|
Post by champagneprince on Feb 27, 2015 20:21:12 GMT 1
Everyone has their own personal circumstances. Whether it's healthcare, old age, education, job loss, high prices.........everything is individualistic.
Ultimately, politicians will say 'anything' to get people to vote for them. They can deal with what they actually said when they've won. To me it's about who you trust most based on what you need as an individual. People will never agree on this because we all have individual requirements and beliefs that are more suited to different political parties.
If you have a muslim fella next door to you and you're afraid he'll chop your head off when you sleep then that's different circumstances to a dairy farmer worrying about his livelihood or a University grad worrying about his debt or a pensioner worrying about his future. We all have our own worries.
People can argue to their blue in the face about who's best but it's difficult to consider another viewpoint if it's not affecting you. In fact, what do you consider when it's only you stood in that voting booth?
Do I think about others or do I think about myself? How much do I consider friends and family? How much do I consider workmates? People I have never met? Terrible stories I see on the TV and in the media? Our position on a world league table of 'how happy we all are' compared to other countries? The list goes on.
Will Miliband do a better job than Cameron is ultimately what it comes down to. Or, if you think 'none of them' then it's time to get a third party supported to see if the country can get a 'third party bandwagon' rolling for the future. The population gave Clegg that chance last time and he blew it fantastically.
It's a difficult subject to discuss is Politics especially on a messageboard. People with vast political knowledge can get frustrated with those of us who don't, and that's understandable. Equally, those of us don't understand it as well as others also get frustrated because those with the greatest political minds of all don't seem to make a particular good job of it. So why would you listen to someone who has more knowledge than you on a messageboard, in the pub, in a newspaper column or elsewhere?
The only ones to listen to are those who are about to have a big free for all on the TV and even then they'll be telling us lies. So maybe it's about who you trust to tell the least lies?
|
|
|
Post by shrewder on Feb 27, 2015 20:37:13 GMT 1
Everyone has their own personal circumstances. Whether it's healthcare, old age, education, job loss, high prices.........everything is individualistic. Ultimately, politicians will say 'anything' to get people to vote for them. They can deal with what they actually said when they've won. To me it's about who you trust most based on what you need as an individual. People will never agree on this because we all have individual requirements and beliefs that are more suited to different political parties. If you have a muslim fella next door to you and you're afraid he'll chop your head off when you sleep then that's different circumstances to a dairy farmer worrying about his livelihood or a University grad worrying about his debt or a pensioner worrying about his future. We all have our own worries. People can argue to their blue in the face about who's best but it's difficult to consider another viewpoint if it's not affecting you. In fact, what do you consider when it's only you stood in that voting booth? Do I think about others or do I think about myself? How much do I consider friends and family? How much do I consider workmates? People I have never met? Terrible stories I see on the TV and in the media? Our position on a world league table of 'how happy we all are' compared to other countries? The list goes on. Will Miliband do a better job than Cameron is ultimately what it comes down to. Or, if you think 'none of them' then it's time to get a third party supported to see if the country can get a 'third party bandwagon' rolling for the future. The population gave Clegg that chance last time and he blew it fantastically. It's a difficult subject to discuss is Politics especially on a messageboard. People with vast political knowledge can get frustrated with those of us who don't, and that's understandable. Equally, those of us don't understand it as well as others also get frustrated because those with the greatest political minds of all don't seem to make a particular good job of it. So why would you listen to someone who has more knowledge than you on a messageboard, in the pub, in a newspaper column or elsewhere? The only ones to listen to are those who are about to have a big free for all on the TV and even then they'll be telling us lies. So maybe it's about who you trust to tell the least lies? Here endith the debate!!!
|
|
|
Post by shrewed46 on Feb 28, 2015 12:42:40 GMT 1
I think you will find a lot more threads like this in the next 10 weeks.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2015 12:49:38 GMT 1
Individual circumstances are just a microcosm of a wider community’s problem.
