Don't vote Tory

[eFestivals]

7 minutes ago, Junglist1981 said:

Interesting. That sounds like a bad situation really. Part and parcel of running your own business of course, you work long hours and what you're left with is what you get. 

Same as many many  businesses.

Which is why that £10ph proposal is a step too far (especially with the extra business costs alongside it).

 

7 minutes ago, Junglist1981 said:

And as you know accountants do nothing for free! There will be extra work involved in producing quarterly reports and an associated fee, even if it's a piece of piss. Monthly reporting for payroll and CIS is an entirely different kettle of fish.

Nope, it's naff all difference. I might pay an extra tenner a month for the software used with that extra feature, but nothing silly.

7 minutes ago, Junglist1981 said:

I wonder, how do you foresee the Tories helping you?

I don't, and i don't want the tories in power.

But if I was the sort of c**tish employer that (essentially) the Corbyn plan says all employers are (cos they've all got oodles of spare cash to pay these things with), even if I were hit by £1k a year in extra accountant fees*, that would still be cheaper than the extra business taxes and extra wages I'd be required to pay under Labour - which would make the tories the bigger help.

(* which I wouldn't be)

[Bonaneas]

5 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

the party which he's leading.

 

My 'hatred' (not hatred) is for the tories who I want to see out of power. 

Corbyn was never going to be the guy who did it. I said it back then, and it's just as true now.

 

He's got an NHS and free education for his kids.

And if you're an old git like me, you'll have heard the same line for a million years, while we still have an NHS and free education for kids.

Which might, just perhaps, be the reason why that line doesn't work.

Ok. So you think the tories being in power for the next How ever many years is the fault of Corbyn being elected leader of labour? That AN Other would have had a better chance? It's not happening mate, labour faces another half a generation in the wilderness so we better get used to it. And do you know why? People are becoming more selfish. Blame the voters who cherish equity in their homes more than the greater good. 2010 was a surprise, 2015 a shock they won an outright majority. Not many people asked why did people vote Tory instead they concentrate on why didn't they vote labour. 

I'm getting on but I wouldn't call myself an old git just yet !! The NHS is being privatised & outsourced year on year. It's happening. Within 7-10 years you won't be able to leave hospital without paying a bill or enter it without adequate medical insurance. 

[waterfalls212434]

19 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Have you stopped for a moment to consider what Corbyn's view is and how it doesn't differ?

As for the rest, do you think, maybe, that newspapers might be able to do a better job with more revenues, instead of their incomes withering away and leaving only the pay-for-content platforms (which is already most other festival sites to this one) or the unreliable and agenda-driven (facebook, etc)?

The devil is in the details of course, but as an outline suggestion for improved media in a time of declining news-driven media I'm all for it.

Oh yes im sure its all about revenue lol very trusting arent you? Naive id say. 

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, Bonaneas said:

Ahh get away! My opinion on the statistical outcome of this election, the current trading market on that result, and projecting those and other trends (& boundary & demographic changes) into the future to extrapolate an opinion that no labour (or any other party) leader can win a general election versus the tories for the next 10-15 years is a million miles away from what you're implying I said!! I couldn't give two shits who wins or loses, so to correlate the two very disparate comments is highly disingenuous, which is dissapointing because you're better than that. :-)

it's still the same as that Cobynistas line. We're going to lose so we might as well lose gloriously.

Me, i'd prefer someone who tries to win. Something better than the tories, rather than just an empty void.

 

1 minute ago, Bonaneas said:

Cooper led labour would be further behind in the polls than Corbyn led labour. 

We can both only guess.

But there'd be no Chavez or Castro to smear her with, and no IRA, and no Iran, and no anti-west, and she can sing the national anthem, and she wouldn't be in constant conflict with the PLP, and she wouldn't have gone on holiday during the EUref campaign, and labour voters would have known what Labour's position on the EU was, etc, etc, etc ... and quite possibly no brexit, and no economic catastrophe (something else absent from the 'fully costed' manifesto, as i've not mentioned that one yet).

And we know she'd have been slaughtering Cameron and May in PMQs rather than missing every open goal, creating an entirely different perception of Labour.

[Bonaneas]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

it's still the same as that Cobynistas line. We're going to lose so we might as well lose gloriously.

