Politics, politics, politics

[DTA]

I saw it on TV tonight. I don't think it is, I don't think it's funny and it's a bit crud really. It's also surprising for The Greens IMO to go for the mocking other party leaders/vote for us to sock it to them message rather than anything policy based?

It's actually pretty much exactly the same message as UKIP.

It's very different though, clever, and brave. I think it may resonate with the public which is the point of party political broadcasts, and it's being shared all over social media (that's a major win for them) not sure when it was released but the youtube views are substantial already.... Very new media savvy.

 

[thfcsteff]

Scara, and NWND I absolutely believe in hard working people being properly rewarded. But sadly hard work does not necessarily equate with wealth. Wealth is often a product of luck and being in the right place at the right time. So Scara says the answer is to "work harder!" For a society to function we need to have people willing to do a wide range of jobs not just highly paid law or banking jobs right? The midwife who delivered my son had worked a 10 hour day and was then on call in the evening, she came in as the hospital was short of midwives, worked from 845pm until my wife delivered after 4am. I was truly humbled by her dedication, skill and love for her job. Her salary though is modest. She is on PAYE so she pays a proper contribution to the tax system. To supplement her wages she needs good public services. I support a society that looks after her and her family because she is not being very well rewarded financially. There are 100s of examples like her.

Now we have those 100 signatories to the letter in the telegraph slating Milliband for saying he will not bring the top rate of Corporation tax down to 20% but instead give small businesses a reduction in business rates. These arseholes who are probably writing their letter from their second homes in Monaco can afford to pay more tax and still be super rich. And herein lies a problem for me. I am lucky enough to be comfortably off but not rich. I pay my share of taxes because I realise how important public services are. You see my family came from a country where until very recently, families had to choose between sending their kids to school or work. They had to choose if they could afford medicines or food. This is not an exaggeration. We take many things for granted in the Uk we don't have to make those choices anymore. But the country is broke and the very system that makes this country great is creaking and under threat. So these 100 signatories who can afford two holidays and second homes would prefer to keep holding on to their money than to contribute more to help their Country. And the Tory party would prefer to let them keep their money and make further cuts, including telling the midwife she's not worth a one percent pay rise, that could take us back to pre- war standards of living. I could never vote for that party despite my reservations about Miliband.

An outstanding post, which gives me hope that society has not been overrun by myopic greedy bastards who think empathy is a skin condition.

 

[thfcsteff]

Just pure hyperbole. You do know that ultimately, the government, whether Tory or Labour, don't get an actual say in whether your midwife gets a one-per-cent pay rise? That's down to the NHS, trusts and local authorities in some instances.

Cameron is right, you need a strong economy to have a strong NHS, to give the NHS more money, for them to give your midwife a pay-rise.

You do not get a strong economy by just ramping up the taxes on the top earners. They'll leave or go off-shore, find loop-holes. It's their money. They earnt it. They already pay 50% tax. That's a lot. Imagine if half of your money was taken away from you that you earnt.

The same goes for companies. You need to cut the big multi-nationals a break, otherwise they will move away from this country. Small businesses are important, but ultimately, I'm afraid that this country's real economic power rests with the likes of HSBC, RBS, BAE Systems, G4S, Capita and the people who own and run them. You push these people and businesses away, which you risk doing with Ed's rhetoric and you are effectively hurting your midwife as much as anyone.

First of all, it is NOT 'pure hyperbole', it is a very decent point of view. Your first assertion is actually mind-boggling. WHO dictates policy and spending? The NHS? They dictate to themselves how much money they can spend? Of course not. So either you have failed to explain your point clearly, or I have failed to understand it properly (please do explain to me if it is the latter, I'm always up for learning the views of others mate).

Yes, imagine indeed...are we talking relatively? Because in order for this point to make any sense, relativity would be the gauge. As for 'already pay 50% tax', that might be what it says on the tin, but I guarantee you that the vast majority of people who run in the 50% bracket have accountants who make absolutely sure that said '50% of their NET income comes from a net which is but a small percentage of their ACTUAL, gross earnings. Never ever worry about these poor lambs losing 50% of their income. Seriously.

