General Election - 8th June 2017

[ChaddySmoker]

12 hours ago, Roger Ritchie said:

 

 Most sensible post on OWTB since records began.

It just isnt reported to people in that blunt way in the newspapers every day. We are spoonfed bollocks in papers owned by some of these rich people.

A woman in flat shoes with no policies will be allowed to force austerity on the working class for another 5 years.  

[blueatheart]

1 hour ago, ChaddySmoker said:

It just isnt reported to people in that blunt way in the newspapers every day. We are spoonfed bollocks in papers owned by some of these rich people.

A woman in flat shoes with no policies will be allowed to force austerity on the working class for another 5 years.  

Unison want more austerity.

[joe_lead]

43 minutes ago, blueatheart said:

Unison want more austerity.

The Tories have led everyone to believe that austerity means cutting government spending, tightening belts, everyone in it together ..... you know the mantra.  The reality is somewhat different.  They have consciously created a race to the bottom in terms on pay and job security whilst in parallel attacking the rights of trade unionists and workers to organise and collectively defend their rights and livelihoods.  It is estimated that currently 6million workers are paid below a living wage, the main reason that many require food banks.  That's not the country that our grand parents fought for.

 

I can assure you that Unison or any other Trade Union do not want more of this.  The public have been manipulated to believe that this is the only way .... it is not.

 

We are all better than what we are led to believe, we are all capable of fulfilling our potential, it is Governments that create the environment within which this can be achieved.  The Tories will always look after their own at the expense of the rest of us.  Challenge everything you see and read, demand change, fight for what you believe in and never, never, never accept that what we currently have is as good as can be.   

[blueatheart]

24 minutes ago, joe_lead said:

 the main reason that many require food banks. 

And some have brand new iPhones, Sky TV, fags in their pockets and beer in their fridges.

 

In my mind, this is in part down to the want it now = need it now. People drink and smoke too much and are left without enough money to put food on the table. People have heating on with the windows open and leave electrical devices on all day. It is symptomatic of the culture we live in. Its why people are struggling with the NHS, they have the slightest issue and need to be seen by A&E, NOW! I've been there and I've seen it. I've got a cold, I can't get into the GP, I'll go to A&E. There are issues with the healthservice and there are genuine people who need food banks but a hell of a lot comes down to the culture of this country now.

 

 

 

[ChaddySmoker]

1 hour ago, blueatheart said:

And some have brand new iPhones, Sky TV, fags in their pockets and beer in their fridges.

 

In my mind, this is in part down to the want it now = need it now. People drink and smoke too much and are left without enough money to put food on the table. People have heating on with the windows open and leave electrical devices on all day. It is symptomatic of the culture we live in. Its why people are struggling with the NHS, they have the slightest issue and need to be seen by A&E, NOW! I've been there and I've seen it. I've got a cold, I can't get into the GP, I'll go to A&E. There are issues with the healthservice and there are genuine people who need food banks but a hell of a lot comes down to the culture of this country now.

In this race to the bottom many people become more and more selfish, not only the rich ones. Is that any reason to justify the policy?   

I think that there are a lot of people use food banks who neither drink nor smoke. Its just that those that do smoke and drink get highlighted.  

[Matt]

1 hour ago, blueatheart said:

And some have brand new iPhones, Sky TV, fags in their pockets and beer in their fridges

 

Separate smartphones from that list, they are not an indicator of wealth or budgeting failure. Private internet access is essential to function these days, and has become a service similar to electricity and water. The point when a phone cannot be topped up with credit can be life changing for that person's (or familiy's) ability to respond to opportunities - it has a huge impact. I think it's absolutely one of the best things to be available for people to get help in their lives.

 

 

 

[jimsleftfoot]

1 hour ago, blueatheart said:

And some have brand new iPhones, Sky TV, fags in their pockets and beer in their fridges.