|
|
|
Post by atcham jack on Mar 1, 2015 10:31:15 GMT 1
all I want is a well run NHS, a living wage, an adequate state pension, some body or home to look after me when passed it, NO NOT NOW SHREWDER!, good education for the kids, lower tuition fees, major house building program mainly council; housing, strong defence, low crime rate. retention of our EU membership
now who is best at providing that? whoever does may have to increase vat and add 5p to income tax if we and they are honest with ourselves
|
|
|
Post by shrewder on Mar 1, 2015 10:36:42 GMT 1
all I want is a well run NHS, a living wage, an adequate state pension, some body or home to look after me when passed it, NO NOT NOW SHREWDER!, good education for the kids, lower tuition fees, major house building program mainly council; housing, strong defence, low crime rate. retention of our EU membership now who is best at providing that? whoever does may have to increase vat and add 5p to income tax if we and they are honest with ourselves
|
|
|
Post by shrewed46 on Mar 1, 2015 10:48:02 GMT 1
all I want is a well run NHS, a living wage, an adequate state pension, some body or home to look after me when passed it, NO NOT NOW SHREWDER!, good education for the kids, lower tuition fees, major house building program mainly council; housing, strong defence, low crime rate. retention of our EU membership now who is best at providing that? whoever does may have to increase vat and add 5p to income tax if we and they are honest with ourselves I'd bet against any party giving you all those, but I'm pretty sure the one that will give you the least is the Tories unless you are a hedge fund manager or a millionaire.
|
|
|
Post by percy on Mar 1, 2015 12:32:24 GMT 1
all I want is a well run NHS, a living wage, an adequate state pension, some body or home to look after me when passed it, NO NOT NOW SHREWDER!, good education for the kids, lower tuition fees, major house building program mainly council; housing, strong defence, low crime rate. retention of our EU membership now who is best at providing that? whoever does may have to increase vat and add 5p to income tax if we and they are honest with ourselves Nobody offers the solutions as the solutions offend the different parties core beliefs: We all want a well run NHS - adopting the French system seems obvious but it offends the PC as it would preclude those who are not UK citizens and would require us all to use our NI number card which is too much like requiring a national identity card. Living wage - minimum wage legislation is in place, capping salaries through prohibitive tax will just result in the city going offshore - the only way through is to do as the Americans and tax UK nationals on worldwide income to help cap the top end and bring our taxes into line with Paris, Madrid and Frankfurt; there is nothing stronger you can do at the lower end other than have a minimum wage so nothing to do there other than play with the level. Provision of long term care is exceptionally expensive for the aging population; must be taken under the control of the state with compulsory social contribution to provide for it. Tax free contibution to private insurance schemes is the way to filter out those rich enough to escape the state safety net (although, like France, the state should provide the "private" homes as well to ensure quality). Good education - we need to get those that can pay out of the system and paying for private education rather than competing up house prices around good schools. Make school fees tax deductible will make a huge difference and provide much more of a boost to the funds per pupil than a pound for pound increase in education budget. Lower tuition fees - why ? There are more UK university students than ever what is the rationale to make it more appealing ? Introducing grants possibly opens it to those unwilling to take on debt, but what evidence is there of a pent up demand not being filled ? The current system of writing it off if you don't get a job afterwards seems more sensible so why change. More houses - well yes, there is a shortage of affordable houses in certain areas but that is due more to the prices being kept artificially high through government incentives and the promotion of "vacant" properties through second homes, buy to let, and excessively restrictive planning requirements in brownfield sites. Why not charge a second home tax of say 2% pa on all second home properties - that will soon bring down house prices in London and the South West. For buy to let landlords why not require them to run their businesses like businesses ie subject to proper health and safety rules for their properties, company law, filing of accounts, etc. - that should make it less attractive for the fly by night chancers thus releasing homes to buy. Strong defence - not sure what problem we are trying to solve here. Low crime rate - yes, more bobbies on the beat is great but if we let minor crimes slide without prosecution because the court system is clogged up and the prisons overflowing it does not work. Need to sort out the prisons - bring them back under state control, charge foreign governments if we house their citizens, and build more if necessary. Need to sort the courts out - remove the right to jury trials for non-custodial crimes, remove state aid for frivalous cases, etc etc. Need to get more police in place and excercise zero tolerance. Raise the speed limit on motorways to 85mph and raise the funds through average speed cameras on the motorways. EU membership - we would be stupid to give it up; but unless someone is prepared to stand up and say what is good about it rather than focussing on and addressing the negative then you can see us leaving. Cameron messed up on immigration because he was scared of the PC brigade and Red Ed wouldn't touch it for the same reason. 5p on income tax - why not increase the personal tax allowance to 50k and have a tax rate of 40% to 100k and 50% therafter - much simpler, much less admin and would generate much more money. Also removes a lot of PAYE tax burden on small businesses. With our low social charges this would still leave us as the most attractive country in the EU for high earners. Increase VAT - the most regressive tax there is seems a bit unfair. Why not a higher tax rate on the sale of new cars and increase the stamp duty on house purchases ? The parties have no convictions and no balls - we are going to drift from soundbite to soundbite hanging all those who fall foul of public opinion whipped up by misdirection and PR hype until they are too frightened to do anything.