The country's economic power does, indeed, currently lie with 'financial services' but if we actually want to try and generate our own economy throughout the land, would it not make sense to start trying to move towards an economy which has more variety? Should we not be trying to revive some of the great British industries which were once so well known and revered? The REASON that does not happen, is because sadly there are enough people who want everything as cheap as they can which makes sure that we are not producers but consumers of 'cheap labour products' and as such...I feel a digression coming, thus let me get back on track ...I believe that society needs to be brave and absolutely refuse to be dictated to by the 'perceived' threat of a 'few financial powerhouses'...big multi-nationals will always still be getting a massive break WHATEVER it says on Miliband's tin. Let's be serious, it's Moroccan bazaar politics, tarofing in Persian culture, where one does in high, one comes in low and in the end compromise is met which suits the needs of both. Again, no multi-national is going to withdraw their business from the UK if Miliband gets in, and I think any sentiment which suggests as such is fear-mongering mate.

In the spirit of debate and looking forward to reading your return thoughts.

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

Who said I wasn't partizan? I'm partisan towards my own view point on each issue. What I don't do is pigeon hole myself as left or right wing, socialist, communist, fascist etc. I probably have what would be viewed as right wing views on some things and what would be considered left wing views on others.

"Partizan." That's a football club mate.

 

[thfcsteff]

You're still making the mistaken assumption that the alternative to a 0 hour contract is a permanent contract. In every case I've seen the alternative to a 0 hour contract is no contract at all.

A bit of advice for your brother - the best way to not be disposed of is to make oneself too good or important to dispose of. Education is the best way, but often working harder than anyone else is enough.

...funny how the quality of standard education continues to get worse, and even worse, university education is now considered a business as opposed to an investment in society...

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

You're still making the mistaken assumption that the alternative to a 0 hour contract is a permanent contract. In every case I've seen the alternative to a 0 hour contract is no contract at all.

A bit of advice for your brother - the best way to not be disposed of is to make oneself too good or important to dispose of. Education is the best way, but often working harder than anyone else is enough.

That's my point, as whole swathes of industry have been enveloped by this disease. Working in stores has been one such industry. Why shouldn't workers be able to expect a reasonable degree of security in their employment? A classic case of some feeling that the plebs deserve nothing better, which of course is at the heart of these types of measures.

 

[thfcsteff]

Sorry fella, I thought you were on about income tax rises for the rich, although I have to ask whether taxing wealth assets amounts to the same thing effectively?

My point is that I think it's time to stop the bashing of bankers and creating a toxic, anti-business rhetoric. I think.it is time to give large corporations a bit of a break to re-engage with big global business and increase growth. While employment numbers might lie in smaller firms my point still stands that the majority of economic power comes from the larger companies.

We need to cut the banks some slack in particular as at the moment our major banks and financial institutions are still too risk-adverse and therefore not lending enough. This is keeping the property market outside London relatively stagnant, growth wise and limiting economic growth and recovery and the ability of smaller firms to grow and and take on new staff and work.

We've hammered big business so much since the crash and made it a populist thing. Its time to balance the stance and encourage a return to more freedom and less restriction of our major financial institutions.

I firmly believe that 'big business' needs to take a step towards the general population and perhaps invest into programs which would benefit everyone. I think there'd be a little more appreciation for the likes of HSBC if they were involved in more social programs on a greater basis. This is most certainly a start but it still smacks of something being done (ironically) for tax reasons rather than genuinely wanting to contribute to society. Now, I am absolutely aware this 'could' make me seem like an idealist, or worse, an old socialist fool. My point, however, is that unless this sort of thing starts happening, the growing start of our society which is getting shafted will end up with even greater feelings resentment towards big business, however fair or unfair you might feel that it.