 

In my mind, this is in part down to the want it now = need it now. People drink and smoke too much and are left without enough money to put food on the table. People have heating on with the windows open and leave electrical devices on all day. It is symptomatic of the culture we live in. Its why people are struggling with the NHS, they have the slightest issue and need to be seen by A&E, NOW! I've been there and I've seen it. I've got a cold, I can't get into the GP, I'll go to A&E. There are issues with the healthservice and there are genuine people who need food banks but a hell of a lot comes down to the culture of this country now.

 

 

 

I agree, it has a lot to do with our culture. For example, making credit more freely available inevitably results in some people getting into more debt?

 

 

[kowenicki]

3 hours ago, joe_lead said:

The Tories have led everyone to believe that austerity means cutting government spending, tightening belts, everyone in it together ..... you know the mantra.  The reality is somewhat different.  They have consciously created a race to the bottom in terms on pay and job security whilst in parallel attacking the rights of trade unionists and workers to organise and collectively defend their rights and livelihoods.  It is estimated that currently 6million workers are paid below a living wage, the main reason that many require food banks.  That's not the country that our grand parents fought for.

 

I can assure you that Unison or any other Trade Union do not want more of this.  The public have been manipulated to believe that this is the only way .... it is not.

 

We are all better than what we are led to believe, we are all capable of fulfilling our potential, it is Governments that create the environment within which this can be achieved.  The Tories will always look after their own at the expense of the rest of us.  Challenge everything you see and read, demand change, fight for what you believe in and never, never, never accept that what we currently have is as good as can be.   

 

Who are "their own" and who are "the rest of us"

 

Just want to know where I fit and I can perhaps see which of them I have been in at various times throughout my life. Ta. 

[blueatheart]

1 hour ago, jimsleftfoot said:

I agree, it has a lot to do with our culture. For example, making credit more freely available inevitably results in some people getting into more debt?

Yes, which is why one of Gordon Brown's first acts as chancellor twenty years ago was to hand control of interest rates to the Bank of England, removing the political influence.

 

 

[kowenicki]

52 minutes ago, blueatheart said:

Yes, which is why one of Gordon Brown's first acts as chancellor twenty years ago was to hand control of interest rates to the Bank of England, removing the political influence.

 

 

 

Does it?  Not really. 

[blueatheart]

4 minutes ago, kowenicki said:

 

Does it?  Not really. 

If you say so.

[kowenicki]

Just now, blueatheart said:

If you say so.

 

I do.  Four members of that Monetary Policy Committee are DIRECTLY appointed by the chancellor. Another member (non voting) is also sent by the Chancellor to sit in every meeting, advise and report back. 

 

The committees whole monetary policy framework, including interest rate decisions, is set to achieve one main target... the inflation target. Who sets that? The government does. They have to report to the government every time that target is missed as to the reasons why. This happens every month. 

[joe_lead]

1 hour ago, kowenicki said:

 

Who are "their own" and who are "the rest of us"

 

Just want to know where I fit and I can perhaps see which of them I have been in at various times throughout my life. Ta. 

How you view the political landscape is an individual interpretation.  I look at it like the Rorschach Test where you are asked to look at a piece of paper with a blotch of ink and asked to interpret it.  Everyone sees something different, nobody is right or wrong, but what we see says more about ourselves than the actual image. 

 

I view 'their own' as the generally unelectable and publically unaccountable powerful groups and individuals that influence the policies and laws of the land to protect their wealth, power and influence.  Generally this is self serving and results in the withdrawal of wealth from those that created it.  I include here: multi national corporations, media barons, old Etonian type old boy networks, banks, financiers and certain politicians etc, etc.  In general it is those that promote and benefit from a free market in the good times and when times get tough tend to become more Socialist and call for more wealth sharing/bailing out.

 

By 'the rest' I include all those that are taught that they live in a thriving democracy where Government policies are directly influenced by the will of the people, those who are constantly fed by the main stream media that the reason why ever increasing numbers of people are living in poverty is mainly because of immigrants, scroungers (whether able bodied or not) and people wanting to watch Sky TV and buy fags and alcohol.   