|
|
|
Post by atcham jack on Mar 1, 2015 14:18:52 GMT 1
sadly labour have Balls, agree with you on EU. Farage has peaked and looked ill on politics show. defence , we are back to cold war over Ukraine. as for NHS, would like to see National Lottery supporting this.
as for further austerity merge county councils, police constabularies, fire and ambulance, navy and airforce, all these savings may allow councils to be properly funded.
|
|
|
Post by shrewed46 on Mar 1, 2015 15:05:48 GMT 1
Percy to address your views point by point unsurprisingly I find most yours differ from mine.
NHS- I am sure that the service from the NHS would improve if we spent another 2.5% of GDP as the French do. Then we have the old chestnut of treating non UK citizens. I guess this is fair if the rest of Europe refused to treat our citizens. All europeans are entitled to free state funded medical treatment with a EHIC card. Other foreign nationals health service costs account for less than 0.5% of the NHS budget.
The NHS would benefit from stability not constantly looking over it's shoulder for the next reorganisation.
LIVING WAGE - There is a big difference between the Minimum Wage and the Living Wage actually in fact 2.65 per hour in London. It is time the Government reduced it's subsidy to low pay companies by forcing them to pay the Living Wage. Do you really think big business would go off shore if a limit of 20 times the average company wage was introduced as a maximum annual remuneration. We saw how Starbucks reacted to bad tax news.
Long Term Care - Do you really expect the British population to trust the insurance industry with the provision of our long term care after the mess they made of PPI. A far better scheme would be a wealth tax to be paid on death.
Time limits my views on the other topics but no doubt I will return
|
|
|
Post by champagneprince on Mar 1, 2015 15:48:34 GMT 1
Individual circumstances are just a microcosm of a wider community’s problem.
Equally Nick, they are also a microcosm of a wider community's good things too, but we all tend to forget about those! And if anyone tries to tell us how good we are, then we compare ourselves to Canada or Australia just to shut 'em up!
We all have our own individual issues. Good stuff in our life and bad stuff.
Come voting day perhaps we all need to think about ourselves as individuals and which bullsh*tter we trust most? Perhaps we shouldn't hang on to deep-rooted beliefs that our parents held or we have argued passionately for in the past. People being stubborn just because that's 'the way we've always voted' isn't good IMO. No politician deserves our unconditional trust. Life moves and changes too fast for that and in fact that just breeds complacency on their part.
It's about 'the now' and the next four years and although at present life in the UK is not the best, it's actually pretty darn good versus the rest of the world, and I'm not convinced it would have been if we'd had another 4 years of Labour. In fact it could be a whole lot worse. Miliband will tell us that 4 more years under Gordon Brown would've been great!