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

QUOTE="thfcsteff, post: 686062, member: 85"]I firmly believe that 'big business' needs to take a step towards the general population and perhaps invest into programs which would benefit everyone. I think there'd be a little more appreciation for the likes of HSBC if they were involved in more social programs on a greater basis. This is most certainly a start but it still smacks of something being done (ironically) for tax reasons rather than genuinely wanting to contribute to society. Now, I am absolutely aware this 'could' make me seem like an idealist, or worse, an old socialist fool. My point, however, is that unless this sort of thing starts happening, the growing start of our society which is getting shafted will end up with even greater feelings resentment towards big business, however fair or unfair you might feel that it.[/QUOTE]

Actually, I do detect a whiff of change in the air. People are slowly waking up to the fact that their way of life is under threat from the neo-liberal delusion. Partly this is a result of the internet and alternative sources of information, other than the mainstream media. Also, people can see just how wide the gap has become between rich and poor. People are working hard and getting no-where. In nations that follow the neo-liberal agenda, the wage share of GDP is falling and the profit share is in-creasing. Some people ought to be careful of what they wish for, because if the neo-liberal agenda is carried out to its full extent, things could get very ugly and make Ferguson look like a picnic.

 

[scaramanga]

I have decided that, for the first time, I will be voting Labour in the General Election (I have voted Lib Dems in the previous two General Elections -- I'm 31 and they are the only two I have been eligible to vote in thus far).

I toyed with the idea of Greens, but they seem too flaky. Spoiled ballot was the next favourite. But I dunno, overall Labour's policies will look out for the likes of me better than Tory and I don't mind Miliband. Of course, they will disappoint if elected, but for me, they are better than the alternative.

Unlike a lot of people, I don't get my ideas about benefits from the papers. I rely on in-work benefits (housing benefit, tax credits) and I know people who rely on out of work benefits. I am the very person that the Tories want to shaft -- f*ck 'em. I don't think the sky will fall in if they get back in, because it will be in a coalition again. But I think things will get worse for the likes of me, whereas under Labour it wouldn't be quite as bad. not much of an endorsement, but it's the most credit I can give any of them.

On a side note, a quick straw poll of the warehouse I work in and the winner, by a landslide, was..."I'm not voting, couldn't give a sh1t, they are all c**ts" or words to that effect. Hard to disagree with that too. But I always feel I should vote in the General Election.

This is probably going to sound patronising but please don't take it that way - it's not my intent.

From what you've posted you're clearly too young to remember what a Labour government is really like. They really are damaging to the country - not just the rich, they fvck everyone eventually.

Look at what New Labour did. Their profligate waste of our money very nearly bankrupted the country. Instead of making hay whilst the sun shone they just spent, spent, spent. Real Labour - the kind of Labour the back-stabbing, brother-fvcking, special one wants to recreate is a massive lurch left from there. New Labour were dangerous but recoverable - real Labour is truly something for everyone to fear.

It may sound like sunshine, unicorns and free handjobs for all when Labour talk about their redistribution plans but you've never had to see the reality. You're fortunate enough to have spent your entire life reaping the rewards of Thatcher's incredible and revolutionary work in the 80s. Unsurprisingly, it's not all sunshine and happiness, it's rubbish rotting in your front yard, dead family members rotting in your back room, you're not able to go to work because your kid's school is shut again (if today is one of the 3 days a week your company is open) and any savings you might scrape together are worth half as much as they were a week later. You think the NHS needs help? Try seeing a children's hospital being run almost entirely by volunteers because Labour let the staff get too greedy.

Do you know the really distasteful thing about all of this? Not only did the greedy, workshy fvckers refuse to work but they intentionally (often violently) stopped volunteers doing their jobs for them. In Liverpool they picketed funeral corteges and turned them away!

I cannot stress how different the reality of a left wing government with unions pulling their strings really is compared to the impression those born in the 80s and 90s have of them.

 

[scaramanga]

An outstanding post, which gives me hope that society has not been overrun by myopic greedy bastards who think empathy is a skin condition.

