The 2015 Popularity Contest (aka UK General Election )

[rascal]

So the greens are a far nicer version of UKIP.

'None of the above' tells a tale as does 'cheese on toast' @ 28%...on a small sample it must be said

Seems to me that unless you are a really, really, really, committed greenie and I'm talking using your own poo to power your methane generator type greenie, not just an; only eggs marked free range from ASDA, turn a few lights off and recycle type greenie and the japs are bells for still hunting whales etc type greenie.
That a green vote on it's own is a wasted vote and that most are using the green vote as... in the absence of an official abstain box to tick, is a defacto abstention.
But the trouble is, with so many people voting green, for this and many other reasons ( faux or not ) it's turned them into a viable party and not just a gang of 'Good Life' wannabe's.

Most people can't relate can't relate to any major party in meaningful numbers

#wewantanabstainbox

 

[Bruce Wayne]

A party that isn't hell bent on crushing the unions & NHS and gives a general f about working class society?

I suppose that's my beef with unions. They are, quite rightly, interested solely in their members. That doesn't make them good for society as a whole however. If you take railways for instance, there are infinitely more customers of the railways than there are employees of the railways.

A strong union system encourages the favouring of the minority rather than the majority (rent seeking in other words). Let me use an example to illustrate what I mean. I'm not picking on teachers btw, just using them as an illustration.

There are roughly 200,000 teachers in the UK. If a government gave each of those a £10,000 payrise, that would cost £2bn. Now if you're a teacher than you're over the moon with that, so you'd lobby really hard for it, because it makes a huge difference to your income.

Contrast that to the general taxpayer who would foot the bill. There are approximately 30 million taxpayers in the UK, so that sop to the teachers would cost £66 each. Not a tiny amount, but probably not enough to warrant those 30 million to raise arms in protest.

You see that kind of thing happening all the time. Minority groups lobby extremely hard for subsidies or whatever, because it benefits their constituents a lot more than it harms the much wider taxpayer population. Yet democracy is supposed to favour the majority rather than the minority.

 

[chicoazul]

I suppose that's my beef with unions. They are, quite rightly, interested solely in their members. That doesn't make them good for society as a whole however. If you take railways for instance, there are infinitely more customers of the railways than there are employees of the railways.

A strong union system encourages the favouring of the minority rather than the majority (rent seeking in other words). Let me use an example to illustrate what I mean. I'm not picking on teachers btw, just using them as an illustration.

There are roughly 200,000 teachers in the UK. If a government gave each of those a £10,000 payrise, that would cost £2bn. Now if you're a teacher than you're over the moon with that, so you'd lobby really hard for it, because it makes a huge difference to your income.

Contrast that to the general taxpayer who would foot the bill. There are approximately 30 million taxpayers in the UK, so that sop to the teachers would cost £66 each. Not a tiny amount, but probably not enough to warrant those 30 million to raise arms in protest.

You see that kind of thing happening all the time. Minority groups lobby extremely hard for subsidies or whatever, because it benefits their constituents a lot more than it harms the much wider taxpayer population. Yet democracy is supposed to favour the majority rather than the minority.

I manage over 100 staff so can see it from both sides mate, and get what you're saying, but there needs to be protection for the employees or companies are prone to exploiting and taking the piss out of their staff. It's happening now with zero contracts and no pay rises being given.

You've used an example of the teachers - like a bad bad tory - doesn't mind if it's footed by the taxpayers or not they are reliant on their wage rising with inflation and cost of living. Unions facilitate that.

There's sufficient legislation on Unions to prevent overly militant behaviour, it's dependent on both the Union and employer to have a sensible, productive relationship so they can meet the needs of both employer and employee. It's perfectly feasible.

The tories hate unions so to go back to your original point that's one of the reasons why the working class will never like them.

 

[milks]

Is it too late to get his brother in ?

That's the only thing that get Labour a shot of power. Ed is un-electable, whilst David's stock has risen and risen in his absence from politics.

Voter apathy and no clear delineation between the party manifesto and agendas means there is very little chance of a clear majority for some time; we're going to be faced with a string of Tory led coalition governments for some time now.

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

In my youth I was highly political, passionate about the Labour Party and even considered making it my career at one point.

However, these days I've got little passion for any of the parties that make up the the spectrum of British politics in 2014. They're all shades of the same [Poor language removed] to me and are full of self serving limp as lettuce members, who couldn't inspire passion in their own front room.