|
|
|
Post by percy on Mar 1, 2015 17:47:09 GMT 1
Percy to address your views point by point unsurprisingly I find most yours differ from mine. NHS- I am sure that the service from the NHS would improve if we spent another 2.5% of GDP as the French do. Then we have the old chestnut of treating non UK citizens. I guess this is fair if the rest of Europe refused to treat our citizens. All europeans are entitled to free state funded medical treatment with a EHIC card. Other foreign nationals health service costs account for less than 0.5% of the NHS budget. The NHS would benefit from stability not constantly looking over it's shoulder for the next reorganisation. LIVING WAGE - There is a big difference between the Minimum Wage and the Living Wage actually in fact 2.65 per hour in London. It is time the Government reduced it's subsidy to low pay companies by forcing them to pay the Living Wage. Do you really think big business would go off shore if a limit of 20 times the average company wage was introduced as a maximum annual remuneration. We saw how Starbucks reacted to bad tax news. Long Term Care - Do you really expect the British population to trust the insurance industry with the provision of our long term care after the mess they made of PPI. A far better scheme would be a wealth tax to be paid on death. Time limits my views on the other topics but no doubt I will return The French do not provide the same service to an EHIC holder as to a carte vitale holder and many more people in France have health insurance which is very different in nature to ours and contributes part of the cost for all treatments direct to the government. The French are also a bit more sensible in that they are far more commercial in their hospitals ie you can pay to have a private room, a private nurse, a bed for a relative to stay with you, etc. - all of that helps both the experience and the workload for the staff as well as bringing in some more money. At the end of treatment in hospital they have a great sysem of home nursing where a nurse comes to visit you each day - much more cost effective than staying in hospital and better for everyone. There are many more differences between the UK and France than %GDP spend - it works well and is well appreciated; why not copy it ? We should spend more on the NHS but with crazy policies like capping the number of Filippino nurses, cutting staff to the point where it is always necessary to employ agency staff, etc do not inspire confidence that it will be spent well and that is before you consider the Daily Mail stories of free bimbo boob jobs on the NHS and the fact that we do not seek to recover the cost of medical treatment from those guilty of causing injury. Avoiding another reorganisation would freeze us on a system that is clearly not optimal. Living wage - as I said the only policy lever at the bootom of the spectrum is to have a minimum wage - no problem with it rising which it clearly should (also zero hours contracts have no place in the world and should be outlawed). Of course nobody would go offshore from the city because of minimum wage changes - I said that would happen if the salaries at the other end of the spectrum are attacked through any form of capping or punitive taxation of £1m+ salaries. Long term care - increasing wealth tax to be paid on death beyond the current 40% ? The principles behind tax need to have some degree of fairness in them I'm not sure how you could argue that one beyond wanting to prevent those who have worked hard all their life from leaving a bit of money to their children which seems pretty mean spirited and not really connected to the cost.
|
|
|
Post by jamo on Mar 1, 2015 17:53:28 GMT 1
Percy, I was rather flippant to you in my previous comments so apologies but reading your posts I cannot help but draw the conclusion that , you appear at least, to inhabit a different country to that that I experience on a day to day basis in Shropshire.
|
|
|
Post by shrewder on Mar 1, 2015 18:06:02 GMT 1
Latest opinion poll Labour and Tories neck and neck on 37% each.
|
|
|
Post by thesensationaljt on Mar 1, 2015 18:14:12 GMT 1
I'll admit I haven't read this thread. The Polly Tishens of all the parties are as dull as dishwater. But I was reading the headlines from some online rag yesterday morning which said about a protest against Farage in Thanet, which was to be led by Bunny La Roche. Now I'll admit I didn't know who Bunny was, I assumed she was a singer, or a thespian. When I looked her up on google, it turns out she was the woman on question time who screamed like a banshee at Nigel Farage. I only caught it by accident, I'd been watching something on the Sky+ box which had finished, and I was looking for something to view for 30 minutes or so before bedtime.
Anyway, she looks tremendous entertainment, I hope she stays there to hound Nigel, or better still, does a defection to UKIP to "help" him. A very funny lady. GO BUNNY!
nopenothope.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/laroche-supported-race-play-sex-leader.html
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2015 18:31:39 GMT 1
Individual circumstances are just a microcosm of a wider community’s problem.
Equally Nick, they are also a microcosm of a wider community's good things too, but we all tend to forget about those! And if anyone tries to tell us how good we are, then we compare ourselves to Canada or Australia just to shut 'em up!
We all have our own individual issues. Good stuff in our life and bad stuff.
