LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!
Comments
-
I have some sympathy for John’s point.rjsterry said:
It wasn't that long ago that I qualified for a small amount of WTC. Given we were in the depths of the recession and I was on a 4-day week, it was very welcome. Maybe your generalisations are just as sweeping as RC's and maybe the kind of person who begrudges how much their neighbours have should find something that pays better if it bothers them that much rather than blaming the government for their lack of skills.john80 said:
It is funny how so few people see that those working their nut off and leaving the house at 7 in the morning were less thankful for their family tax credits than those in charge thought they should be. Turns out they just wanted to be paid more, pay less or the same tax and have little to do with the state. They also had a real problem with their next door neighbour watching day time TV and earning 70 to 90% of their income. Of course not living anywhere near this scenario the wealthy elites can't see this as an issue. This is Labours problem.skyblueamateur said:Labour need to reassess and bang a different drum.
Things like sure-start, youth clubs, community hubs. Things that will make a tangible benefit to those on lower incomes.
Like Blair did, use the populist policies to get elected and then implement the other policies.
Rightly or wrongly banging on about issues that people see as 'PC gone mad' ( a whole other argument that has been done to death on here) just doesn't cut it on the doorstep. It does with the party members but that isn't going to win elections.
I felt Millibands key promise was ‘we won’t touch your benefits’ rather than we aspire to an economy where you shouldn’t need those benefits. I found it the antithesis of aspiration.
A bit harsh to blame wages solely on lack of upskilling. If you are performing a necessary task, shouldn’t it pay a living wage? That is not the case in many jobs. A functioning economy needs people who are happy to do unskilled work. They won’t and shouldn’t get rich doing so but nor should they need handouts.1 -
Absolutely bang on. It should always pay to work as well. Being brought up in a very Labour and union supporting household it was drummed into us as kids to have a good work ethic.morstar said:
I have some sympathy for John’s point.rjsterry said:
It wasn't that long ago that I qualified for a small amount of WTC. Given we were in the depths of the recession and I was on a 4-day week, it was very welcome. Maybe your generalisations are just as sweeping as RC's and maybe the kind of person who begrudges how much their neighbours have should find something that pays better if it bothers them that much rather than blaming the government for their lack of skills.john80 said:
It is funny how so few people see that those working their nut off and leaving the house at 7 in the morning were less thankful for their family tax credits than those in charge thought they should be. Turns out they just wanted to be paid more, pay less or the same tax and have little to do with the state. They also had a real problem with their next door neighbour watching day time TV and earning 70 to 90% of their income. Of course not living anywhere near this scenario the wealthy elites can't see this as an issue. This is Labours problem.skyblueamateur said:Labour need to reassess and bang a different drum.
Things like sure-start, youth clubs, community hubs. Things that will make a tangible benefit to those on lower incomes.
Like Blair did, use the populist policies to get elected and then implement the other policies.
Rightly or wrongly banging on about issues that people see as 'PC gone mad' ( a whole other argument that has been done to death on here) just doesn't cut it on the doorstep. It does with the party members but that isn't going to win elections.
I felt Millibands key promise was ‘we won’t touch your benefits’ rather than we aspire to an economy where you shouldn’t need those benefits. I found it the antithesis of aspiration.
A bit harsh to blame wages solely on lack of upskilling. If you are performing a necessary task, shouldn’t it pay a living wage? That is not the case in many jobs. A functioning economy needs people who are happy to do unskilled work. They won’t and shouldn’t get rich doing so but nor should they need handouts.0 -
1) yes it is probably too early but I love trying to call things early and I happy to take the grief for getting it wrong for sticking my neck outsurrey_commuter said:@rick_chasey I think it is far too early to be calling the start of a new “mega trend” and here are a couple of reasons
Brexit split by age and Leavers care a lot more than Remainers so voted to get Brexit done, this impact must be expected to lessen relatively quickly.
I think you are ignoring the impact of populism, whereby a charismatic oaf makes undeliverable promises that target across traditional party lines. Because he is a charismatic oaf nobody seems to mind when these undeliverable promises are not delivered.
So you always encourage us to stop thinking along traditional lines so how about stop thinking about it as the same “Conservative and Unionist Party” because about the only thing Boris has in common with Maggie is the colour of the rosette. So the ex-Labour voters now voting Tory are the only consistent part of the equation as they are voting for the same policies they have always voted for.
Lastly, you know where I stand politically - who should I vote for?
2) I think FPTP hides a lot of changes so when they do happen they tend to 'snap' quite quickly and Brexit was a snap
3) I think you have the causal part of populism back-to-front. I don't believe in the idea people get duped by some charismatic leader. I think the politics are there it's just some people capture it better. I think a decade of austerity has really hurt a lot of the market towns etc which has driven populism and has led to a fair bit of brain drain to cities who have seen their competitive advantage increase. That has also solidified the labour-for-cities, Tories-for-the-rest split. I recon we will see this in the next census.
BoJo and Cummings have capitalised on that development, not the other way around.
4) who should you vote for? Honestly, I have no idea.0 -
It should pay to work ≠ those who for whatever reason can't work should be even worse off.skyblueamateur said:
Absolutely bang on. It should always pay to work as well. Being brought up in a very Labour and union supporting household it was drummed into us as kids to have a good work ethic.morstar said:
I have some sympathy for John’s point.rjsterry said:
It wasn't that long ago that I qualified for a small amount of WTC. Given we were in the depths of the recession and I was on a 4-day week, it was very welcome. Maybe your generalisations are just as sweeping as RC's and maybe the kind of person who begrudges how much their neighbours have should find something that pays better if it bothers them that much rather than blaming the government for their lack of skills.john80 said:
It is funny how so few people see that those working their nut off and leaving the house at 7 in the morning were less thankful for their family tax credits than those in charge thought they should be. Turns out they just wanted to be paid more, pay less or the same tax and have little to do with the state. They also had a real problem with their next door neighbour watching day time TV and earning 70 to 90% of their income. Of course not living anywhere near this scenario the wealthy elites can't see this as an issue. This is Labours problem.skyblueamateur said:Labour need to reassess and bang a different drum.
Things like sure-start, youth clubs, community hubs. Things that will make a tangible benefit to those on lower incomes.
Like Blair did, use the populist policies to get elected and then implement the other policies.
Rightly or wrongly banging on about issues that people see as 'PC gone mad' ( a whole other argument that has been done to death on here) just doesn't cut it on the doorstep. It does with the party members but that isn't going to win elections.
I felt Millibands key promise was ‘we won’t touch your benefits’ rather than we aspire to an economy where you shouldn’t need those benefits. I found it the antithesis of aspiration.