Massive meh from me.

 

[degsy]

So the greens are a far nicer version of UKIP.

never thought of it like that but now you mention it... but likely the greens will be around longer than UKIP, or else we are all in poo street

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I manage over 100 staff so can see it from both sides mate, and get what you're saying, but there needs to be protection from the employees or companies are prone to exploiting and taking the piss out of their staff. It's happening now with zero contracts and no pay rises being given.

You've used an example of the teachers - like a bad bad tory - doesn't mind if it's footed by the taxpayers or not they are reliant on their wage rising with inflation and cost of living. Unions facilitate that.

There's sufficient legislation on Unions to prevent overly militant behaviour, it's dependent on both the Union and employer to have a sensible, productive relationship so they can meet the needs of both employer and employee. It's perfectly feasible.

The tories hate unions so to go back to your original point that's one of the reasons why the working class will never like them.

For what it's worth mate, most of my work at the moment is around trying to make workplaces better places to be. Vineet Nayar, former head of IT company HCL, probably summed things up best. He implemented a policy of 'employees first, customers second', with the logic that if you treat employees well, then they'll treat customers well.

There are employers out there that get this logic and do their best to make their workplaces good places to be, precisely because they want to attract great people and give them the platform to do great things. I just fear that too often a union creates a them/us culture that does little to promote positive relations.

With the employer leading the charge then the customer still has a role in the equation because ultimately it's the customers that keep them in business. I'm not sure many union leaders really think that way, even though if the customer is happy then it ensures that their members have employment long-term. It seems to be more a case of 'I want xyz for members, and if I don't get it I go on strike/lobby to get it'. There never seems to be an argument that 'our members need this, because giving them that will enable them to do a much better job, so we all win'.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I know what you mean Bruce, while still married three kids, i was doing two jobs one full time 46 hrs a week one part time about 16 hours, part of a course i was on was to do with benifits and an advisor was brought in and i sat down and went through everything as if i were making a claim, it was a £12 diffrence, infact by the time had had put school uniforms/ dinners , transport ect it was a minus for working.
She said i know its not my job to say this but your working for nothing if you dont do overtime, i just said how much is self respect .(made me feel sh**e to be honest)
Cant speak for everbody what a working man wants but to me it is to work in a country that provides a chance for fair pay, treated with respect and a stable job that lets me through my own efforts strive to give myself and kids a decent future , and if it goes wrong i get a bit back that i have put in, nothing much i know but i dont think any of the last few goverments have helped to achieve those simple aims.

For sure, I appreciate that it's not easy for many, I'm just not sure what a government can do to change that.

 

[chicoazul]

In my youth I was highly political, passionate about the Labour Party and even considered making it my career at one point.

However, these days I've got little passion for any of the parties that make up the the spectrum of British politics in 2014. They're all shades of the same [Poor language removed] to me and are full of self serving limp as lettuce members, who couldn't inspire passion in their own front room.

Massive meh from me.

I'm very close to that point but it does leave a gigantic gap for someone to rise up and fill the massive hole in the political market. A genuine socialist party that the country needs so bad.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I'm very close to that point but it does leave a gigantic gap for someone to rise up and fill the massive hole in the political market. A genuine socialist party that the country needs so bad.

You might find this interesting mate

http://www.stevenberlinjohnson.com/2013/02/what-peer-progressives-really-believe.html

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

I'm very close to that point but it does leave a gigantic gap for someone to rise up and fill the massive hole in the political market. A genuine socialist party that the country needs so bad.

A socialist party would get nowhere in this country mate, as it'd never be trusted by those old enough to remember the last days of the old school Labour Party.

But I'd agree that there's a political void.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

A socialist party would get nowhere in this country mate, as it'd never be trusted by those old enough to remember the last days of the old school Labour Party.

But I'd agree that there's a political void.

Machiavelli had it right.

There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. For the reformer has enemies in all those who profit by the old order, and only lukewarm defenders in all those who would profit by the new order, this lukewarmness arising partly from fear of their adversaries … and partly from the incredulity of mankind, who do not truly believe in anything new until they have had actual experience of it.

There are a whole lot of people with a vested interest in the political environment staying just as it is. With the media jumping and hyping up any little thing as well, it's not surprising that nothing is likely to change.