Come voting day perhaps we all need to think about ourselves as individuals and which bullsh*tter we trust most? Perhaps we shouldn't hang on to deep-rooted beliefs that our parents held or we have argued passionately for in the past. People being stubborn just because that's 'the way we've always voted' isn't good IMO. No politician deserves our unconditional trust. Life moves and changes too fast for that and in fact that just breeds complacency on their part.
It's about 'the now' and the next four years and although at present life in the UK is not the best, it's actually pretty darn good versus the rest of the world, and I'm not convinced it would have been if we'd had another 4 years of Labour. In fact it could be a whole lot worse. Miliband will tell us that 4 more years under Gordon Brown would've been great!
There’s nothing good about vulnerable people losing services, or not being educated on an equal footing to a pupil in ‘mainstream’ education. There are some communities that are really struggling in the name of austerity. When people glibly speak about cutting the deficit maybe they need to stop a minute and think about who will be affected most.
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Mar 1, 2015 18:37:20 GMT 1
Percy, I was rather flippant to you in my previous comments so apologies but reading your posts I cannot help but draw the conclusion that , you appear at least, to inhabit a different country to that that I experience on a day to day basis in Shropshire. Well, they do say the City of London is an island... www.newstatesman.com/economy/2011/02/london-corporation-city
|
|
|
Post by percy on Mar 1, 2015 19:17:01 GMT 1
Percy, I was rather flippant to you in my previous comments so apologies but reading your posts I cannot help but draw the conclusion that , you appear at least, to inhabit a different country to that that I experience on a day to day basis in Shropshire. My connections to Shropshire are family, football and some investments; I don't have a permanent home in the UK but spend a lot of time in London so that is technically true, but I don't understand your point.
|
|
|
Post by champagneprince on Mar 1, 2015 19:23:35 GMT 1
Equally Nick, they are also a microcosm of a wider community's good things too, but we all tend to forget about those! And if anyone tries to tell us how good we are, then we compare ourselves to Canada or Australia just to shut 'em up!
We all have our own individual issues. Good stuff in our life and bad stuff.
Come voting day perhaps we all need to think about ourselves as individuals and which bullsh*tter we trust most? Perhaps we shouldn't hang on to deep-rooted beliefs that our parents held or we have argued passionately for in the past. People being stubborn just because that's 'the way we've always voted' isn't good IMO. No politician deserves our unconditional trust. Life moves and changes too fast for that and in fact that just breeds complacency on their part.
It's about 'the now' and the next four years and although at present life in the UK is not the best, it's actually pretty darn good versus the rest of the world, and I'm not convinced it would have been if we'd had another 4 years of Labour. In fact it could be a whole lot worse. Miliband will tell us that 4 more years under Gordon Brown would've been great!
There’s nothing good about vulnerable people losing services, or not being educated on an equal footing to a pupil in ‘mainstream’ education. There are some communities that are really struggling in the name of austerity. When people glibly speak about cutting the deficit maybe they need to stop a minute and think about who will be affected most.
People glibly speak about cutting the deficit, because there's a deficit to cut! Someone was overspending for too long!
Everyone has their own personal issues and I am sure any government would love to give every cause the money it needs. But the last four years have been tough, there is only so much money to go round, and we can all argue until we're blue in the face as to whether it's being spent on what is needed most.
Put ten people in a room and they will all argue that their cause is most needy. And when this is so, it is very difficult, to understand another's opinion. You want your cut, but I want mine too!
Some communities are really struggling but that's not the point. The point is: would they be struggling less or more under a different government?
And that's about who you believe is telling you the least lies.
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Mar 1, 2015 19:25:45 GMT 1
Percy, I was rather flippant to you in my previous comments so apologies but reading your posts I cannot help but draw the conclusion that , you appear at least, to inhabit a different country to that that I experience on a day to day basis in Shropshire. My connections to Shropshire are family, football and some investments; I don't have a permanent home in the UK but spend a lot of time in London so that is technically true, but I don't understand your point. I think perhaps he is saying that your opinions are informed very much by what is beneficial for the financial sector, rather than taking into account the wider impact of issues like tuition fees and tax avoidance. Either that or he's accusing you of being a total bell end, I'm not sure.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2015 19:43:53 GMT 1
There’s nothing good about vulnerable people losing services, or not being educated on an equal footing to a pupil in ‘mainstream’ education. There are some communities that are really struggling in the name of austerity. When people glibly speak about cutting the deficit maybe they need to stop a minute and think about who will be affected most.
