LutonSpurs
Eric Dear
Russel Brand with Ed Miliband on the trews news out today. I bet @scaramanga is jizzing in excitement.....
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Politics, politics, politics
- Thread starter markysimmo
- Start date
I think that Cameron's response to it was (for once) spot on.
Brand is a joke - a pious, junkie tw4t one at that. Thesaurus-based humour never was and still isn't funny. Even the Americans don't like him any more.
I'm not sure what Wallace's angle is on this. I assume he thinks Brand can make him look marginally less silly by comparison. He probably thinks that Brand will go relatively easy on him as to attack properly would probably lead to a Conservative government. He's probably right on both counts.
I don't see any real votes being won here though. The people who agree with Brand politically are simpletons that didn't vote anyway. Brand has just given them an excuse to pretend they've made a political decision to vote whereas really they'd just rather watch Jeremy Kyle/TOWIE.
Last edited:
LutonSpurs
Eric Dear
Brand lost all credibility when he started to espouse the "don't vote" rhetoric.
And yes I agree, beyond the big words and punch lines he doesn't offer any practical ideas.
An own goal for Ed and a clear indicator of his deep lying Marxist mindset. A bit scary.
Absolutely. Someone I rarely agree with - Ed Balls - had Brand right when he described him as a "Poundshop Ben Elton"
Yeah, it's a shame he's taken the Labour party back in this direction.
His "Britain does well when working people do well" line that he constantly rolls out is annoying me too. One, what does he mean by 'working people'? The implication behind the actual words, i think, is that by 'working people', he means people that would have in the past been described as 'working class'. Not sure, but appears to be the case, when you consider the policies and rhetoric he attaches to the tag.
It seems to be a whole load of 'let's kick the banks, big business and the rich and Britain only does well when the brickies, plumbers, miners, factory workers, nurses and postmen do well.'
It's like he's implying that people like Richard Branson and Alan Sugar don't work hard and nor do the traders in the City or lawyers.
He's got it all wrong. It might be unfortunate for some ("the world we live in and all that etc"), but Britain does well, when its big companies do well, when big business does well, when the rich get richer, confidence is high and the banks lend more as a result.
A strong economy based on strong performance by big companies supported by robust central regulation to prevent malpractice is the best compromise. it's only the big companies that do the kind of business that really makes a huge economic difference. Big deals, big construction contracts, big mergers and acquisitions. One massive contract can guarantee work for 5,000 people, who then have more disposable income, who then spend more in local businesses, or on home-improvements, so the brickies, plumbers, shop keepers and factory workers have more jobs and more business, get paid more and so on and so forth.
Quite.
Let's not forget the language they all (and I include the economically competent party in this too) use about taxing banks and business. There's no such thing as taxing a business, it's just taxing shareholders, employees and consumers under another name.
And this is the crux of it.. disproportionately. The ones who privately rent and aren't given help of any description are the ones who feel this is unfair. To give a 100k discount to a social housing tenant is far too much.
Baleforce
Arthur Rowe
that's a sweeping statement, not all
of us private renters feel like that
all I want the government to do is stay the hell out of my way, help those that can't help
themselves and light a fire under those who refuse to
This is an election gimmick at the very least, albeit a very poor one that doesn't relate well to the majority of private renters.
If they are helping the social housing demographic, shouldn't they also be helping the private renters?
LutonSpurs
Eric Dear
Me and you agreeing on anything other than football is what I would call rare. Not sure I like it!
glorygloryeze
Tom Huddlestone
I think this is what most people would want. The question is: which party would anyone trust to bring this about in reality?
Strange, that the Coalition keeps talking about how the Economy is driven by small businesses and that it has been them that has created the 'upturn in the Economy'. What you say there sounds absolutely plausible; but if it is ACTUALLY what has happened/is happening why hasn't Cameron/Clegg been stating this in their Election campaign? Surely, if really true, it's an easy vote winner?
I think what the Conservatives are offering is close. They don't really understand what an efficient tax system with suitable incentives is either but they're far closer than any alternative.
