Who do you vote for Stylee?
At the top of the page this possibly not worth asking.
Robert Webb versus Russell Brand Page 8
Quote: Steve Sunshine @ November 1 2013, 12:04 AM GMTDoes no one else think that Labour were awful during that time?
Apart from the Iraqi's obviously.
I'm proud to say that I never voted for the Thatcher, Major, Blair/Brown and Cameron/Clegg Governments. Most of the time, I was that peculiar kind of Centrist who could find more in common with the left wing of the Labour Party than the right wing of it. I was also naturally able to accommodate some One Nation Conservative beliefs which are now seen as so out of date. It makes sense to me even if to others it is crackers. People are individuals. It seems weird to me that anyone should treat a party like a religion. I voted Liberal and SDP pretty consistently from 1981, albeit very atypically, and shifted to the Greens the day Nick Clegg was made leader. I am consequently not to blame for any policies of the last 34 years.
I'm so Tory it hurts
George Osbourne was my best mate when I was 5
One of those lines is actually true
Quote: Stylee TingTing @ November 1 2013, 12:24 AM GMTI'm hoping it's 2)
Of course
1 would be unthinkable!
I usually vote for the opposition
So next time it's going to be tricky as Labour would be my only worthwhile choice.
But that Ed Milliband! I don't think I can bring myself to do it.
I may have to go back to Green like my young stupid idealistic self.
Quote: AngieBaby @ November 1 2013, 12:05 AM GMTI voted in an election that made a difference, in 1994 in South Africa, I know how important voting is. But when you don't identify with any of the parties on offer, what difference can you make?
Perhaps you need to begin thinking about which party you disagree with the least?
Quote: Horseradish @ November 1 2013, 12:16 AM GMTI voted Liberal and SDP pretty consistently from 1981, albeit very atypically, and shifted to the Greens the day Nick Clegg was made leader. I am consequently not to blame for any policies of the last 34 years.
But you would have us in an even worse state of affairs than those 34 years of policies have got us.
Using this a benchmark perhaps . .
"...the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; those who are in the shadows of life; the sick, the needy and the handicapped. " ~ Last Speech of Hubert H. Humphrey
Quote: Oldrocker @ November 1 2013, 12:42 AM GMTUsing this a benchmark perhaps . .
"...the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; those who are in the shadows of life; the sick, the needy and the handicapped. " ~ Last Speech of Hubert H. Humphrey
Utterly short-termist and short-sighted though. The morality of any person or persons in power should be judged not just by how those in need are treated - very f**king well in this country - but by how selfishly those leaders live for today and for themselves, or how much the consider the longer term prospects of the country/company/society/etc. The Labour Party has repeatedly proved itself completely and utterly void on this point.
Of course, government does not treat anyone in any way, anyway. People treat people. And people are the products of the systems in which they operate, and the freedoms they have to do good, or the cold-hearted boxes they have to tick.
Quote: Aaron @ November 1 2013, 12:40 AM GMTBut you would have us in an even worse state of affairs than those 34 years of policies have got us.
That is certainly an opinion. For me personally, I am sure it isn't right.
I'm intrigued by your comments on the people in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea crying out for local homes. When I was a young man, I got on my bike and kept cycling until I found a one bedroom flat. I didn't expect it to come to me. You being a Conservative. Aren't you worried by their lack of gumption?
Quote: Horseradish @ November 1 2013, 1:04 AM GMTThat is certainly an opinion. For me personally, I am sure it isn't right.
Socialism. The single greatest evil the world has ever know. 
Quote: Horseradish @ November 1 2013, 1:04 AM GMTI was intrigued by your comments on the people in Kensington crying out for local homes. When I was a young man, I got on my bike and kept cycling until I found a one bedroom flat. I didn't expect it to come to me. Are you not worried by their lack of gumption?
That is exactly my feeling.
Quote: Aaron @ November 1 2013, 1:07 AM GMTThat is exactly my feeling.
I can tell you are a go ahead entrepreneur by the way you leapt in there.
Didn't even give me time to do the necessary parallel pagination.
PS October 31, 2013, 1:41 PM GMT
Edited by Charleywolf on October 31 2013, 4:02 PM GMT
hi Chadwick, I liked some of the dialogue, I found it amusing and the thought of Leo Sayer being found as a victim of auto-erotic asphyxiation is definitely a winner.