People glibly speak about cutting the deficit, because there's a deficit to cut! Someone was overspending for too long!
Everyone has their own personal issues and I am sure any government would love to give every cause the money it needs. But the last four years have been tough, there is only so much money to go round, and we can all argue until we're blue in the face as to whether it's being spent on what is needed most.
Put ten people in a room and they will all argue that their cause is most needy. And when this is so, it is very difficult, to understand another's opinion. You want your cut, but I want mine too!
Some communities are really struggling but that's not the point. The point is: would they be struggling less or more under a different government?
And that's about who you believe is telling you the least lies.
Don’t confuse being “needy” with being vulnerable. Also, being a vulnerable person is not a cause. These are members of society, who with the right support and education are more than able to contribute to society. And yes some communities will do better under a different government. Let’s put it this way. I have met many carers who considered themselves life – long Conservative voters who will never vote for them again.
|
|
|
Post by percy on Mar 1, 2015 20:09:24 GMT 1
My connections to Shropshire are family, football and some investments; I don't have a permanent home in the UK but spend a lot of time in London so that is technically true, but I don't understand your point. I think perhaps he is saying that your opinions are informed very much by what is beneficial for the financial sector, rather than taking into account the wider impact of issues like tuition fees and tax avoidance. Either that or he's accusing you of being a total bell end, I'm not sure. I think that it is now very popular to see the two as being synonomous now isn't it. Not sure how my views seek to protect the financial sector; but if they did then that would be supporting the industry contrbuting more to the economy than any other so I'm not sure its all bad. Actually quite a few in the town have always been anti-London even before the 2008 bail outs (of only 3 banks and not the whole city) - I remember the grief from family and friends when I went to work there nearly 30 years ago. Also remember the EBF stopping me coming off the train and demanding to know what the road behind the Abbey was called to prove I was from the town or they'd "kill me" - I pointed out that I knew one of their names as I'd gone to school with his elder brother. I think that is less appealing than my views on here ?
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Mar 1, 2015 20:23:05 GMT 1
I think perhaps he is saying that your opinions are informed very much by what is beneficial for the financial sector, rather than taking into account the wider impact of issues like tuition fees and tax avoidance. Either that or he's accusing you of being a total bell end, I'm not sure. I think that it is now very popular to see the two as being synonomous now isn't it. Not sure how my views seek to protect the financial sector; but if they did then that would be supporting the industry contrbuting more to the economy than any other so I'm not sure its all bad. Actually quite a few in the town have always been anti-London even before the 2008 bail outs (of only 3 banks and not the whole city) - I remember the grief from family and friends when I went to work there nearly 30 years ago. Also remember the EBF stopping me coming off the train and demanding to know what the road behind the Abbey was called to prove I was from the town or they'd "kill me" - I pointed out that I knew one of their names as I'd gone to school with his elder brother. I think that is less appealing than my views on here ? Blimey, that sounds rather unsavoury. Perhaps the EBF had been infiltrated by some violent cultural Marxists at the time, doesn't bear thinking about! On a more serious note, do you think that the country's reliance on the City - which is born of of policies pursued by both Labour and Tory governments over the last 30 years or so - is a good thing? Do you see much evidence of the economy 'diversifying' as promised by every politician under the sun following the banks going tits-up in 2008? Would you say the collapse of the banks and problems in the financial sector were largely responsible for triggering the recession which the country is still feeling the effects of?
|
|
|
Post by champagneprince on Mar 1, 2015 20:43:59 GMT 1
After working with people in the care industry I know they work under tough conditions, with low pay and are dedicated professionals in what they do. I am sure they see the effect of the cuts more than anyone, whether that's right or wrong is difficult to interpret.
The person who is about to be made redundant because nobody is buying the product anymore and therefore putting his/her family at risk, would they agree? Would they put those cuts in care before their immediate concerns? Does the government invest in trying to keep that person in work, or in resources for care? The pot is only so big and much of the pot has been needed to get us out of the sh*t. Even Miliband has started to acknowledge there's been a deficit (which Gordon Brown failed to address)!