That's because there's a massive difference between doing the right thing and playing politics.
Nobody will ever get elected on a manifesto of "We're going to look after big business because without them, none of you would have jobs". Not because it isn't true or because it doesn't work - purely because successive Conservative governments since Thatcher have allowed the left to take the political arguments into their battlegrounds and have done nothing to keep the electorate informed of true cause and effect in the economy.
Baleforce
Arthur Rowe
i'd say (in a sweeping statement ;-)), prIvate renters generally dont need the help as much
glorygloryeze
Tom Huddlestone
Not sure that can really stand up - most of the political media in this country is more right-wing/Thatcherite than left-leaning (apart from the BBC, Guardian and The Mirror). There are more than enough outlets that could keep the electorate informed in this regard IF this was a simple fact that could stand up to the most basic of scrutiny. I'm also leaving aside other factors such as the current mantra of "small businesses are the real drivers of the economy/create the most jobs" or whether big multinationals will actually pay their taxes to this country's coffers or even actually employ locals or not.
If "looking after big business because without them, none of you would have jobs" was so simply true, then all the pro-business, pro-Free Market political media outlets would have used this to 'educate the electorate' years ago.
If we allow businesses and wealthy people to pay no tax, then they will create more jobs. Then if we do away with the regulation of business, they can create more jobs still. Do away with any employee rights, and they can make even more money and create even more jobs. Because the only way to be successful is to create as many jobs as possible whilst creating as much wealth for rich people as possible. This is why it must be so much worse to be a poor person in Sweden than in the United States. I'd certainly rather be living in a rough part of a major US city than the rough part of a Scandinavian one. Those at the bottom of the pile in Scandinavia are made dangerous by a system that doesn't totally abandon them, whereas US inner cities are peaceful places, where everybody feels the benefit of the torrent of wealth that pours down from the very richest.
Well it's not an easy vote winner, as after the economic crash, there is still a lot of public ill-feeling towards big business, The City and the banks in particular.
While the behaviour of the banks at the time was reckless, the root cause of the problem in my view was a lack of adequate regulation and the very weak role the then FSA played in making sure that customers were being treated fairly, that due diligence was being carried out on mergers and acquisitions and that adequate risk and assurance controls were being maintained, that banks kept adequate cash reserves and that the high-risk investment arms of major financial institutions were kept separate from retail divisions.
Small business is an important part of the economy, but it's a lie that big business isn't the most important part. It's another reason why Nigel Farage should know better than that he would reduce foreign aid if he got into power (being an ex investment banker). Much of our 'foreign aid' isn't foreign aid at all. It's payments to India and China that aren't needed considering the considerable wealth in those countries, but we continue to make the payments in exchange for their investment in our businesses and economy.
I do think, however, that Cameron has let a lot of what Ed Milliband says that could easily be picked apart go. It's an interesting strategy. Even in the leaders debates, he seemed to be holding back from engaging directly with Milliband. I heard one theory that the Tory PR department are wary of taking Ed to the cleaners over some points, as they feel that while left alone he does a good job in general of coming across as a bit awkward and un-PM-like, but if Cameron, who is more authoritative started laying into him, he could come across as a bit of a typical Tory bully and could lead to Ed getting the sympathy vote.
I'm not sure if that's plausible or not, but it does seem as though the Conservatives are holding back from an all-out offensive against Labour and their policies. I'm unsure of the reason why.
Maybe its because of the perception that the public is fed up of negative campaigning. I know it was viewed that Milliband might have scored an own-goal when he blamed the migrant deaths in the Med on Cameron.
There is a balance to be had. As I said, there needs to be robust regulation of big business (and of any business), but with big business you can be more robust with the regulation as they have the capital and resources to absorb large fines and enforcement measures, if necessary.
Right, there's a middle ground. I think both the Tories and Labour are still too far towards the side of business, due to Thatcher/Reagan shifting politics over that way all those years ago. Perhaps the pendulum is swinging back more now. For me, Labour are closer to striking a better balance than the Tories, so they get my vote.