 

[topbalcony5boy]

BNP

 

[chewee]

I suppose that's my beef with unions. They are, quite rightly, interested solely in their members. That doesn't make them good for society as a whole however. If you take railways for instance, there are infinitely more customers of the railways than there are employees of the railways.

A strong union system encourages the favouring of the minority rather than the majority (rent seeking in other words). Let me use an example to illustrate what I mean. I'm not picking on teachers btw, just using them as an illustration.

There are roughly 200,000 teachers in the UK. If a government gave each of those a £10,000 payrise, that would cost £2bn. Now if you're a teacher than you're over the moon with that, so you'd lobby really hard for it, because it makes a huge difference to your income.

Contrast that to the general taxpayer who would foot the bill. There are approximately 30 million taxpayers in the UK, so that sop to the teachers would cost £66 each. Not a tiny amount, but probably not enough to warrant those 30 million to raise arms in protest.

You see that kind of thing happening all the time. Minority groups lobby extremely hard for subsidies or whatever, because it benefits their constituents a lot more than it harms the much wider taxpayer population. Yet democracy is supposed to favour the majority rather than the minority.

People aren't demanding massive pay rises, all they ask for is a fair one in line with inflation. If pay is forzen or capped at a low rate of say 1% but inflation rises at between 2 and 3% then year on year people are getting poorer. 1 million people visiting food banks is a clear indication people are at breaking point, they've been squeezed until there's nothing left to spare, we are supposed to be the 6th richest nation in the world!. Since these austerity measures kicked in nearly 5 years ago the wealth of Britains top 1000 has doubled (http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/article1412257.ece) they've profited from the misery of millions of ordinary working class folk. How do you justify that?!

As for union power i'm all for it. I'd rather have someone who I know has got my back and best interests at heart, if you don't make a stand they'll walk all over you. Employment law amendments during the coalitions term in office have massively favoured big big business, workers rights are slowly being chipped away.

While you are on about £10'000 pay rises isn't that roughly what MP's are set to get? Scandalous

 

[1966efc]

That's very nice and all, but it doesn't match with reality. The facts say that the 'rich' are paying much more income tax now than they were in the 70's when the top rate was at ridiculous levels. You may have paid a sizeable sum in your time, but it's likely that this was a mere drop in the ocean compared to what the very rich paid. The same is the case with corporation tax. The vast majority of corporation tax revenue is paid by a relative minority of companies.

I don't think the malnutrition thing in hospitals is at all relevant. Malnutrition occurs in hospitals not because there isn't any food available, but because there is often no one there to feed the patient (lets overlook the often awful nutritional value of hospital food). Half of the problem is that examples like this get used as political footballs. The reality is that nursing is now a pretty technical profession, and there are often a shed load of things that need doing. Spending half an hour with each patient to make sure they eat their meal often isn't an option on a busy ward. Maybe families could do that job? Maybe volunteers could do it? There's a debate on the latter on the Nursing Times below

http://www.nursingtimes.net/nursing.../should-volunteers-feed-patients/5036644.blog

You'll notice the stat about malnutrition in the NHS rising by 85% from 2001 to 2011. That covers both parties and underlines the folly in using issues like this as a political football. I'm not really sure how the tribalism that dominates politics helps anyone whatsoever.

Spikes in malnutrition occur when social policy doesn't meet social need. Government's job in left wing terms is to mediate between the economic conditions and social necessity. This is of interest to those who pick up the pieces and of especial interest to those who are malnouished. Relevance is a question to be determined by those who note the figures. Entirely up to you whether you regard hunger as an issue or not.

I'm aware of what nurses think. Again, they are very welcome to their Union's view.

There is no issue, including sport, which isn't a political issue. Because many of the challenges facing individuals and society in general are horribly complex, open debate is vital.

Rich people paid / pay a huge amount more than those on basic rate. And? Are you seriously advocating a lack of progression in income tax?

I'm not tribal. I've voted Labour, Lib Dem and (in long past years) Fianna Fail, who are just right of centre.

From an outsider's point of view, I'm of the opinion that the Conservative Party have a 200 year record of poor decisions in matters affecting the health (in its wider sense) of the community. In opposition they voted against Old Age Pensions, supplementary benefit for the families of striking workers; the foundation of the N H S, every measure of gay equality, the minimum wage etc., etc.

The thrust, however, of my first post was to strongly suggest that even for those who are not by nature altruistic will see voting for socially aware parties is a matter of enlightened self interest.