 

It's the 21st Century FFS and we're the (insert number) richest country in the world.  The reason why it doesn't feel like it is because the money has all floated to the top and they don't care enough about everyone below to make best use out of us.  This country is being mis-managed and there's not enough people shouting that it's fucked up.  

Tomorrow I'm interviewing a graduate lawyer and micro-biologist for a basic office job, what's that all about.  I've had someone sort out an interview at a law firm and a bio-tech firm and I'm going to ask them which job they really want and with a bit of luck they'll say thank you and good-bye.

 

You interpret the ink stain how you like and don't seek to pigeon hole yourself in my interpretation as I'm bitter and twisted.   Which reminds me, I fancy a beer in the garden.

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

22 hours ago, blueatheart said:

And some have brand new iPhones, Sky TV, fags in their pockets and beer in their fridges.

 

In my mind, this is in part down to the want it now = need it now. People drink and smoke too much and are left without enough money to put food on the table. People have heating on with the windows open and leave electrical devices on all day. It is symptomatic of the culture we live in. Its why people are struggling with the NHS, they have the slightest issue and need to be seen by A&E, NOW! I've been there and I've seen it. I've got a cold, I can't get into the GP, I'll go to A&E. There are issues with the healthservice and there are genuine people who need food banks but a hell of a lot comes down to the culture of this country now.

 

 

 

 

Something's gone wrong. I'm not really replying to this post. I'm just calling in to say I'm voting for Harriet Harman, the Labour candidate, but not for Corbyn. I'm definitely still not interested in this election beyond that. I've also given up the booze from the dissolution (last Tuesday at midnight) until the election's over (10pm, 8 June). It's going fine. I feel fresh as a daisy and absolutely untroubled by politics. 

[kowenicki]

Wow. Welcome to the 1970's.

 

 

[Matt]

 

Wow. Welcome to the 1970's.

 

 

 

It'd be better than the 50's.

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

On 4/24/2017 at 5:39 PM, Crusoe said:

 

There's an interesting debate in this. Are politicians supposed to reflect "the will of the majority" of the voting public, come what may? Are they supposed to do what's best for the country regardless of what the public clamours for? And if so, how do they know what that is - policy by principles? Policy by technocracy? Feels like we've tried most of these and none really worked.

 

Personally I liked the theoretical idea of Burkean representation -

 

 

- particularly in an era of media monopolies, fake news and other factors that lead me to the (admittedly arrogant) view that an awful lot of people don't know or don't think hard about what's best for everyone. (Including me, FWIW.)

 

But of course that's also just a form of elitism - we, your rulers and betters, know best, so we'll do your thinking for you, proles.

 

How do you balance principle and populist pragmatism?

 

I've been thinking about this. The Burkean idea is somewhat outdated...which you might expect from something written in the aftermath of the very first French revolution and prior to any meaningful extension of the franchise.

 

My thinking is that democracy means people have the right to vote plus the right to choose why they're voting this way or that.  They might choose on the basis of representation (the candidate represents my interests); delegation (I trust the candidate's judgment to do the right thing, and if they turn out to be an idiot we can try someone else in five years' time); or influence (this candidate is best placed to bring about the changes I want or encourage or effect sound governance). A lot of people vote for a candidate not because they seen anything positive about them, but because they like the candidate's party leader and their stance on this or that. People also vote because of things like appearance (I do like a sexy elected lassie, or I do find the grey looking man in a tailored suit attractive), or a candidate's education (I like / dislike people who's parents paid for everything they've got in life).

 

Democracy doesn't just mean a universal franchise. It means every voter has an absolute right to weigh things up the way they want. 

[blueatheart]

3 hours ago, rummytheowl said:

 

It'd be better than the 50's.

And still 40 years before present day.

 

Unbelivable. 