A bit harsh to blame wages solely on lack of upskilling. If you are performing a necessary task, shouldn’t it pay a living wage? That is not the case in many jobs. A functioning economy needs people who are happy to do unskilled work. They won’t and shouldn’t get rich doing so but nor should they need handouts.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
That's not what I'm saying. Of course those that cannot work should be looked after. Do you believe the majority of the long termed unemployed are in that category though?rjsterry said:
It should pay to work ≠ those who for whatever reason can't work should be even worse off.skyblueamateur said:
Absolutely bang on. It should always pay to work as well. Being brought up in a very Labour and union supporting household it was drummed into us as kids to have a good work ethic.morstar said:
I have some sympathy for John’s point.rjsterry said:
It wasn't that long ago that I qualified for a small amount of WTC. Given we were in the depths of the recession and I was on a 4-day week, it was very welcome. Maybe your generalisations are just as sweeping as RC's and maybe the kind of person who begrudges how much their neighbours have should find something that pays better if it bothers them that much rather than blaming the government for their lack of skills.john80 said:
It is funny how so few people see that those working their nut off and leaving the house at 7 in the morning were less thankful for their family tax credits than those in charge thought they should be. Turns out they just wanted to be paid more, pay less or the same tax and have little to do with the state. They also had a real problem with their next door neighbour watching day time TV and earning 70 to 90% of their income. Of course not living anywhere near this scenario the wealthy elites can't see this as an issue. This is Labours problem.skyblueamateur said:Labour need to reassess and bang a different drum.
Things like sure-start, youth clubs, community hubs. Things that will make a tangible benefit to those on lower incomes.
Like Blair did, use the populist policies to get elected and then implement the other policies.
Rightly or wrongly banging on about issues that people see as 'PC gone mad' ( a whole other argument that has been done to death on here) just doesn't cut it on the doorstep. It does with the party members but that isn't going to win elections.
I felt Millibands key promise was ‘we won’t touch your benefits’ rather than we aspire to an economy where you shouldn’t need those benefits. I found it the antithesis of aspiration.
A bit harsh to blame wages solely on lack of upskilling. If you are performing a necessary task, shouldn’t it pay a living wage? That is not the case in many jobs. A functioning economy needs people who are happy to do unskilled work. They won’t and shouldn’t get rich doing so but nor should they need handouts.0 -
I'm pretty sure it's a fact.skyblueamateur said:
That's not what I'm saying. Of course those that cannot work should be looked after. Do you believe the majority of the long termed unemployed are in that category though?rjsterry said:
It should pay to work ≠ those who for whatever reason can't work should be even worse off.skyblueamateur said:
Absolutely bang on. It should always pay to work as well. Being brought up in a very Labour and union supporting household it was drummed into us as kids to have a good work ethic.morstar said:
I have some sympathy for John’s point.rjsterry said:
It wasn't that long ago that I qualified for a small amount of WTC. Given we were in the depths of the recession and I was on a 4-day week, it was very welcome. Maybe your generalisations are just as sweeping as RC's and maybe the kind of person who begrudges how much their neighbours have should find something that pays better if it bothers them that much rather than blaming the government for their lack of skills.john80 said:
It is funny how so few people see that those working their nut off and leaving the house at 7 in the morning were less thankful for their family tax credits than those in charge thought they should be. Turns out they just wanted to be paid more, pay less or the same tax and have little to do with the state. They also had a real problem with their next door neighbour watching day time TV and earning 70 to 90% of their income. Of course not living anywhere near this scenario the wealthy elites can't see this as an issue. This is Labours problem.skyblueamateur said:Labour need to reassess and bang a different drum.
Things like sure-start, youth clubs, community hubs. Things that will make a tangible benefit to those on lower incomes.
Like Blair did, use the populist policies to get elected and then implement the other policies.
Rightly or wrongly banging on about issues that people see as 'PC gone mad' ( a whole other argument that has been done to death on here) just doesn't cut it on the doorstep. It does with the party members but that isn't going to win elections.
I felt Millibands key promise was ‘we won’t touch your benefits’ rather than we aspire to an economy where you shouldn’t need those benefits. I found it the antithesis of aspiration.
A bit harsh to blame wages solely on lack of upskilling. If you are performing a necessary task, shouldn’t it pay a living wage? That is not the case in many jobs. A functioning economy needs people who are happy to do unskilled work. They won’t and shouldn’t get rich doing so but nor should they need handouts.
It's just the MSM make you think it's not true. Benefit 'cheats' are so small as to be inconsequential on the overall cost of the welfare state, but they make a good DM headline.0 -
So surely the following is reasonable.rjsterry said:
It should pay to work ≠ those who for whatever reason can't work should be even worse off.skyblueamateur said:
Absolutely bang on. It should always pay to work as well. Being brought up in a very Labour and union supporting household it was drummed into us as kids to have a good work ethic.morstar said:
I have some sympathy for John’s point.rjsterry said:
It wasn't that long ago that I qualified for a small amount of WTC. Given we were in the depths of the recession and I was on a 4-day week, it was very welcome. Maybe your generalisations are just as sweeping as RC's and maybe the kind of person who begrudges how much their neighbours have should find something that pays better if it bothers them that much rather than blaming the government for their lack of skills.john80 said:
It is funny how so few people see that those working their nut off and leaving the house at 7 in the morning were less thankful for their family tax credits than those in charge thought they should be. Turns out they just wanted to be paid more, pay less or the same tax and have little to do with the state. They also had a real problem with their next door neighbour watching day time TV and earning 70 to 90% of their income. Of course not living anywhere near this scenario the wealthy elites can't see this as an issue. This is Labours problem.skyblueamateur said:Labour need to reassess and bang a different drum.
Things like sure-start, youth clubs, community hubs. Things that will make a tangible benefit to those on lower incomes.
Like Blair did, use the populist policies to get elected and then implement the other policies.
Rightly or wrongly banging on about issues that people see as 'PC gone mad' ( a whole other argument that has been done to death on here) just doesn't cut it on the doorstep. It does with the party members but that isn't going to win elections.
I felt Millibands key promise was ‘we won’t touch your benefits’ rather than we aspire to an economy where you shouldn’t need those benefits. I found it the antithesis of aspiration.
A bit harsh to blame wages solely on lack of upskilling. If you are performing a necessary task, shouldn’t it pay a living wage? That is not the case in many jobs. A functioning economy needs people who are happy to do unskilled work. They won’t and shouldn’t get rich doing so but nor should they need handouts.
Those who can’t work should be able to get by.
Those who can work should get by and find value in working.
Whereas we have people working who can’t make ends meet and those who can’t work on a varying scale of absolute poverty to the odd instance of successfully milking a comfortable lifestyle.
