FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[vaptin]

No, not really. To vote for a party whose policies pretty much bankrupted a nation is stupid. Sadly none of the other options seem to have a cajones to make the decision that would make a difference and get us out of this recession thus why I don't vote.

What's this magical recession busting decision then?

[andrew]

No, not really. To vote for a party whose policies pretty much bankrupted a nation is stupid. Sadly none of the other options seem to have a cajones to make the decisions that would make a difference and get us out of this recession thus why I don't vote.

What's this magical recession busting decision then?

I didn't say I had a solution. A coalition that achieves nothing isn't exactly helping things though.

[What's Burning?]

No, not really. To vote for a party whose policies pretty much bankrupted a nation is stupid. Sadly none of the other options seem to have a cajones to make the decision that would make a difference and get us out of this recession thus why I don't vote.

Yeah, sure.

[Jabberwocky]

lets face it Cameron got into office with the battle cry of "We will get us out of debt"

now the great unwashed has realized that mean making cuts, cuts that are causing peoples difficulties. It is like everyone wants the country to be green apart from when someone wants to build a wind farm next to them.

[andrew]

No, not really. To vote for a party whose policies pretty much bankrupted a nation is stupid. Sadly none of the other options seem to have a cajones to make the decision that would make a difference and get us out of this recession thus why I don't vote.

Yeah, sure.

What is that meant to mean?! It is a persons democratic right to choose not to vote just as much as it is their choice to vote. Voting just for the hell of it is a total waste of time unless you truly believe in what you are voting for.

lets face it Cameron got into office with the battle cry of "We will get us out of debt"

now the great unwashed has realized that mean making cuts, cuts that are causing peoples difficulties. It is like everyone wants the country to be green apart from when someone wants to build a wind farm next to them.

Folk have gotten used to living with everything on tick but now they are upset at being told to live within their financial means - oh the madness! The media and public are up in arms at the ruling party who are trying to make cuts which are desperately needed but then the same voices complain that not enough is being done! They honestly can't win and it'll take more than 4 years to recover from this recession.

Interesting that about the wind farm analogy there Jabber. Read up about Donald Trump and the case of the mysterious exclusive golf resort and SSSI. This idiot is more than happy to obliterate a SSSI to build a golf course (like we don't have enough of those!) and a heap of exclusive holiday homes, yet now that there are plans to build an offshore windfarm off Balmedie he's gone crying to the Scottish (or Scattsh) parliment teling everyone how he's hard done by despite him forcing people out of their homes - seriously, people who didn't want to sell up have had to put up with their access being blocked to their homes, power and water supply disruptions and otehr things designed to force them out of their homes. So he's happy to have numerous ships sitting in anchorage (I've counted anything up to 30 at times) in full view of his development yet he is complaining about the visual impact off some wind turbines. NIMBY!

[Jabberwocky]

I only said about the windfarms because a local village was surveyed a few years ago about green power, over 80% said they where all for green power. Then when the people who did the survey put in planning permission for a wind farm the village went into melt down. http://www.horspath.org.uk/turbines/index.htm

[vaptin]

Parties do opinion polls, public surveys etc. whatever you want to call them, which influence their policies, candidates selected etc. But that matters less if your not likely to vote anyway, for all the newspaper scandals, public protests, tweeting and even old-fashioned leafleting you do, if doesn't matter that much if people don't go out and vote based on that information.

In other words, politicians care about people who will go out and vote for them. Having a large degree of people not voting, means their rights are highly likely to be alienated in policies, I guess the seedy side of this is party donations and media moguls offering excessive levels of support in return for excessive levels of influence.

A high level of political participation (reading newspapers, talking to others about issues is very important for democracy, there must be a party who you like more than others, look at local issues, did the current council do a good job? What are the other candidates proposing for your local area? Voting based on the national economy is a red herring. Political parties will work out why people voted for them, and why they didn't, and tend to concentrate on appealing to and swinging the vote from people who take a balanced look at the issues and go and out vote, as that is the group most likely to. There are set groups of people who identify with a political party, and just won't really change their mind, they're harder to win over, and the ones least likely (and therefore least concentrated on) are people who tend not to vote.

Also, if you don't vote, the votes of other people are proportional worth more, that's hardly democratic.

Although, "Britain is free once every 5 years" (Rousseau, I think) voting is often pretty ineffectual anyway. Which is why I think the key is voters pushing for parliamentary reform, allowing MPs to be able to act with greater autonomy and have greater effective restraint on the government.

Jabber has something of a point, ("they want the bear patrol but don't want to pay for the bear tax"), but I think it's different people and a different level of complaining. If a general election was held tomorrow Labour would lose I think. People are having a general moan about cuts and job loses, but they aren't going to go with the alternative when it is presented to them in a general election.

It's like football fans having a moan at the manager after a bad run but complaining when he is sacked.

[vaptin]

No, not really. To vote for a party whose policies pretty much bankrupted a nation is stupid. Sadly none of the other options seem to have a cajones to make the decisions that would make a difference and get us out of this recession thus why I don't vote.

