The 2015 Popularity Contest (aka UK General Election )

[Bruce Wayne]

For the sake of argument, you have five kids. You hit hard times and you are going to have to re-budget. You calculate that if you take everything away from the youngest 2 so that they have no food or clothing and you take away the clothing from the next 2, then the remaining child will not only be fed and clothed, but can actually eat out at restaurants in a new outfits every week.

As the person in charge of the budget with responsibility for the welfare of your children would you?

I think the answer is obvious really. The youngest child can go out to work cleaning chimneys, the second youngest can walk dogs, all the way up to the oldest who will go down the mine. You've got to be entrepreneurial with these things

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Austerity is required because of the debt crisis according to the Government - there is no debt crisis. Not once have international debt markets viewed the UK as a problem, look at Government bond yields, at historic lows!

However, let's get back to society and individuals - remember Margaret Thatcher?

"you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour."

Lets be honest though, that's what everyone does. Even the most altruistic person isn't so altruistic that their own basic needs aren't taken care of. No one is so charitable that they lose the roof over their head or starve to death, are they?

I mean I'm sure the local homeless community would benefit from living in your home, but I don't think anyone would expect you to give it to them and put your own family out on the streets. I suspect most right minded folks would be quite happy for you to ensure you and your family are alright, and then use whatever you have left to help others.

 

[The Esk]

If ever there was an example of the desire for power over belief then this morning's announcement of an English manifesto by the Conservative and Unionist Party.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32441969

 

[Bruce Wayne]

If ever there was an example of the desire for power over belief then this morning's announcement of an English manifesto by the Conservative and Unionist Party.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32441969

Getting all a bit ugly isn't it? This and you've got Ed blaming Cameron for the situation in the Med. Nasty stuff.

 

[daylightrobber]

I think the answer is obvious really. The youngest child can go out to work cleaning chimneys, the second youngest can walk dogs, all the way up to the oldest who will go down the mine. You've got to be entrepreneurial with these things

Trying to think of a way to extrapolate things further......................... it's too early.

 

[The Esk]

Getting all a bit ugly isn't it? This and you've got Ed blaming Cameron for the situation in the Med. Nasty stuff.

I think the gloves are off for the last 2 weeks!

 

[Eggs]

If ever there was an example of the desire for power over belief then this morning's announcement of an English manifesto by the Conservative and Unionist Party.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32441969

...the latest in a line of vote catching policy on the hoof, it would be better if the election was today.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I think the gloves are off for the last 2 weeks!

Does kind of create an animosity and division between the two main parties. There's an increasing sense that this is the most polarised election for decades, yet the research I posted a few pages ago shows how damaging that is. I'm hoping that deep down the two are much more similar than they'd like to admit and that this is merely posturing to firm up their base from attacks by insurgent parties.

If they carry this animosity into governance (whomever wins) then it could get very messy.

 

[Clint Planet]

I think the answer is obvious really. The youngest child can go out to work cleaning chimneys, the second youngest can walk dogs, all the way up to the oldest who will go down the mine. You've got to be entrepreneurial with these things

There are no chimneys in high-rises, the dogs are too dangerous and the owners too poor to pay dog-walkers and the Tories shut all the mines down. And your post was neither appropriate nor humorous. I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking that you're a bit of a hypocrite on this thread at times, warning others about their posting then crapping all over it yourself.

The lad made a serious point.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

There are no chimneys is high-rises, the dogs are too dangerous and the owners too poor to pay dog-walkers and the Tories shut all the mines down. And your post was neither appropriate nor humorous. I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking that you're a bit of a hypocrite on this thread at times, warning others about their posting then crapping all over it yourself.

The lad made a serious point.

I have a rule not to be serious before 7am in the morning. I'll be on my best behaviour from now on (I feel like I should call you sir but that would probably only make things worse)

 

[daylightrobber]

There are no chimneys is high-rises, the dogs are too dangerous and the owners too poor to pay dog-walkers and the Tories shut all the mines down. And your post was neither appropriate nor humorous. I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking that you're a bit of a hypocrite on this thread at times, warning others about their posting then crapping all over it yourself.