Me, i'd prefer someone who tries to win. Something better than the tories, rather than just an empty void.

 

We can both only guess.

But there'd be no Chavez or Castro to smear her with, and no IRA, and no Iran, and no anti-west, and she can sing the national anthem, and she wouldn't be in constant conflict with the PLP, and she wouldn't have gone on holiday during the EUref campaign, and labour voters would have known what Labour's position on the EU was, etc, etc, etc ... and quite possibly no brexit, and no economic catastrophe (something else absent from the 'fully costed' manifesto, as i've not mentioned that one yet).

And we know she'd have been slaughtering Cameron and May in PMQs rather than missing every open goal, creating an entirely different perception of Labour.

She'd be smeared with Blair & Brown, and that's plenty enough for people not to vote for her after the stench they left behind for labour supporters. 

Sorry are we talking about the same whispering & bumbling Yvette Cooper here?!? Wipe the floor?? Lol ! 

[eFestivals]

Just now, Bonaneas said:

She'd be smeared with Blair & Brown, and that's plenty enough for people not to vote for her after the stench they left behind for labour supporters. 

Sorry are we talking about the same whispering & bumbling Yvette Cooper here?!? Wipe the floor?? Lol ! 

You're the man who claims to care not a fuck for politics.

which is probably why you missed Cooper taking May down.

 

[eFestivals]

6 minutes ago, waterfalls212434 said:

Oh yes im sure its all about revenue lol very trusting arent you? Naive id say. 

you certainly can't have it without revenue, which the degrading situation now. 

[Bonaneas]

7 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

You're the man who claims to care not a fuck for politics.

which is probably why you missed Cooper taking May down.

 

Oh I care not a fuck about election outcomes, about all the surrounding bull shit, but I care very greatly about wider politics and it's place within a broken system. Big difference ! 

Im all ears. Got a link? She may well have but you can't seriously hold cooper up as the great white hope for labour securing power?? Really ? There have to be better alternatives

[eFestivals]

1 hour ago, Bonaneas said:

Oh I care not a fuck about election outcomes, about all the surrounding bull shit, but I care very greatly about wider politics and it's place within a broken system. Big difference ! 

Im all ears. Got a link? She may well have but you can't seriously hold cooper up as the great white hope for labour securing power?? Really ? There have to be better alternatives

I'm merely holding her up as someone who would be getting one over May - because she did, very easily (tho May is not a hard target unless your name is Jeremy) - which is one of the necessaries to beat her in an election.

I don't have a link, nope. But the particular example I'm thinking about was at a PMQ's since the election was announced, and where you can find at least a couple of complimentary comments about her performance that day on these boards by people who aren't me. Feel free to track down the footage yourself &/or to find those comments.

[ukdaasfan]

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

 

He's got an NHS and free education for his kids.

And if you're an old git like me, you'll have heard the same line for a million years, while we still have an NHS and free education for kids.

Which might, just perhaps, be the reason why that line doesn't work.

Yup people have been spinning that line to me since I first voted 24 odd years ago. Yet the NHS is still here and it's budget is equal to the GDP of Hungary. As for free education the schools my children go to are a damn site better than those that I attended. So it doesn't really work on me either.

[The Pretender]

On 19/04/2017 at 9:54 PM, adjwholovesmusic said:

Brexit is a conservative party wet dream. The whole campaign was a stitch up from start to finish and they got the result they have always wanted.  Employment legislation and the protections the EU gives us will start to be eroded once Theresa May gets her EU deal, The NHS will continue it's collapse and end in private hands once free trade agreements are put in place and the continued theme of business first, ordinary people last as the poor get poorer and the rich get richer. Staff in the public sector have not had pay rises for nearly 7 years which for an economy that  is supposedly going from strength to strength is showing no kick backs to it's workers. This mantra is now moving into the private sector where businesses are using the Brexit as an excuse to limit pay increases. By voting conservative we are giving them everything they have ever dreamed off right on their plate. Keep the working people in their place while they reap every single benefit on our behalf. Anyone in any doubt watch this film. 

 

Well said. Also read "The Establishment  by Owen Jones".

So yeah i think i will give it a few more years, and then I'm off to live in the woods.

[eFestivals]

7 minutes ago, The Pretender said:

Well said. Also read "The Establishment  by Owen Jones".