Empathy is not something I'm afflicted with - that allows me to make rational, evidence-based and logical decisions.

 

[scaramanga]

That's my point, as whole swathes of industry have been enveloped by this disease. Working in stores has been one such industry. Why shouldn't workers be able to expect a reasonable degree of security in their employment? A classic case of some feeling that the plebs deserve nothing better, which of course is at the heart of these types of measures.

Because those options are not available to the employers.

I haven't seen a single case of a 0 hour worker employed when a permanent contract was an option. Surely it's better that people get some work than no work right? The choice isn't between 0 hours and permanent, it's between 0 hours and nothing at all.

 

[NWND]

It's very different though, clever, and brave. I think it may resonate with the public which is the point of party political broadcasts, and it's being shared all over social media (that's a major win for them) not sure when it was released but the youtube views are substantial already.... Very new media savvy.

Yeah you're probably right, it was never made to be aimed at miserable sods like me anyway ;-)

 

[scaramanga]

I fully understand how the tax system works thanks. Btw it was the health secretary who told the trusts that staff could not get a1% pay rise.

Where have I Said anything about the 50% tax rate? I don't agree with it as it is a tax on work. And no I don't agree with someone paying more to the state than they take home to their families. Quite selective with your posts. I do however believe in better off people paying a larger contribution so I would rather tax their wealth like their homes.

The Corporation tax rate was already highly competitive at the old rate. It did not need cutting anymore. If anything the threshold could have been raised. People and companies stay in the uk for more reasons than just the tax system. But of course you have fallen for the rhetoric of bankers and rich company owners. 90% of people in this country are employed in small to medium sized businesses. I support measures to help them before cutting Corporation tax for the big boys.

It's not the additional rate of tax where Red Ed and his merry band of thieves will hit us, there's all kinds of (legal) ways to avoid paying that. It's the threshold on the higher rate where he'll hit normal people like you and me.

He's told us all he won't change the rate - I think that for once he's actually not lying. What he will almost certainly do though is lower the threshold (or not raise it with inflation). Currently the threshold is around £42K - that's not rich people or high earners we're talking about. In the South East (and especially London) that's barely enough to get by - certainly not enough to buy your own house.

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

Because those options are not available to the employers.

I haven't seen a single case of a 0 hour worker employed when a permanent contract was an option. Surely it's better that people get some work than no work right? The choice isn't between 0 hours and permanent, it's between 0 hours and nothing at all.

Well done Scara, comparing apples with oranges.

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

This is probably going to sound patronising but please don't take it that way - it's not my intent.

From what you've posted you're clearly too young to remember what a Labour government is really like. They really are damaging to the country - not just the rich, they fvck everyone eventually.

Look at what New Labour did. Their profligate waste of our money very nearly bankrupted the country. Instead of making hay whilst the sun shone they just spent, spent, spent. Real Labour - the kind of Labour the back-stabbing, brother-fvcking, special one wants to recreate is a massive lurch left from there. New Labour were dangerous but recoverable - real Labour is truly something for everyone to fear.

It may sound like sunshine, unicorns and free handjobs for all when Labour talk about their redistribution plans but you've never had to see the reality. You're fortunate enough to have spent your entire life reaping the rewards of Thatcher's incredible and revolutionary work in the 80s. Unsurprisingly, it's not all sunshine and happiness, it's rubbish rotting in your front yard, dead family members rotting in your back room, you're not able to go to work because your kid's school is shut again (if today is one of the 3 days a week your company is open) and any savings you might scrape together are worth half as much as they were a week later. You think the NHS needs help? Try seeing a children's hospital being run almost entirely by volunteers because Labour let the staff get too greedy.

Do you know the really distasteful thing about all of this? Not only did the greedy, workshy fvckers refuse to work but they intentionally (often violently) stopped volunteers doing their jobs for them. In Liverpool they picketed funeral corteges and turned them away!