And what about the family who's kid is bullied at school due to lack of decent teachers in the classroom? Do they vote for putting resources into care before research into effective classroom management?
And the guy who's going to work in a healthy and safety nightmare each day. Does he consider the care sector or does he wish that the government would invest more into inspection and enforcement?
Or the lady who was raped last year? Does she consider the care sector or wish the government would plough more into bobbies on the beat?
And even the rich financial guy who's daughter has leukaemia, does he care about resources for care or does he wish the government would devote more cash to leukaemia research?
Etc, etc
Everyone has their own individual circumstances in which we wish the government would invest more. My point is that it's difficult for us as voters to consider the needs of others versus those of our own, and therefore when we're in that voting booth we need to consider how well our own life is versus what it might be like under the other party.
I will look at Cameron and Miliband and try to work out who's giving me the most bullsh*t. Is the deficit as really as bad as it is or do we now have money to invest in those areas that have been cut? Do we go back to square one and start overspending again? Maybe it's better to have cuts, even severe cuts, rather than complete system breakdown?
If I think neither are trustworthy (well, as trustworthy as a politician might be), then I may look to jump on a 3rd party bandwagon to see if we can get a 3-way vote going next time.
|
|
|
Post by mattmw on Mar 1, 2015 22:58:42 GMT 1
The most worrying thing about the three main parties is there apparent lack of understanding of basic economics. I'm not sure whether that's a deliberate policy to talk tosh on the economy and hope the public go along with it (admittedly most people seem to) or more worrying that they genuinely think cuts help reduce the deficit
As Sean has said on here many times the deficit is not actually that much of a concern in this country. Nor should it be the dictating priority in any government
What I'd like to see from at least one of the parties is a proper economic policy based on improving the productivity of the county, not trying to pull the wool over people's eyes with silly sound bites or tinkering with minor bits of economic policy that have little impact
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Mar 1, 2015 23:11:26 GMT 1
The most worrying thing about the three main parties is there apparent lack of understanding of basic economics. I'm not sure whether that's a deliberate policy to talk tosh on the economy and hope the public go along with it (admittedly most people seem to) or more worrying that they genuinely think cuts help reduce the deficit As Sean has said on here many times the deficit is not actually that much of a concern in this country. Nor should it be the dictating priority in any government What I'd like to see from at least one of the parties is a proper economic policy based on improving the productivity of the county, not trying to pull the wool over people's eyes with silly sound bites or tinkering with mine bits of economic policy that have little impact After the banking crisis the Tories quickly moved to establish the narrative that the resultant recession/depression was a crisis of public spending rather than of casino capitalism. The public seemed to buy the message that this was a fault of spending too much on public services and it became politically toxic to be seen as a 'deficit denier'. Labour failed to establish any kind of counter narrative - despite the fact the IFS reported the public finances were in better shape under their governance than under the Tories before the banking crisis hit. Perhaps Labour's timidity was understandable as they were carrying the can for the banks going tits up on their watch and had fully bought into the right's light touch regulation ethos.
|
|
|
Post by shrewed46 on Mar 2, 2015 14:05:37 GMT 1
Strong defence - not sure what problem we are trying to solve here. Maybe these comments from the USA top general might identify the problem that you fail to see.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31688929
|
|
|
Post by percy on Mar 2, 2015 14:38:00 GMT 1
Strong defence - not sure what problem we are trying to solve here. Maybe these comments from the USA top general might identify the problem that you fail to see.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31688929Nobody would want to see the British Army under the command of the Americans I can see that - the artice also puts forward a ready made solution too - reduce overseas aid.
|
|
|
Post by shrewed46 on Mar 2, 2015 14:45:50 GMT 1
Nobody would want to see the British Army under the command of the Americans I can see that - the artice also puts forward a ready made solution too - reduce overseas aid. Well I guess if one believes in the free market it is difficult to accept that we have a responsibility to help the poorest in society whether at home or overseas.
|
|
|
Post by BelleVueShrew on Mar 2, 2015 15:14:19 GMT 1
|
|