The latter are used as an excuse to keep a significantly larger group of people poor.0 -
I must move in different circles to most on here as there were loads of kids at school who's families never worked and they then did exactly the same after leaving school.shirley_basso said:
I'm pretty sure it's a fact.skyblueamateur said:
That's not what I'm saying. Of course those that cannot work should be looked after. Do you believe the majority of the long termed unemployed are in that category though?rjsterry said:
It should pay to work ≠ those who for whatever reason can't work should be even worse off.skyblueamateur said:
Absolutely bang on. It should always pay to work as well. Being brought up in a very Labour and union supporting household it was drummed into us as kids to have a good work ethic.morstar said:
I have some sympathy for John’s point.rjsterry said:
It wasn't that long ago that I qualified for a small amount of WTC. Given we were in the depths of the recession and I was on a 4-day week, it was very welcome. Maybe your generalisations are just as sweeping as RC's and maybe the kind of person who begrudges how much their neighbours have should find something that pays better if it bothers them that much rather than blaming the government for their lack of skills.john80 said:
It is funny how so few people see that those working their nut off and leaving the house at 7 in the morning were less thankful for their family tax credits than those in charge thought they should be. Turns out they just wanted to be paid more, pay less or the same tax and have little to do with the state. They also had a real problem with their next door neighbour watching day time TV and earning 70 to 90% of their income. Of course not living anywhere near this scenario the wealthy elites can't see this as an issue. This is Labours problem.skyblueamateur said:Labour need to reassess and bang a different drum.
Things like sure-start, youth clubs, community hubs. Things that will make a tangible benefit to those on lower incomes.
Like Blair did, use the populist policies to get elected and then implement the other policies.
Rightly or wrongly banging on about issues that people see as 'PC gone mad' ( a whole other argument that has been done to death on here) just doesn't cut it on the doorstep. It does with the party members but that isn't going to win elections.
I felt Millibands key promise was ‘we won’t touch your benefits’ rather than we aspire to an economy where you shouldn’t need those benefits. I found it the antithesis of aspiration.
A bit harsh to blame wages solely on lack of upskilling. If you are performing a necessary task, shouldn’t it pay a living wage? That is not the case in many jobs. A functioning economy needs people who are happy to do unskilled work. They won’t and shouldn’t get rich doing so but nor should they need handouts.
It's just the MSM make you think it's not true. Benefit 'cheats' are so small as to be inconsequential on the overall cost of the welfare state, but they make a good DM headline.
For me the working poor should be the primary focus of the Labour party. That and helping people back into work where possible.1 -
Think about Trump to remove the emotion. He is charismatic and made lots of undeliverable promises which he then failed to deliver and yet his supporters (many new Republicans) still voted for him again in numbers that meant he only just lost.rick_chasey said:
1) yes it is probably too early but I love trying to call things early and I happy to take the grief for getting it wrong for sticking my neck outsurrey_commuter said:@rick_chasey I think it is far too early to be calling the start of a new “mega trend” and here are a couple of reasons
Brexit split by age and Leavers care a lot more than Remainers so voted to get Brexit done, this impact must be expected to lessen relatively quickly.
I think you are ignoring the impact of populism, whereby a charismatic oaf makes undeliverable promises that target across traditional party lines. Because he is a charismatic oaf nobody seems to mind when these undeliverable promises are not delivered.
So you always encourage us to stop thinking along traditional lines so how about stop thinking about it as the same “Conservative and Unionist Party” because about the only thing Boris has in common with Maggie is the colour of the rosette. So the ex-Labour voters now voting Tory are the only consistent part of the equation as they are voting for the same policies they have always voted for.
Lastly, you know where I stand politically - who should I vote for?
2) I think FPTP hides a lot of changes so when they do happen they tend to 'snap' quite quickly and Brexit was a snap
3) I think you have the causal part of populism back-to-front. I don't believe in the idea people get duped by some charismatic leader. I think the politics are there it's just some people capture it better. I think a decade of austerity has really hurt a lot of the market towns etc which has driven populism and has led to a fair bit of brain drain to cities who have seen their competitive advantage increase. That has also solidified the labour-for-cities, Tories-for-the-rest split. I recon we will see this in the next census.
BoJo and Cummings have capitalised on that development, not the other way around.
4) who should you vote for? Honestly, I have no idea.
Now consider the new Tories who voted for Brexit based upon undeliverable promises yet a few years later voted for Boris based upon undeliverable promises to make their lives better by spending even more than Labour. Two years previously these were the same people who denounced Labour's crazy spending plans that would achieve nothing except bankruptcy.
Labour like the Dems should not sit on the sidelines being the grown up they should get down and dirty and rather than calling out the lies they should double down on them.
Imagine if Cameron had bought a bigger bus and wrote "Remain in the EU and we will have £700 million extra to fund the NHS"0 -
Agreed, as I said above there hasn't really been any 'normal' politics since Starmer became leader and everything has been over-shadowed by Covid plus a bit of Brexit. Labour has got 3 years to get themselves sorted out for the next election by which time people's perception of how well or badly Boris did during the pandemic may have been fogotten (unless there is a particularly scathing outcome from any Inquiry) and they should be back to fighting over political policy again. Boris is currently a bit like a wartime PM and even Churchill struggled once the war was over.shirley_basso said:
Not really - because every time they opposed this government it would be easy to shut them up by saying they are being difficult and stopping/hindering the government from helping and thus worsening the pandemic.Stevo_666 said:
Being the opposition in a pandemic would work if he or Labour were any good.shirley_basso said:Gove is ready.
Starmer has to be patient as being the opposition doesn't really work during a pandemic - anything he says will be seen as petty. I hope he absolutely destroys Bojo when the time is right. He should be capable of doing it
Hopefully they are saving their political capital for the second half of this year.
I don't particularly like Labour and so far Kier Starmer hasn't said anything to inspire, but I think a strong opposition is a good thing and I am not a fan of Boris Johnson.0 -
and this is why I think the max amount of benefits should be set lower than the starting point for income tax. That way you have an amount that is considered the min to live on that people can earn without paying tax. The current way we tax the working poor then give them a share of tehir own money back.morstar said:
So surely the following is reasonable.rjsterry said:
It should pay to work ≠ those who for whatever reason can't work should be even worse off.skyblueamateur said:
Absolutely bang on. It should always pay to work as well. Being brought up in a very Labour and union supporting household it was drummed into us as kids to have a good work ethic.morstar said:
I have some sympathy for John’s point.rjsterry said:
It wasn't that long ago that I qualified for a small amount of WTC. Given we were in the depths of the recession and I was on a 4-day week, it was very welcome. Maybe your generalisations are just as sweeping as RC's and maybe the kind of person who begrudges how much their neighbours have should find something that pays better if it bothers them that much rather than blaming the government for their lack of skills.john80 said:
It is funny how so few people see that those working their nut off and leaving the house at 7 in the morning were less thankful for their family tax credits than those in charge thought they should be. Turns out they just wanted to be paid more, pay less or the same tax and have little to do with the state. They also had a real problem with their next door neighbour watching day time TV and earning 70 to 90% of their income. Of course not living anywhere near this scenario the wealthy elites can't see this as an issue. This is Labours problem.skyblueamateur said:Labour need to reassess and bang a different drum.