I cannot stress how different the reality of a left wing government with unions pulling their strings really is compared to the impression those born in the 80s and 90s have of them.

So you are going to go back to the 70's to justify a Tory vote. Historically the Tories have also had their problems in government. What about the way they let workers rot during the Great Depression. Had the smarts to use a Labour rat (Macdonald) as their figure head though. What about the outstanding statesmanship and war preparation of the Tories under Neville Chamberlain?
What about the scorched earth economic policies of Thatcher? We can all do that- be selective to boost one party over the other. BTW, most of your 'analysis' of the Callaghan government is hyperbole, lifted from the right wing boosting press. There were not too many western developed nations doing too well back then, remember the oil shock? Name one that was. I must say, I'm enjoying the tone of desperation coming from the Tories on here.

 

[parklane1]

Its called selective memory loss.

 

[scaramanga]

So you are going to go back to the 70's to justify a Tory vote.

That's the last time a proper Labour government was in power - no other comparison would be relevant.

Historically the Tories have also had their problems in government. What about the way they let workers rot during the Great Depression. Had the smarts to use a Labour rat (Macdonald) as their figure head though. What about the outstanding statesmanship and war preparation of the Tories under Neville Chamberlain?

They've done a lot of things wrong but they've never fvcked our economy.

What about the scorched earth economic policies of Thatcher? We can all do that- be selective to boost one party over the other.

Thatcher's economic policies are the only thing that allowed our country to survive the recession that we've just got through. Without the great work she did it would be us locking the doors and pretending not to hear the German bailiffs instead of Greece.

BTW, most of your 'analysis' of the Callaghan government is hyperbole, lifted from the right wing boosting press. There were not too many western developed nations doing too well back then, remember the oils shock? Name one that was.

Pretty much all of my post was fact checked (because my memory isn't what it used to be) against the BBC - a left wing media outlet.

Britain could, and should, have done very well out of the oil crisis. We had North Sea oil and we could have gotten over the shorter-term problems if the unions had allowed us to stockpile coal like we eventually managed to under proper leadership.

I must say, I'm enjoying the tone of desperation coming from the Tories on here.

No desperation here - more resignation that unless the Conservative party somehow turns its shoddy campaign into a good one the country is in trouble.

I find it rather distasteful that you take such glee in what will be the ruin of a large number of people's lives. Unless you're one of those who wants to sit at home watching Jeremy Kyle and spending their benefits it will affect you too. Still, I suppose somebody has to be the cheerleader for massive job losses, the destruction of everyone's savings/pensions and the overall decline of living standards for the hard working. In 5 years' time when we're all on the arse end of a bubble built on housing prices and debt we'll have to go through twice as much austerity as we ever would just to get back on track - that's if the special one doesn't fvck our credit rating, which is entirely feasible.

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

That's the last time a proper Labour government was in power - no other comparison would be relevant.


They've done a lot of things wrong but they've never fvcked our economy.


Thatcher's economic policies are the only thing that allowed our country to survive the recession that we've just got through. Without the great work she did it would be us locking the doors and pretending not to hear the German bailiffs instead of Greece.


Pretty much all of my post was fact checked (because my memory isn't what it used to be) against the BBC - a left wing media outlet.

Britain could, and should, have done very well out of the oil crisis. We had North Sea oil and we could have gotten over the shorter-term problems if the unions had allowed us to stockpile coal like we eventually managed to under proper leadership.


No desperation here - more resignation that unless the Conservative party somehow turns its shoddy campaign into a good one the country is in trouble.

I find it rather distasteful that you take such glee in what will be the ruin of a large number of people's lives. Unless you're one of those who wants to sit at home watching Jeremy Kyle and spending their benefits it will affect you too. Still, I suppose somebody has to be the cheerleader for massive job losses, the destruction of everyone's savings/pensions and the overall decline of living standards for the hard working. In 5 years' time when we're all on the arse end of a bubble built on housing prices and debt we'll have to go through twice as much austerity as we ever would just to get back on track - that's if the special one doesn't fvck our credit rating, which is entirely feasible.