What's this magical recession busting decision then?

I didn't say I had a solution. A coalition that achieves nothing isn't exactly helping things though.

Which one do you support more than the other? I'm saying your being idealistic, wanting a clear solution to present itself than voting for it, vote for the party you like best, and make it clear you want an electoral system that realistically presents the public with more than two choices, and is more representative of public opinion.

It's a pretty pessimistic viewpoint (what I'm saying), your never going to get a voting option where you love them and agree with everyone they say or will do, you just have to choose one over the others, and hope the "free market principle" takes over, that the others then up their game to appeal to you. By not voting you almost exclude all of that.

[Jabberwocky]

get rid of the minimum wage. that way we can compete with other countries. I know this is the extreme point of the argument. How can it be cheaper to make a pair of socks the other side of the world then ship them to the UK? how about we pay our sock makers a bit less so that we can compete in that market. A case in point I do a bit of buying and selling and run a market stall in my spare time. most of the stock I but is sourced from places like alibaba etc. I think the only thing made in Britain recently is a Seagull outboard motor.

How about getting all the people on benefits out working, sweeping streets, emptying bins, etc. If they don't like it then they can get a real job that pays more. Also people who are claiming disability allowance, yes I understand that there is a lot of people who are that disabled. However I am sure some of the people claiming an absolute fortune from the government is not so unwell that they could not sit behind a till at a supermarket.

I also think that a lot of the British public are "too proud" to do some of the lower level jobs but are the 1st to complain that foreigners have stolen said job so they can not work.

in short it annoys the hell out of me that my tax's pay for these bone idle layabouts.

[Ichabod]

get rid of the minimum wage. that way we can compete with other countries. I know this is the extreme point of the argument. How can it be cheaper to make a pair of socks the other side of the world then ship them to the UK? how about we pay our sock makers a bit less so that we can compete in that market. A case in point I do a bit of buying and selling and run a market stall in my spare time. most of the stock I but is sourced from places like alibaba etc. I think the only thing made in Britain recently is a Seagull outboard motor.

How about getting all the people on benefits out working, sweeping streets, emptying bins, etc. If they don't like it then they can get a real job that pays more. Also people who are claiming disability allowance, yes I understand that there is a lot of people who are that disabled. However I am sure some of the people claiming an absolute fortune from the government is not so unwell that they could not sit behind a till at a supermarket.

I also think that a lot of the British public are "too proud" to do some of the lower level jobs but are the 1st to complain that foreigners have stolen said job so they can not work.

in short it annoys the hell out of me that my tax's pay for these bone idle layabouts.

I'm voting for you next time

[Jabberwocky]

unethical and unpopular suggestions, others are more extreme like bring back capital punishment for one day a year for petty crime, eg if your caught shoplifting then you name goes in the pot, if your name is picked off the the gallows with you. setting an example that will make people think about doing it.

I would also make the UK driving test more about fitting in with road users and road awareness and less about how to do reverse park.

[What's Burning?]

No, not really. To vote for a party whose policies pretty much bankrupted a nation is stupid. Sadly none of the other options seem to have a cajones to make the decision that would make a difference and get us out of this recession thus why I don't vote.

Yeah, sure.

What is that meant to mean?! It is a persons democratic right to choose not to vote just as much as it is their choice to vote. Voting just for the hell of it is a total waste of time unless you truly believe in what you are voting for.

Go ahead, continue not voting it's your right as a citizen, enjoy your rights. What is it meant to mean? What it's meant to mean Andrew is that you habitually or perhaps you just can't help yourself and you go around saying things like;

Labour coming out well in any election just shows how stupid and forgetful the voting public are in the UK.

But when I say that not exercising your right to vote is wasteful, you have a completely rationalized response as to why that's not the case. Yet you're perfectly fine calling someone else's choice stupid. So once again Andrew, you're going off spouting opinionated nonsense, about others, yet when someone states their opinion on the matter, their opinion can't possibly be valid, because it doesn't compute with your perception of the world. So when I place an eye rolley smiley as a response, it means that you're acting quite the vociferous hypocrite and it's not worth discussing a topic with someone who's obstinate and unreasonable. I hope that clears up my response.

How about getting all the people on benefits out working, sweeping streets, emptying bins, etc. If they don't like it then they can get a real job that pays more. Also people who are claiming disability allowance, yes I understand that there is a lot of people who are that disabled. However I am sure some of the people claiming an absolute fortune from the government is not so unwell that they could not sit behind a till at a supermarket.

I also think that a lot of the British public are "too proud" to do some of the lower level jobs but are the 1st to complain that foreigners have stolen said job so they can not work.

in short it annoys the hell out of me that my tax's pay for these bone idle layabouts.