Things like sure-start, youth clubs, community hubs. Things that will make a tangible benefit to those on lower incomes.
Like Blair did, use the populist policies to get elected and then implement the other policies.
Rightly or wrongly banging on about issues that people see as 'PC gone mad' ( a whole other argument that has been done to death on here) just doesn't cut it on the doorstep. It does with the party members but that isn't going to win elections.
I felt Millibands key promise was ‘we won’t touch your benefits’ rather than we aspire to an economy where you shouldn’t need those benefits. I found it the antithesis of aspiration.
A bit harsh to blame wages solely on lack of upskilling. If you are performing a necessary task, shouldn’t it pay a living wage? That is not the case in many jobs. A functioning economy needs people who are happy to do unskilled work. They won’t and shouldn’t get rich doing so but nor should they need handouts.
Those who can’t work should be able to get by.
Those who can work should get by and find value in working.
Whereas we have people working who can’t make ends meet and those who can’t work on a varying scale of absolute poverty to the odd instance of successfully milking a comfortable lifestyle.
The latter are used as an excuse to keep a significantly larger group of people poor.0 -
Yup. I'd scrap WTC and increase the tax threshold.surrey_commuter said:
and this is why I think the max amount of benefits should be set lower than the starting point for income tax. That way you have an amount that is considered the min to live on that people can earn without paying tax. The current way we tax the working poor then give them a share of tehir own money back.morstar said:
So surely the following is reasonable.rjsterry said:
It should pay to work ≠ those who for whatever reason can't work should be even worse off.skyblueamateur said:
Absolutely bang on. It should always pay to work as well. Being brought up in a very Labour and union supporting household it was drummed into us as kids to have a good work ethic.morstar said:
I have some sympathy for John’s point.rjsterry said:
It wasn't that long ago that I qualified for a small amount of WTC. Given we were in the depths of the recession and I was on a 4-day week, it was very welcome. Maybe your generalisations are just as sweeping as RC's and maybe the kind of person who begrudges how much their neighbours have should find something that pays better if it bothers them that much rather than blaming the government for their lack of skills.john80 said:
It is funny how so few people see that those working their nut off and leaving the house at 7 in the morning were less thankful for their family tax credits than those in charge thought they should be. Turns out they just wanted to be paid more, pay less or the same tax and have little to do with the state. They also had a real problem with their next door neighbour watching day time TV and earning 70 to 90% of their income. Of course not living anywhere near this scenario the wealthy elites can't see this as an issue. This is Labours problem.skyblueamateur said:Labour need to reassess and bang a different drum.
Things like sure-start, youth clubs, community hubs. Things that will make a tangible benefit to those on lower incomes.
Like Blair did, use the populist policies to get elected and then implement the other policies.
Rightly or wrongly banging on about issues that people see as 'PC gone mad' ( a whole other argument that has been done to death on here) just doesn't cut it on the doorstep. It does with the party members but that isn't going to win elections.
I felt Millibands key promise was ‘we won’t touch your benefits’ rather than we aspire to an economy where you shouldn’t need those benefits. I found it the antithesis of aspiration.
A bit harsh to blame wages solely on lack of upskilling. If you are performing a necessary task, shouldn’t it pay a living wage? That is not the case in many jobs. A functioning economy needs people who are happy to do unskilled work. They won’t and shouldn’t get rich doing so but nor should they need handouts.
Those who can’t work should be able to get by.
Those who can work should get by and find value in working.
Whereas we have people working who can’t make ends meet and those who can’t work on a varying scale of absolute poverty to the odd instance of successfully milking a comfortable lifestyle.
The latter are used as an excuse to keep a significantly larger group of people poor.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
I don't think people were voting for Trump for his promises. I don't think most people on the whole are so transactional in their votes - they vote for who they identify with.surrey_commuter said:
Think about Trump to remove the emotion. He is charismatic and made lots of undeliverable promises which he then failed to deliver and yet his supporters (many new Republicans) still voted for him again in numbers that meant he only just lost.rick_chasey said:
1) yes it is probably too early but I love trying to call things early and I happy to take the grief for getting it wrong for sticking my neck outsurrey_commuter said:@rick_chasey I think it is far too early to be calling the start of a new “mega trend” and here are a couple of reasons
Brexit split by age and Leavers care a lot more than Remainers so voted to get Brexit done, this impact must be expected to lessen relatively quickly.
I think you are ignoring the impact of populism, whereby a charismatic oaf makes undeliverable promises that target across traditional party lines. Because he is a charismatic oaf nobody seems to mind when these undeliverable promises are not delivered.
So you always encourage us to stop thinking along traditional lines so how about stop thinking about it as the same “Conservative and Unionist Party” because about the only thing Boris has in common with Maggie is the colour of the rosette. So the ex-Labour voters now voting Tory are the only consistent part of the equation as they are voting for the same policies they have always voted for.
Lastly, you know where I stand politically - who should I vote for?
2) I think FPTP hides a lot of changes so when they do happen they tend to 'snap' quite quickly and Brexit was a snap
3) I think you have the causal part of populism back-to-front. I don't believe in the idea people get duped by some charismatic leader. I think the politics are there it's just some people capture it better. I think a decade of austerity has really hurt a lot of the market towns etc which has driven populism and has led to a fair bit of brain drain to cities who have seen their competitive advantage increase. That has also solidified the labour-for-cities, Tories-for-the-rest split. I recon we will see this in the next census.
BoJo and Cummings have capitalised on that development, not the other way around.
4) who should you vote for? Honestly, I have no idea.
Now consider the new Tories who voted for Brexit based upon undeliverable promises yet a few years later voted for Boris based upon undeliverable promises to make their lives better by spending even more than Labour. Two years previously these were the same people who denounced Labour's crazy spending plans that would achieve nothing except bankruptcy.
Labour like the Dems should not sit on the sidelines being the grown up they should get down and dirty and rather than calling out the lies they should double down on them.
Imagine if Cameron had bought a bigger bus and wrote "Remain in the EU and we will have £700 million extra to fund the NHS"
Trump said what a lot of people felt they "weren't allowed to say". His politics have always been there in the US - the Republicans were never honest about that. Trump was. I don't agree people voted for Trump because they were duped by his lies. People are not that stupid.
Look at the voting breakdown here. There's a less stark trend re age but the trend is still there (and ultimately the generational divide is smaller in the US, so that figures).
It is also a bit more complicated - the states is a bigger place and there are different dynamics at play.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/11/03/us/elections/exit-polls-president.html
I don't agree with your strategy re non-Tories getting as mucky with the truth as the Tories are.
There is a centre left majority in the UK on the overall numbers - it does not translate well in FPTP.
I think the vast majority in that group are really turned off by the populist approach. I don't think you fight populism with more populism.
I *do* think you need to understand the contemporary political climate and dynamic and play to that.