 

I'm waiting for the comparisons to Labour's 1983 manifesto to start.

[Crusoe]

1 hour ago, 24hoursfromtulsehill said:

My thinking is that democracy means people have the right to vote plus the right to choose why they're voting this way or that.  They might choose on the basis of representation (the candidate represents my interests); delegation (I trust the candidate's judgment to do the right thing, and if they turn out to be an idiot we can try someone else in five years' time); or influence (this candidate is best placed to bring about the changes I want or encourage or effect sound governance). A lot of people vote for a candidate not because they seen anything positive about them, but because they like the candidate's party leader and their stance on this or that. People also vote because of things like appearance (I do like a sexy elected lassie, or I do find the grey looking man in a tailored suit attractive), or a candidate's education (I like / dislike people who's parents paid for everything they've got in life).

 

Democracy doesn't just mean a universal franchise. It means every voter has an absolute right to weigh things up the way they want. 

 

I think that reflects the reality neatly, but I'm not sure what that means for situations like referendums. People can vote for any reason they like, but when the result of that can impact the lives of many so drastically it makes me nervous. Of course restricting the vote would be a slippery slope (restrict by a basic test becomes restrict by education, which becomes restrict by money, which becomes restrict by race, gender, location, etc) and ethically wrong regardless - but how do you encourage or empower your electorate to make informed choices?

 

And if you can't or won't do that, what is the relationship between the electorate and their representatives? You're right that some may vote for representatives because they trust them to do the right thing, some because they believe they will do something very specific that the voter wants; but what does it mean for how the representative, well, represents - should they feel obliged to do exactly what their constituents tell them to do, or to govern the way they think is best?

 

Lots of questions here, no answers. Apologies.

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

1 hour ago, Crusoe said:

 

I think that reflects the reality neatly, but I'm not sure what that means for situations like referendums. People can vote for any reason they like, but when the result of that can impact the lives of many so drastically it makes me nervous. Of course restricting the vote would be a slippery slope (restrict by a basic test becomes restrict by education, which becomes restrict by money, which becomes restrict by race, gender, location, etc) and ethically wrong regardless - but how do you encourage or empower your electorate to make informed choices?

 

And if you can't or won't do that, what is the relationship between the electorate and their representatives? You're right that some may vote for representatives because they trust them to do the right thing, some because they believe they will do something very specific that the voter wants; but what does it mean for how the representative, well, represents - should they feel obliged to do exactly what their constituents tell them to do, or to govern the way they think is best?

 

Lots of questions here, no answers. Apologies.

 

I'll have another think. Could be a three-weeker this one. 

[kowenicki]

10 hours ago, blueatheart said:

And still 40 years before present day.

 

Unbelivable. 

 

I'm waiting for the comparisons to Labour's 1983 manifesto to start.

 

Its not THAT idiotic... 

[leeslover]

Noticeable that the government wouldn't be able to nationalise industries or borrow to invest if we stay in the EU...

[blueatheart]

57 minutes ago, kowenicki said:

 

Its not THAT idiotic... 

Really?

 

I'm not so sure. The costs in nationalising so many services would be astronomical and that's without breaking any contracts.

[Matt]

I've read that the cost is irrelevant, privatisation and nationalisation doesn't effect the deficit - money is either spent or received and assets are exchanged to the sum of that money.. The country doesn't get richer by selling of assets, the real question is will the public get a better service and better value. Which is a fair comment.

 

I reckon the cost is irrelevant now anyways, you can slap some bullshit on the side of a fucking 747 and get away with all sorts.

 

EDIT: I've done a quick search and looking at it I don't think local state-owned fuel providers would cost much, distribution already exists - it can all be done virtually from yer bedroom.

 

 

[GlossopLatic]

9 hours ago, leeslover said:

Noticeable that the government wouldn't be able to nationalise industries or borrow to invest if we stay in the EU...

 

Another reason why Brexit is a waste of everyone's time and money