The lad made a serious point.

I have a rule not to be serious before 7am in the morning. I'll be on my best behaviour from now on (I feel like I should call you sir but that would probably only make things worse)

I'm going to give Bruce the benefit of the doubt on this one. I think you can tell in his post that he acknowledges if it all got brought down to a personal level then you would have to look at things differently. (There is a chink in his armour there and we still have 2 weeks to turn him).

The reality and seriousness of the situation is, that it might not be not your kids right now, but IT IS someone elses. Your family might be able to cope without as much food or clothing as you used to, but there are other families who are going without, whilst others are living the high life and have never been richer. All as a direct result of the decisions the Coalition have made over the last 5 years.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I'm going to give Bruce the benefit of the doubt on this one. I think you can tell in his post that he acknowledges if it all got brought down to a personal level then you would have to look at things differently. (There is a chink in his armour there and we still have 2 weeks to turn him).

The reality and seriousness of the situation is, that it might not be not your kids right now, but IT IS someone elses. Your family might be able to cope without as much food or clothing as you used to, but there are other families who are going without, whilst others are living the high life and have never been richer. All as a direct result of the decisions the Coalition have made over the last 5 years.

Joking aside, I think the changes in inequality are much larger than anything this government, or indeed any government, is responsible for. Things like globalisation, technology changes, the role of assets in wealth creation and the like are far more responsible for the change in income distribution than anything governments can do.

For sure, they probably haven't helped matters, and the welfare system does appear to be a complete mess at the moment, but I'm not sure that any state anywhere in the world has really got to grips with how work is changing. The welfare state was devised in a (relatively speaking) much simpler time and it will take a while before it adapts I suspect.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

To use a recent example to illustrate my point. A report published yesterday by the OECD suggested that congestion in our cities could be reduced by 90% if all of our cars were automated. Now, even if we overlook how this kind of change in ownership pattern might affect the car industry (as we'd need fewer cars), lets look at the taxi industry.

It would shift wealth from a large pool of drivers towards a smaller pool of manufacturers. There are clear social, economic and environmental benefits to having less congestion, wasted time/carbon and so on, but it would nevertheless facilitate the kind of inequality we seem to think is bad.

That is just one example, but these kind of shifts are appearing in a growing number of sectors, and I'm not sure any state has really figured out how best to react to that yet.

Which is why I said long-term those things need to be figured out, but in the short-term they could get what is supposed to happen (but doesn't) done better. Iron out all of the kinks in the system that the food banks say is responsible for most of their 'custom'. There's really no excuse for the 25-30% that Trussell suggest is because of poor management.

 

[Jags]

There are obviously economic arguments for all permutations of keeping and abolishing which would determine justification. The necessity with all taxation is that it is at least seen to be fair.

I mean, are either justifiable morally? Clearly the bedroom tax is hitting the most vulnerable in our society as well as those able to contribute more, and is widely seen as a failing tax. However, taxing someone on a house worth over £2m seems outrageous, seeing as often these people bought their houses in well to do areas, before the housing boom, and are not actually that well off, and also, it does not consider incomes. There is an argument, well sell your house then, but doesn't it then face the same problems as bedroom tax? Neither seem okay to me, one reason I am not totally sure I will be voting Labour this election.

 

[davek]

When the Cameron Prime Ministership is looked back upon (hopefully from May 8th onward) it'll be seen as THE most divisive holding of that office since Thatcher haunted the corridors of power. He's divided the haves from the have nots, the public sector from the private sector, the able bodied from the disabled, the British born from the immigrant, the Scots from the English. It's a true divide and conquer term in office.

Unbelievably (or maybe all too believable given the number of thick people there are) they may well be rewarded for this in two weeks time. I notice in the polls the much touted "crossover" appears to be occurring as the Tories have some traction with their SNP 'threat'. It's early days on that but if that does occur and that shower get anything like enough seats to return to power then this country will be even more polarised than it's been thus far. That's the real threat to this country. The social fabric torn to shreds more than it is right now. I dread to think what the labour market, welfare system and health service would look like after another 5 years of their misrule.