Also read what Owen Jones thinks of Corbyn as leader.

Shame it took him 18months+ to realise. He's one of the worst cheerleaders which caused this.

[Sack truck]

Started a business during the last crash after being made redundant. Hardly made a penny for 5 years and lived off savings then had an ok year and then a good one. Took some staff on then a couple more.  By no means raking it in and have bad months & quarters with ups and downs. I couldn't vote for Corbyn with £10ph wage and with the corporation tax increase. It would mean getting rid of the staff and going back to being on my todd or looking for paid employment. 

[The Pretender]

59 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Also read what Owen Jones thinks of Corbyn as leader.

Shame it took him 18months+ to realise. He's one of the worst cheerleaders which caused this.

Thanks for the recommendation I will have a read. Just to be clear i wasnt taking sides. I think the whole system is fucked.

Id be happy with food, shelter, and love. Im starting to think that may be easier to acheive living in the wild.

[Mardy]

5 hours ago, eFestivals said:

how do most people measure their wellbeing?

As can be seen here by the complaints about the tories, it's all about the money. It's the money that makes the difference.

If you think you can find enough people to buy into the idea "we'll all be much poorer but at least we'll be all poorer together" I wish you luck with that.

 

Marxism is an economic theory at its heart.

I'm not so sure about that. Things like the happiness index, things like the stuff on equal societies having less crime, less mental health issues etc etc mean that i don't believe it's just as clear-cut as being about money. Of course not everybody goes along with that, but i don't believe everybody is a rapacious capitalist. Look, for example, at people coming together in the last 48 hours. There's somethng in that, surely. 

[clarkete]

1 hour ago, ukdaasfan said:

Yup people have been spinning that line to me since I first voted 24 odd years ago. Yet the NHS is still here and it's budget is equal to the GDP of Hungary. As for free education the schools my children go to are a damn site better than those that I attended. So it doesn't really work on me either.

Although the percentage of GDP we spend is quite a bit below most of our eu neighbours, see link below.  If you or @eFestivals know anyone who works in the NHS who thinks it's not in a very sorry state then I'd be pretty shocked to be honest, as anyone I know despairs at the changes Hunt and IDS have made and the additional burden from the latter and his half arsed social care changes.

 

https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/blog/2016/01/how-does-nhs-spending-compare-health-spending-internationally

 

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, Mardy said:

I'm not so sure about that. Things like the happiness index, things like the stuff on equal societies having less crime, less mental health issues etc etc mean that i don't believe it's just as clear-cut as being about money. Of course not everybody goes along with that, but i don't believe everybody is a rapacious capitalist. Look, for example, at people coming together in the last 48 hours. There's somethng in that, surely. 

It's not rich or poor that dictates your happiness, I agree. It's other factors.

But that doesn't stop someone who has been used to getting £x as an income feeling that things have got worse if they're suddenly getting £x-y as their income (or the same effect via prices rising while incomes don't).

No one posts an objection to the tories in the terms of "they make me unhappy". It's *ALWAYS* about what they're said to have done with taking away some resources from someone or somewhere.

The economics isn't raised because those people are rampant capitalists, it's raised because the measure of well-being is made against what you're used to having that you (might) no longer have - and not about the absolute level that might have taken a person.

It only takes a bit of reading around to see shit loads of people feeling that their life is devastated because they can't have everything they want. It's only rarely because they don't have what they need to get by.

[Mardy]

Just now, eFestivals said:

It's not rich or poor that dictates your happiness, I agree. It's other factors.

But that doesn't stop someone who has been used to getting £x as an income feeling that things have got worse if they're suddenly getting £x-y as their income (or the same effect via prices rising while incomes don't).

No one posts an objection to the tories in the terms of "they make me unhappy". It's *ALWAYS* about what they're said to have done with taking away some resources from someone or somewhere.

The economics isn't raised because those people are rampant capitalists, it's raised because the measure of well-being is made against what you're used to having that you (might) no longer have - and not about the absolute level that might have taken a person.

It only takes a bit of reading around to see shit loads of people feeling that their life is devastated because they can't have everything they want. It's only rarely because they don't have what they need to get by.

Damn, I got some time this morning, but I can't find anything to disagree with in that

 

I just feel there's an argument that's not being made about other things as part of the political process. Whether it would work or not, I've no idea, I just feel that by our political discourse only focusing on the economic side of things, capitalism will always have the advantage.