Labour are absolute kings of fighting decades old battles, both internally and on election day.
Corbyn was a relic from early 80s politics. Most of their members absolutely loathe their most successful ever leader, and refuse to learn the lessons from his success - ie. winning is about providing a narrative of success that puts you at the centre and people buy into.
0 -
I think you are giving people too much credit when it comes to politics.rick_chasey said:I don't agree people voted for Trump because they were duped by his lies. People are not that stupid.
They accept headlines and TV soundbites as gospel and dig no further.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Nonsense. I regularly get called arrogant but that is an arrogant position to take.pblakeney said:
I think you are giving people too much credit when it comes to politics.rick_chasey said:I don't agree people voted for Trump because they were duped by his lies. People are not that stupid.
They accept headlines and TV soundbites as gospel and dig no further.
Everyone can spot a liar.
People don't mind liars if they lie for reasons they agree with.0 -
Happy to agree to disagree, the 3rd sentence is the most applicable.rick_chasey said:
Nonsense. I regularly get called arrogant but that is an arrogant position to take.pblakeney said:
I think you are giving people too much credit when it comes to politics.rick_chasey said:I don't agree people voted for Trump because they were duped by his lies. People are not that stupid.
They accept headlines and TV soundbites as gospel and dig no further.
Everyone can spot a liar.
People don't mind liars if they lie for reasons they agree with.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
I live as a pragmatist where if there is not a difference between working and not then those at the bottom won't work. You live in an idealised world where people will knock their pans in for a couple of quid extra. If everyone upskills as per your prior argument who does all the jobs that are more worthwhile than many above that pay grade.rjsterry said:
It should pay to work ≠ those who for whatever reason can't work should be even worse off.skyblueamateur said:
Absolutely bang on. It should always pay to work as well. Being brought up in a very Labour and union supporting household it was drummed into us as kids to have a good work ethic.morstar said:
I have some sympathy for John’s point.rjsterry said:
It wasn't that long ago that I qualified for a small amount of WTC. Given we were in the depths of the recession and I was on a 4-day week, it was very welcome. Maybe your generalisations are just as sweeping as RC's and maybe the kind of person who begrudges how much their neighbours have should find something that pays better if it bothers them that much rather than blaming the government for their lack of skills.john80 said:
It is funny how so few people see that those working their nut off and leaving the house at 7 in the morning were less thankful for their family tax credits than those in charge thought they should be. Turns out they just wanted to be paid more, pay less or the same tax and have little to do with the state. They also had a real problem with their next door neighbour watching day time TV and earning 70 to 90% of their income. Of course not living anywhere near this scenario the wealthy elites can't see this as an issue. This is Labours problem.skyblueamateur said:Labour need to reassess and bang a different drum.
Things like sure-start, youth clubs, community hubs. Things that will make a tangible benefit to those on lower incomes.
Like Blair did, use the populist policies to get elected and then implement the other policies.
Rightly or wrongly banging on about issues that people see as 'PC gone mad' ( a whole other argument that has been done to death on here) just doesn't cut it on the doorstep. It does with the party members but that isn't going to win elections.
I felt Millibands key promise was ‘we won’t touch your benefits’ rather than we aspire to an economy where you shouldn’t need those benefits. I found it the antithesis of aspiration.
A bit harsh to blame wages solely on lack of upskilling. If you are performing a necessary task, shouldn’t it pay a living wage? That is not the case in many jobs. A functioning economy needs people who are happy to do unskilled work. They won’t and shouldn’t get rich doing so but nor should they need handouts.0 -
You hit the nail on the head. There is no honour in doing a menial job and having nothing to show for it at the end of the week.morstar said:
So surely the following is reasonable.rjsterry said:
It should pay to work ≠ those who for whatever reason can't work should be even worse off.skyblueamateur said:
Absolutely bang on. It should always pay to work as well. Being brought up in a very Labour and union supporting household it was drummed into us as kids to have a good work ethic.morstar said:
I have some sympathy for John’s point.rjsterry said:
It wasn't that long ago that I qualified for a small amount of WTC. Given we were in the depths of the recession and I was on a 4-day week, it was very welcome. Maybe your generalisations are just as sweeping as RC's and maybe the kind of person who begrudges how much their neighbours have should find something that pays better if it bothers them that much rather than blaming the government for their lack of skills.john80 said:
It is funny how so few people see that those working their nut off and leaving the house at 7 in the morning were less thankful for their family tax credits than those in charge thought they should be. Turns out they just wanted to be paid more, pay less or the same tax and have little to do with the state. They also had a real problem with their next door neighbour watching day time TV and earning 70 to 90% of their income. Of course not living anywhere near this scenario the wealthy elites can't see this as an issue. This is Labours problem.skyblueamateur said:Labour need to reassess and bang a different drum.
Things like sure-start, youth clubs, community hubs. Things that will make a tangible benefit to those on lower incomes.
Like Blair did, use the populist policies to get elected and then implement the other policies.
Rightly or wrongly banging on about issues that people see as 'PC gone mad' ( a whole other argument that has been done to death on here) just doesn't cut it on the doorstep. It does with the party members but that isn't going to win elections.
I felt Millibands key promise was ‘we won’t touch your benefits’ rather than we aspire to an economy where you shouldn’t need those benefits. I found it the antithesis of aspiration.
A bit harsh to blame wages solely on lack of upskilling. If you are performing a necessary task, shouldn’t it pay a living wage? That is not the case in many jobs. A functioning economy needs people who are happy to do unskilled work. They won’t and shouldn’t get rich doing so but nor should they need handouts.
Those who can’t work should be able to get by.
Those who can work should get by and find value in working.
Whereas we have people working who can’t make ends meet and those who can’t work on a varying scale of absolute poverty to the odd instance of successfully milking a comfortable lifestyle.
The latter are used as an excuse to keep a significantly larger group of people poor.0 -
what % of people could name the leader of the Labour Party?rick_chasey said:
Nonsense. I regularly get called arrogant but that is an arrogant position to take.pblakeney said:
I think you are giving people too much credit when it comes to politics.rick_chasey said:I don't agree people voted for Trump because they were duped by his lies. People are not that stupid.
They accept headlines and TV soundbites as gospel and dig no further.
Everyone can spot a liar.
People don't mind liars if they lie for reasons they agree with.
how many people could name the leader of the Lib Dems?