Topical or what mate? 
Quote: Stylee TingTing @ October 31 2013, 11:51 PM GMTIt was a nice post, Horseradish, but..
I'm of the opinion that people are generally far too shallow to choose 'political power' over some cash in their pockets. People are mostly sheep. The mavericks stand out and assassinate others or get assassinated themselves.
I am sorry Stylee. I missed your very good post earlier and it has got me thinking. You are right on how things have been mainly in recent years and largely still are. The majority are still in a bit of a comfort zone. They think in the way of when things were better - how can we add to what we have got? - and have another way of thinking following the crisis - which are the areas where we might need to cut back?
If things get worse, I can see a period where it really becomes dog eat dog. Worse still and that's the moment when they organise collectively for mutual survival. The Chartists came together in desperation in the new Industrial age. In many ways, they led on to the trade unions. But there are modern examples. One might be the recent campaign against fracking in Balcombe where people were worried about their homes.
And there is also something that happens when people are required formally to do something. Jury Service is generally taken seriously by those who are involved. I was surprised when I did it. There's no money in it and the cases are often not directly relevant personally but there is just a glimmer there of how people can work differently. I reckon it could be applied to other areas like politics, particularly in even tougher times.
Quote: Aaron @ October 31 2013, 11:06 PM GMTHow do you feel about people apparently being priced out of the expensive areas (say, the unemployed pushed out of Kensington or Islington) they wish to live in?
Slightly different situation in my opinion. The thing about location is that it has a huge impact on your ability to find employment.
I can see two ways that unemployed people would end up living in expensive areas. It may be that there is a social housing shortage in London and that it is a choice between living in the expensive area or living 50 miles outside of the city with no money to pay the train fare for interviews or low-paid work (with most jobs in the area still being within the city...) In which case you're better off keeping them in the expensive area where they can find work.
It could also be that people who were previously doing well for themselves were made redundant. Then it depends on the situation. If they're a young couple without kids, they should probably suck it up. If they're a family with kids in a local school, you're talking about uprooting them temporarily while they get back into work and then allowing them to go back to the same kind of place. It seems a bit unnecessary.
Quote: sootyj @ October 31 2013, 11:10 PM GMTHousing benefits a fascinating benefit, by giving the needy control of the funding for their own housing. It wiped years of slum landlords and bad housing, not to mention gave back real control to the recipient.
The problem is it's an open ended benefit based on market forces. So it's become economically unsustainable, not to mention creating a disasterous imbalance between wages and benefits.
And the money for that pot is being sucked out of other benefits and services.
I think it could have been done better, but the government of either party was going to have to restrict it.
Regulating the market - so putting in rent caps on the private sector, for instance, especially in today's market which is massively in the landlords' favour - would reduce expenditure on housing benefit and put money back in the pockets of a larger amount of people, which will stimulate economic demand and help pull us out of this mess?
Problem is housing benefit is set at the market rate for rents (30% lower than the average for the appropriate sized property I think) ) and it comes out of the same welfare pot as, direct payments, DLA etc.
So that family in Kensington may well be recieving £20,000 in HB alone before anything else. The knock on effect is old folks getting a 15 minute home care visit and choosing between a cup of tea and going to the toilet.
Is there a solution? I'm not really sure, maybe better financial incentives for low rent, social housing but metropolitan housing costs are so collosal, it eventually turns into another sink hole.
I think the conservatives are not wrong, that the old model of HB is defunct. And if you want to live in the worlds most expensive city and not work, you need to make some unpleasant compromises. The same ones every one else living there who earns an average wage does.
Quote: Aaron @ October 31 2013, 11:16 PM GMTAnd, having experienced the horrors of hyper-inflation, the trade unions are equally eager to work in conjunction with businesses and politicians to keep wages and costs reasonable. That's a massive and hugely underrated factor in Germany's success in recent decades.
Just want to say yes to this. In Germany, collective bargaining between trade unions and employers is the foundation to labour law. They don't even have a minimum wage, but their wages are generally higher and income inequality lower (and thus the economy stronger) because wages are negotiated in a way that is fair for both business and workers.