be negotiation on a regular basis but no deal as such. I don't think it is going to be easy for Labour at all but its the basis to form a government

Did labour over spend? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32549892

So you can be taxed less while you're alive

I don't begrudge people doing what's in their and their families' interest, it's human nature. But they shouldn't squeal about the government taking a portion to improve society as a whole

They may have paid tax in the past or will in the future, but anyway, giving people just enough to live in a slightly less severe poverty is not the same as passing hundreds of thousands of pounds to your kids

I'm explaining my opinions with detailed arguments

In your opinion

They go on and on about how people are rich because they work hard, and shouldn't be punished with higher tax. (I'd suggest that background, luck ant intelligence plays a big part) But then they want to cut a tax that helps ensure you don't get something for nothing just because your parents are wealthy (in practice priveligrd kids can still get passed down plenty despite losing a portion of it). So apparently wealth isn't just about working hard, it is about upbringing like I said

They can see their hypocrisy but they still don't agree with it? I understand that it's a powerful human instinct to want to pass wealth on to your children. But it's really not good for them or society. Everyone should have to work for their prosperity

Amazes me that people can't see this

A few exceptions aside, the history of conservatism is one of opposing improvments to worker rights and then accepting them a few years later when the sky hasn't fallen in. The minimum wage being a case in point

I think we're really restricting the free market by not allowing young children to work. Sure some of them don't like it, but others do and why should we deny them that?

In your opinion

I mean you have to say that working conditions are better now than 100 years ago - government made that happen

I agree that can be the case but it's just not acceptable to me to have a defeatist attitude. Government has done many good things for people along with the failures, we have to try, and if there are adverse effects then we refine the policy

So what's your proposal to help people who are stuck on these contracts?