Most people have nowhere near the interest that you do
at a rough guess one third don't care, one third vote for the rosette and one third care and have a reasonable amount of knowledge0 -
Your're one of these people who lives by calling themselves a pragmatist and then spouting complete evidence free nonsense...john80 said:
I live as a pragmatist where if there is not a difference between working and not then those at the bottom won't work. You live in an idealised world where people will knock their pans in for a couple of quid extra. If everyone upskills as per your prior argument who does all the jobs that are more worthwhile than many above that pay grade.rjsterry said:
It should pay to work ≠ those who for whatever reason can't work should be even worse off.skyblueamateur said:
Absolutely bang on. It should always pay to work as well. Being brought up in a very Labour and union supporting household it was drummed into us as kids to have a good work ethic.morstar said:
I have some sympathy for John’s point.rjsterry said:
It wasn't that long ago that I qualified for a small amount of WTC. Given we were in the depths of the recession and I was on a 4-day week, it was very welcome. Maybe your generalisations are just as sweeping as RC's and maybe the kind of person who begrudges how much their neighbours have should find something that pays better if it bothers them that much rather than blaming the government for their lack of skills.john80 said:
It is funny how so few people see that those working their nut off and leaving the house at 7 in the morning were less thankful for their family tax credits than those in charge thought they should be. Turns out they just wanted to be paid more, pay less or the same tax and have little to do with the state. They also had a real problem with their next door neighbour watching day time TV and earning 70 to 90% of their income. Of course not living anywhere near this scenario the wealthy elites can't see this as an issue. This is Labours problem.skyblueamateur said:Labour need to reassess and bang a different drum.
Things like sure-start, youth clubs, community hubs. Things that will make a tangible benefit to those on lower incomes.
Like Blair did, use the populist policies to get elected and then implement the other policies.
Rightly or wrongly banging on about issues that people see as 'PC gone mad' ( a whole other argument that has been done to death on here) just doesn't cut it on the doorstep. It does with the party members but that isn't going to win elections.
I felt Millibands key promise was ‘we won’t touch your benefits’ rather than we aspire to an economy where you shouldn’t need those benefits. I found it the antithesis of aspiration.
A bit harsh to blame wages solely on lack of upskilling. If you are performing a necessary task, shouldn’t it pay a living wage? That is not the case in many jobs. A functioning economy needs people who are happy to do unskilled work. They won’t and shouldn’t get rich doing so but nor should they need handouts.We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
Yes, seems fair. However I'm not sure wanting to be paid more for lower skilled jobs, is compatible with everything being delivered to your door at negligible cost and expecting your elderly parents care to be covered by the local authority at the same time as they reduce their Council tax.morstar said:
So surely the following is reasonable.rjsterry said:
It should pay to work ≠ those who for whatever reason can't work should be even worse off.skyblueamateur said:
Absolutely bang on. It should always pay to work as well. Being brought up in a very Labour and union supporting household it was drummed into us as kids to have a good work ethic.morstar said:
I have some sympathy for John’s point.rjsterry said:
It wasn't that long ago that I qualified for a small amount of WTC. Given we were in the depths of the recession and I was on a 4-day week, it was very welcome. Maybe your generalisations are just as sweeping as RC's and maybe the kind of person who begrudges how much their neighbours have should find something that pays better if it bothers them that much rather than blaming the government for their lack of skills.john80 said:
It is funny how so few people see that those working their nut off and leaving the house at 7 in the morning were less thankful for their family tax credits than those in charge thought they should be. Turns out they just wanted to be paid more, pay less or the same tax and have little to do with the state. They also had a real problem with their next door neighbour watching day time TV and earning 70 to 90% of their income. Of course not living anywhere near this scenario the wealthy elites can't see this as an issue. This is Labours problem.skyblueamateur said:Labour need to reassess and bang a different drum.
Things like sure-start, youth clubs, community hubs. Things that will make a tangible benefit to those on lower incomes.
Like Blair did, use the populist policies to get elected and then implement the other policies.
Rightly or wrongly banging on about issues that people see as 'PC gone mad' ( a whole other argument that has been done to death on here) just doesn't cut it on the doorstep. It does with the party members but that isn't going to win elections.
I felt Millibands key promise was ‘we won’t touch your benefits’ rather than we aspire to an economy where you shouldn’t need those benefits. I found it the antithesis of aspiration.
A bit harsh to blame wages solely on lack of upskilling. If you are performing a necessary task, shouldn’t it pay a living wage? That is not the case in many jobs. A functioning economy needs people who are happy to do unskilled work. They won’t and shouldn’t get rich doing so but nor should they need handouts.
Those who can’t work should be able to get by.
Those who can work should get by and find value in working.
Whereas we have people working who can’t make ends meet and those who can’t work on a varying scale of absolute poverty to the odd instance of successfully milking a comfortable lifestyle.
The latter are used as an excuse to keep a significantly larger group of people poor.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
It's been shown people are not very good at spotting liars. No better than chance in controlled tests. Agree that people disregard things that don't fit with their point of view.rick_chasey said:
Nonsense. I regularly get called arrogant but that is an arrogant position to take.pblakeney said:
I think you are giving people too much credit when it comes to politics.rick_chasey said:I don't agree people voted for Trump because they were duped by his lies. People are not that stupid.
They accept headlines and TV soundbites as gospel and dig no further.
Everyone can spot a liar.
People don't mind liars if they lie for reasons they agree with.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Sure, but I think most people would say "politicians are liars, they all lie" yet they are giving their vote to someone.rjsterry said:
It's been shown people are not very good at spotting liars. No better than chance in controlled tests. Agree that people disregard things that don't fit with their point of view.rick_chasey said:
Nonsense. I regularly get called arrogant but that is an arrogant position to take.pblakeney said:
I think you are giving people too much credit when it comes to politics.rick_chasey said:I don't agree people voted for Trump because they were duped by his lies. People are not that stupid.
They accept headlines and TV soundbites as gospel and dig no further.
Everyone can spot a liar.
People don't mind liars if they lie for reasons they agree with.
I've never met anyone who says "politicians tell the truth".
I don't think they accept headlines and TV soundbites from politicians as gospel. I really don't. Maybe from whatever news outlet the read.
If I were labour I would try to work out a vision of what opportunity looks like for people across the country and be a more positive party.
So far they are spending a lot of time trying to pretend this is the Tories of the early '90s, which I guess is a mild improvement of Corbyn pretending it's the early '80s.0 -
It's certainly fashionable to say that they're all a bunch of lying so-and-sos out for their own gain, but I think generally, most are quite careful not to directly lie.rick_chasey said:
Sure, but I think most people would say "politicians are liars, they all lie" yet they are giving their vote to someone.rjsterry said:
It's been shown people are not very good at spotting liars. No better than chance in controlled tests. Agree that people disregard things that don't fit with their point of view.rick_chasey said:
Nonsense. I regularly get called arrogant but that is an arrogant position to take.pblakeney said:
I think you are giving people too much credit when it comes to politics.rick_chasey said:I don't agree people voted for Trump because they were duped by his lies. People are not that stupid.
They accept headlines and TV soundbites as gospel and dig no further.
Everyone can spot a liar.
People don't mind liars if they lie for reasons they agree with.
I've never met anyone who says "politicians tell the truth".
I don't think they accept headlines and TV soundbites from politicians as gospel. I really don't. Maybe from whatever news outlet the read.