It's not so cut and dry Jabber. No one wants to see corruption and abuse in a welfare system, but that's not the norm, and although it happens, it's greatly magnified and that's what you're pointed to by most conservative politicians, and conservative media. So it's easy to get the working man's ire up telling them that some are taking the system for a free ride. I can't speak for the UK, but in the US, this is no different. However what those same politicians and those same conservative media channels won't show you is the corporations making BILLIONS in profit, that wind up through tax breaks and loopholes not paying any taxes. It's all legal and it's all perpetuated by corporate donations to lobbyist that will push elected official to legislate laws that benefit those same corporations. So a company like GE for example... heard of them? Pay no federal taxes to the government, guess who has to make up for the difference?

Yet these same corporations are reaping the benefits of a stable country, with good infrastructure, cheap energy and efficient distributions systems and bulletproof communications infrastructure, all funded by the government they're not so willing to pay taxes to. These companies aren't going to India or China to set up shop, all they want from those countries is a cheap labor that they'd never be able to get domestically. But the cheap labor part of your minimum wage abolishment is only half the part. Corporations in looking for cheap labor abroad save most of their money by not having to pay for unemployment benefits, health benefits, taxes or salaries, so what they get is to have their cake and eat it too.

Corporate greed, like Gordon Gekko once said, is good.

[andrew]

I had a reply written but you know what, What's Burning?, I'm not going to waste my time. Suffice to say that I think that allowing the crowd that nearly bankrupted the country back in is not a wise move given their pervious track record, thus I I call it a stupid choice but this is a choice that someone is free to make just as much as I make a choice not to vote.

This could be a good mature discussion thread. I'd like to see it continue like that rather than decend into petty mud slinging.

[zurich_allan]

Ok Andrew, I'll explain a little (and it is just a little - I could literally write a book) of my perspective then about why people might decide to vote labour then.

You say that you think it's stupid to vote for 'the lot that nearly bankrupt us'. I say that using one of your own analogies about why Scotland shouldn't have independence, that the reason that the UK will forever more have an unstable econonomy no matter who is in charge, be it Conservative, Labour, Lib Dem or the Monster Raving Loonies is 100% the fault of the Conservatives.

It's not just Scotland that is struggling with no industry, it's the UK in general. Scotland with ship building, Wales with the mines, the Midlands in England. These were all crucial manufacturing or mining areas for the UK along with many others. Thatcher came along and utterly decimated manufacturing the length and breadth of the UK, also destroying our frontline public services with flawed plans on privatisation.

The UK economy is based now predominantly on the service industry which is an area that is notoriously unstable as it's heavily dependent on too many factors external to the UK. We also now have to import much more than in the past constantly paying taxation (if from outside free trade zones) thus just giving away money to other nations.

These are all factors directly related to the Conservative governments of the late '70's - early '90's. Much damage that previous governments had done could be damaging, but recoverable. The nature of what Conservatives did to the UK in that crucial time period was non-recoverable.

When you add to that the fact that historically no matter what Conservative government is in charge at any time, they indisputably have policies that however you look at it end up protecting or giving tax breaks to the super-wealthy, whilst (often via back door methods) punish the worst off. They've only been in charge for 2 years and they've already brought in or proposed policies that do just that.

These are reasons why at a national level I will never ever vote Conservative.

Whomover came into power after Thatcher was doomed from the beginning, first Major, then Blair and finally Brown. Cameron will eventually be the same. To repeat, this is because we in the UK now have a permanently volatile and unstable economy that will never return to being controllable under our own steam as a nation. We are forever reliant now on international economic climate. That is the reality. It is possible to stave the perception off through borrowing and creating the illusion that our economy is doing well, something Blair and Brown learned to their cost because that strategy is entirely untenable in the long term.

So the problem is thus:

Do you as a nation decide to go through continuous peaks and troughs based on two things - the international climate being positive = our own climate can be temporarily strong, followed by the international climate being negative = our own economy suffers badly? We can combat the trough through borrowing to artificially continue our own economic strength in what would otherwise be a recession, but that's a dangerous game to play as you're hoping that the term of your borrowing is matched by the recovery of the international climate so that you can eventually pay off your debts.

OR

Do you live in a permanently volatile economy just spending within your means as a nation but never having any (even artificial) stability.

Now a naive person will always say 'we should always live within our means' and choose option two, but the problem with this is that businesses will fail if exclusively adopting this model as they can't always ride out the recessions. Borrowing is essential in these times. That is utterly indisputable if you know anything whatsoever about economics.

Blair and Brown made massive mistakes with the economy, but that doesn't mean that successive Labour governments can't learn from that. Conservatives ruined our nation and put us into this horrible and non-recoverable position to begin with and are the reason, to repeat, that our economy is screwed forever, no matter who is in charge. They caused the reality that we only have the two choices outlined above.

The real problem is that no party will come out and admit that we are screwed no matter what in terms of the economy - because that would be suicidal unless all parties came out and admitted it.

So I won't make election choices based on the economy because it's a red-herring, I'll make them based on other areas of policy, and I happen to agree much more strongly with Labour policies than Conservative ones.

[darwin dali]

The voice of reason.

And this:

So I won't make election choices based on the economy because it's a red-herring, I'll make them based on other areas of policy, and I happen to agree much more strongly with Labour policies than Conservative ones.