You see Scara, the desperation, it's all in the fear mongering. All this from you, who thought the most right wing Labour government ever, under Blair was like something from Lenin's politburo. Ha, ha. Sorry mate, but I think the Neo-Liberal utopia, you know the one that subscribes to the view that GHod loves the rich (the deserving) and despises the poor (the un-deserving) is running out of steam. Still, what would you expect of an ideology developed by a crack pot novelist (Ayn Rand) and the go to economist for South American fascist dictators (Hayek.) BTW, America had plenty of oil, it didn't do them any good during the oil shock.

 

[AuroRaman]

The more time is wasted in this thread, the less boobs I'm seeing in The Vice Den.

You should be ashamed of yourselves.

 

[the dza]

This is probably going to sound patronising but please don't take it that way - it's not my intent.

From what you've posted you're clearly too young to remember what a Labour government is really like. They really are damaging to the country - not just the rich, they fvck everyone eventually.

Look at what New Labour did. Their profligate waste of our money very nearly bankrupted the country. Instead of making hay whilst the sun shone they just spent, spent, spent. Real Labour - the kind of Labour the back-stabbing, brother-fvcking, special one wants to recreate is a massive lurch left from there. New Labour were dangerous but recoverable - real Labour is truly something for everyone to fear.

It may sound like sunshine, unicorns and free handjobs for all when Labour talk about their redistribution plans but you've never had to see the reality. You're fortunate enough to have spent your entire life reaping the rewards of Thatcher's incredible and revolutionary work in the 80s. Unsurprisingly, it's not all sunshine and happiness, it's rubbish rotting in your front yard, dead family members rotting in your back room, you're not able to go to work because your kid's school is shut again (if today is one of the 3 days a week your company is open) and any savings you might scrape together are worth half as much as they were a week later. You think the NHS needs help? Try seeing a children's hospital being run almost entirely by volunteers because Labour let the staff get too greedy.

Do you know the really distasteful thing about all of this? Not only did the greedy, workshy fvckers refuse to work but they intentionally (often violently) stopped volunteers doing their jobs for them. In Liverpool they picketed funeral corteges and turned them away!

I cannot stress how different the reality of a left wing government with unions pulling their strings really is compared to the impression those born in the 80s and 90s have of them.

I don't take it as patronising, you were around and lived through that time and I didn't. So I appreciate your point of view. But I don't see why this Labour government should lead the country in the way the government of the day did, anymore than I could see Cameron being a leader like Churchill.

Also, a couple of points -- I wasn't around for the 3-day week era, but I was alive for the Lawson boom and subsequent bust. My parents lost their house in that recession and we ended up in a council house, which was the house I grew up in (and it was a decent house). No Labour party involved at that point, but some real hardship for them, which they shielded me and my brother from pretty well. My dad had a small business that went bust (with the old house) and then became a delivery driver (after a few years of different types of work). His driving job came to an end when he injured his back due to a faulty tail-lift on the lorry he was driving. My mum worked very hard in a plant nursery for the best part of 20 years (she'd also had other jobs before I was born), but then became ill and unable to work. They are now people who rely on state help, but will get demonised as 'scroungers' etc. especially by these f**king tv programs that show the worst of people 'on benefits.' The targeting of people at the bottom of the economic pile, whether those on out of work benefits, or in work benefits like myself, just f**ks me off. It wasn't us that caused an economic crisis, the Lawson one or 2008.

The Tories want to pile in further on us. Everytime they get asked specifics on where the extra billions of pounds of cuts are going to fall (ones much more severe than anything in this parliament just gone) they don't give a straight answer and just say "wait until after the election." I am guessing that's because what they have planned would lose them votes.

I don't pretend that Labour or Miliband will make everything fantastic and I know they would disappoint in a lot of ways. But I do genuinely believe they will be a bit better for me, my family and people I know. And I don't believe they would ruin the country by trying to help people at the bottom a bit more.