If I were labour I would try to work out a vision of what opportunity looks like for people across the country and be a more positive party.
So far they are spending a lot of time trying to pretend this is the Tories of the early '90s, which I guess is a mild improvement of Corbyn pretending it's the early '80s.
I agree Labour could do with articulating what they are for rather than what they are against. I follow local politics in my area and most of it seems to consist of endlessly slagging off the other party with no concrete proposal of what to do instead.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
If you’re suggesting that I’m suggesting the latter...rjsterry said:
Yes, seems fair. However I'm not sure wanting to be paid more for lower skilled jobs, is compatible with everything being delivered to your door at negligible cost and expecting your elderly parents care to be covered by the local authority at the same time as they reduce their Council tax.morstar said:
So surely the following is reasonable.rjsterry said:
It should pay to work ≠ those who for whatever reason can't work should be even worse off.skyblueamateur said:
Absolutely bang on. It should always pay to work as well. Being brought up in a very Labour and union supporting household it was drummed into us as kids to have a good work ethic.morstar said:
I have some sympathy for John’s point.rjsterry said:
It wasn't that long ago that I qualified for a small amount of WTC. Given we were in the depths of the recession and I was on a 4-day week, it was very welcome. Maybe your generalisations are just as sweeping as RC's and maybe the kind of person who begrudges how much their neighbours have should find something that pays better if it bothers them that much rather than blaming the government for their lack of skills.john80 said:
It is funny how so few people see that those working their nut off and leaving the house at 7 in the morning were less thankful for their family tax credits than those in charge thought they should be. Turns out they just wanted to be paid more, pay less or the same tax and have little to do with the state. They also had a real problem with their next door neighbour watching day time TV and earning 70 to 90% of their income. Of course not living anywhere near this scenario the wealthy elites can't see this as an issue. This is Labours problem.skyblueamateur said:Labour need to reassess and bang a different drum.
Things like sure-start, youth clubs, community hubs. Things that will make a tangible benefit to those on lower incomes.
Like Blair did, use the populist policies to get elected and then implement the other policies.
Rightly or wrongly banging on about issues that people see as 'PC gone mad' ( a whole other argument that has been done to death on here) just doesn't cut it on the doorstep. It does with the party members but that isn't going to win elections.
I felt Millibands key promise was ‘we won’t touch your benefits’ rather than we aspire to an economy where you shouldn’t need those benefits. I found it the antithesis of aspiration.
A bit harsh to blame wages solely on lack of upskilling. If you are performing a necessary task, shouldn’t it pay a living wage? That is not the case in many jobs. A functioning economy needs people who are happy to do unskilled work. They won’t and shouldn’t get rich doing so but nor should they need handouts.
Those who can’t work should be able to get by.
Those who can work should get by and find value in working.
Whereas we have people working who can’t make ends meet and those who can’t work on a varying scale of absolute poverty to the odd instance of successfully milking a comfortable lifestyle.
The latter are used as an excuse to keep a significantly larger group of people poor.
May I suggest to you that your suggestion is not a correct suggestion.0 -
In a round of Pointless 'Politicians eating ice cream'surrey_commuter said:
what % of people could name the leader of the Labour Party?rick_chasey said:
Nonsense. I regularly get called arrogant but that is an arrogant position to take.pblakeney said:
I think you are giving people too much credit when it comes to politics.rick_chasey said:I don't agree people voted for Trump because they were duped by his lies. People are not that stupid.
They accept headlines and TV soundbites as gospel and dig no further.
Everyone can spot a liar.
People don't mind liars if they lie for reasons they agree with.
how many people could name the leader of the Lib Dems?
Most people have nowhere near the interest that you do
at a rough guess one third don't care, one third vote for the rosette and one third care and have a reasonable amount of knowledge
91 of 100 identified Boris Johnson
80 of 100 identified David Cameron
9% of people can't name Boris Johnson when shown his picture
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
Ha! No. I didn't think that's what you meant. I think John's original post was about people wanting a decent wage rather than handouts. That's fine, but the levers available to central government of any stripe are pretty limited. Neither party seem remotely interested in any sort of industrial strategy beyond vague notions of 'new technologies'.morstar said:
If you’re suggesting that I’m suggesting the latter...rjsterry said:
Yes, seems fair. However I'm not sure wanting to be paid more for lower skilled jobs, is compatible with everything being delivered to your door at negligible cost and expecting your elderly parents care to be covered by the local authority at the same time as they reduce their Council tax.morstar said:
So surely the following is reasonable.rjsterry said:
It should pay to work ≠ those who for whatever reason can't work should be even worse off.skyblueamateur said:
Absolutely bang on. It should always pay to work as well. Being brought up in a very Labour and union supporting household it was drummed into us as kids to have a good work ethic.morstar said:
I have some sympathy for John’s point.rjsterry said:
It wasn't that long ago that I qualified for a small amount of WTC. Given we were in the depths of the recession and I was on a 4-day week, it was very welcome. Maybe your generalisations are just as sweeping as RC's and maybe the kind of person who begrudges how much their neighbours have should find something that pays better if it bothers them that much rather than blaming the government for their lack of skills.john80 said:
It is funny how so few people see that those working their nut off and leaving the house at 7 in the morning were less thankful for their family tax credits than those in charge thought they should be. Turns out they just wanted to be paid more, pay less or the same tax and have little to do with the state. They also had a real problem with their next door neighbour watching day time TV and earning 70 to 90% of their income. Of course not living anywhere near this scenario the wealthy elites can't see this as an issue. This is Labours problem.skyblueamateur said:Labour need to reassess and bang a different drum.
Things like sure-start, youth clubs, community hubs. Things that will make a tangible benefit to those on lower incomes.
Like Blair did, use the populist policies to get elected and then implement the other policies.
Rightly or wrongly banging on about issues that people see as 'PC gone mad' ( a whole other argument that has been done to death on here) just doesn't cut it on the doorstep. It does with the party members but that isn't going to win elections.
I felt Millibands key promise was ‘we won’t touch your benefits’ rather than we aspire to an economy where you shouldn’t need those benefits. I found it the antithesis of aspiration.
A bit harsh to blame wages solely on lack of upskilling. If you are performing a necessary task, shouldn’t it pay a living wage? That is not the case in many jobs. A functioning economy needs people who are happy to do unskilled work. They won’t and shouldn’t get rich doing so but nor should they need handouts.
Those who can’t work should be able to get by.
Those who can work should get by and find value in working.
Whereas we have people working who can’t make ends meet and those who can’t work on a varying scale of absolute poverty to the odd instance of successfully milking a comfortable lifestyle.
The latter are used as an excuse to keep a significantly larger group of people poor.
May I suggest to you that your suggestion is not a correct suggestion.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Have they not cottoned onto the fact that new technologies tend to result in a decrease in required manpower?rjsterry said:
Ha! No. I didn't think that's what you meant. I think John's original post was about people wanting a decent wage rather than handouts. That's fine, but the levers available to central government of any stripe are pretty limited. Neither party seem remotely interested in any sort of industrial strategy beyond vague notions of 'new technologies'.morstar said:
If you’re suggesting that I’m suggesting the latter...rjsterry said:
Yes, seems fair. However I'm not sure wanting to be paid more for lower skilled jobs, is compatible with everything being delivered to your door at negligible cost and expecting your elderly parents care to be covered by the local authority at the same time as they reduce their Council tax.morstar said:
So surely the following is reasonable.rjsterry said:
It should pay to work ≠ those who for whatever reason can't work should be even worse off.skyblueamateur said:
Absolutely bang on. It should always pay to work as well. Being brought up in a very Labour and union supporting household it was drummed into us as kids to have a good work ethic.morstar said:
I have some sympathy for John’s point.rjsterry said:
It wasn't that long ago that I qualified for a small amount of WTC. Given we were in the depths of the recession and I was on a 4-day week, it was very welcome. Maybe your generalisations are just as sweeping as RC's and maybe the kind of person who begrudges how much their neighbours have should find something that pays better if it bothers them that much rather than blaming the government for their lack of skills.john80 said:
It is funny how so few people see that those working their nut off and leaving the house at 7 in the morning were less thankful for their family tax credits than those in charge thought they should be. Turns out they just wanted to be paid more, pay less or the same tax and have little to do with the state. They also had a real problem with their next door neighbour watching day time TV and earning 70 to 90% of their income. Of course not living anywhere near this scenario the wealthy elites can't see this as an issue. This is Labours problem.skyblueamateur said:Labour need to reassess and bang a different drum.
Things like sure-start, youth clubs, community hubs. Things that will make a tangible benefit to those on lower incomes.
Like Blair did, use the populist policies to get elected and then implement the other policies.
Rightly or wrongly banging on about issues that people see as 'PC gone mad' ( a whole other argument that has been done to death on here) just doesn't cut it on the doorstep. It does with the party members but that isn't going to win elections.
I felt Millibands key promise was ‘we won’t touch your benefits’ rather than we aspire to an economy where you shouldn’t need those benefits. I found it the antithesis of aspiration.
A bit harsh to blame wages solely on lack of upskilling. If you are performing a necessary task, shouldn’t it pay a living wage? That is not the case in many jobs. A functioning economy needs people who are happy to do unskilled work. They won’t and shouldn’t get rich doing so but nor should they need handouts.
Those who can’t work should be able to get by.
Those who can work should get by and find value in working.
Whereas we have people working who can’t make ends meet and those who can’t work on a varying scale of absolute poverty to the odd instance of successfully milking a comfortable lifestyle.
The latter are used as an excuse to keep a significantly larger group of people poor.
May I suggest to you that your suggestion is not a correct suggestion.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
And tax revenuespblakeney said:
Have they not cottoned onto the fact that new technologies tend to result in a decrease in required manpower?rjsterry said:
Ha! No. I didn't think that's what you meant. I think John's original post was about people wanting a decent wage rather than handouts. That's fine, but the levers available to central government of any stripe are pretty limited. Neither party seem remotely interested in any sort of industrial strategy beyond vague notions of 'new technologies'.morstar said:
If you’re suggesting that I’m suggesting the latter...rjsterry said:
Yes, seems fair. However I'm not sure wanting to be paid more for lower skilled jobs, is compatible with everything being delivered to your door at negligible cost and expecting your elderly parents care to be covered by the local authority at the same time as they reduce their Council tax.morstar said:
So surely the following is reasonable.rjsterry said:
It should pay to work ≠ those who for whatever reason can't work should be even worse off.skyblueamateur said:
Absolutely bang on. It should always pay to work as well. Being brought up in a very Labour and union supporting household it was drummed into us as kids to have a good work ethic.morstar said:
I have some sympathy for John’s point.rjsterry said:
It wasn't that long ago that I qualified for a small amount of WTC. Given we were in the depths of the recession and I was on a 4-day week, it was very welcome. Maybe your generalisations are just as sweeping as RC's and maybe the kind of person who begrudges how much their neighbours have should find something that pays better if it bothers them that much rather than blaming the government for their lack of skills.john80 said:
It is funny how so few people see that those working their nut off and leaving the house at 7 in the morning were less thankful for their family tax credits than those in charge thought they should be. Turns out they just wanted to be paid more, pay less or the same tax and have little to do with the state. They also had a real problem with their next door neighbour watching day time TV and earning 70 to 90% of their income. Of course not living anywhere near this scenario the wealthy elites can't see this as an issue. This is Labours problem.skyblueamateur said:Labour need to reassess and bang a different drum.
Things like sure-start, youth clubs, community hubs. Things that will make a tangible benefit to those on lower incomes.
Like Blair did, use the populist policies to get elected and then implement the other policies.
Rightly or wrongly banging on about issues that people see as 'PC gone mad' ( a whole other argument that has been done to death on here) just doesn't cut it on the doorstep. It does with the party members but that isn't going to win elections.
I felt Millibands key promise was ‘we won’t touch your benefits’ rather than we aspire to an economy where you shouldn’t need those benefits. I found it the antithesis of aspiration.
A bit harsh to blame wages solely on lack of upskilling. If you are performing a necessary task, shouldn’t it pay a living wage? That is not the case in many jobs. A functioning economy needs people who are happy to do unskilled work. They won’t and shouldn’t get rich doing so but nor should they need handouts.
Those who can’t work should be able to get by.
Those who can work should get by and find value in working.
Whereas we have people working who can’t make ends meet and those who can’t work on a varying scale of absolute poverty to the odd instance of successfully milking a comfortable lifestyle.
The latter are used as an excuse to keep a significantly larger group of people poor.
May I suggest to you that your suggestion is not a correct suggestion.0 -
Meh, turnout was in the high 60s last year, a 20 year high. I would put the majority of that 9% comfortably in the non-voting 30%.tailwindhome said:
In a round of Pointless 'Politicians eating ice cream'surrey_commuter said:
what % of people could name the leader of the Labour Party?rick_chasey said:
Nonsense. I regularly get called arrogant but that is an arrogant position to take.pblakeney said:
I think you are giving people too much credit when it comes to politics.rick_chasey said:I don't agree people voted for Trump because they were duped by his lies. People are not that stupid.
They accept headlines and TV soundbites as gospel and dig no further.
Everyone can spot a liar.
People don't mind liars if they lie for reasons they agree with.
how many people could name the leader of the Lib Dems?
Most people have nowhere near the interest that you do
at a rough guess one third don't care, one third vote for the rosette and one third care and have a reasonable amount of knowledge
91 of 100 identified Boris Johnson
80 of 100 identified David Cameron
9% of people can't name Boris Johnson when shown his picture0