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, clarkete said:

Although the percentage of GDP we spend is quite a bit below most of our eu neighbours, see link below.  If you or @eFestivals know anyone who works in the NHS who thinks it's not in a very sorry state then I'd be pretty shocked to be honest, as anyone I know despairs at the changes Hunt and IDS have made and the additional burden from the latter and his half arsed social care changes.

 

https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/blog/2016/01/how-does-nhs-spending-compare-health-spending-internationally

 

There's a sorry state because it's trying to do the same with lesser resources (tho actually, it's doing more with more resources, but not enough for the extra demands on those resources), and then there's the claim that was mentioned above that was claiming the tories want to shut down the NHS.

And maybe they even do want to shut down the NHS - I don't discount the possibility (tho with 85% support for the current set-up the likelihood of it happening is slim, i'd say) - but making that claim has ceased to have any effect, because people have been saying it for 35+ years and the NHS is still here. It's become the crappest version ever of 'project fear'.

The 'save the NHS' line wasn't working when that was a new-ish line, when Thatcher was in power who DID want to shut down the NHS and took more steps towards that aim than anyone since has. It didn't work then when things were clearer. It's idiots-ville to think it'll work now.

 

[eFestivals]

5 minutes ago, Mardy said:

Damn, I got some time this morning, but I can't find anything to disagree with in that

 

I just feel there's an argument that's not being made about other things as part of the political process.

but everything we have comes from that 'economics'. Economics is merely a measurement of resources, and resources are not magic (which is why money printing doesn't work), they're the output of the effort of work.

Marx didn't talk about improving the lot of the working classes by sitting down with a cup of tea for a nice chat, he talked about the structure and management of the means of production, about getting the most efficient results from our working efforts.

 

5 minutes ago, Mardy said:

Whether it would work or not, I've no idea, I just feel that by our political discourse only focusing on the economic side of things, capitalism will always have the advantage.

I fundamentally disagree with that, I buy Marx's ideas of future 'history'.

'Economics' is not something tied to capitalism, and it's not a hard science it's a soft science. You decide on the political outcome you want to create, and then you work out which economic line will create that outcome.

Unfortunately for Labour they've forgotten that, while the tories keep it at the top of their minds. The tories keep on winning because the political outcome the tories aim for is for everyone to have more - via more output from work - while Labour don't talk about creating more, they only talk about taking some of the stuff from the current amount of work and spreading it around, of expecting some people to become poorer.

And despite all the hardship that exists today, even the poorest (bar the tiniest tiniest percent, almost all of whom have 'fallen out of society' for reasons different to basic poverty) are dripping in hugely more wealth today than they were 2 decades ago, 3 decades ago, 4 decades ago - and people do notice this stuff.

[blackred]

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Unfortunately for Labour they've forgotten that, while the tories keep it at the top of their minds. The tories keep on winning because the political outcome the tories aim for is for everyone to have more - via more output from work - while Labour don't talk about creating more, they only talk about taking some of the stuff from the current amount of work and spreading it around, of expecting some people to become poorer.

And despite all the hardship that exists today, even the poorest (bar the tiniest tiniest percent, almost all of whom have 'fallen out of society' for reasons different to basic poverty) are dripping in hugely more wealth today than they were 2 decades ago, 3 decades ago, 4 decades ago - and people do notice this stuff.

Tory's certainly have this forefront of their messaging, but can't really claim to have acheived it in the time they have been in power. Since 2010 we have had a recession, productivity has plateaued (a key theme you bring up) and the average person has less spending power than they did in 2008. Certainly there are arguments to be made around the impact of external factors in these outcomes, but they can hardly claim to have succeeded on these points. In terms of spending power, a much more useful measure than absolute wealth, people are still worse off than they were 10 years ago.

 

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

No one posts an objection to the tories in the terms of "they make me unhappy". It's *ALWAYS* about what they're said to have done with taking away some resources from someone or somewhere.

I mean this is in danger of falling into the no true altruistic act fallacy, but certainly there are plenty of people unhappy with Tory policies that are not directly linked to allocation of resources. For example a lot of people are unhappy about the digital economy and the investigatory powers 2016 bills and a lot of people are unhappy about the proposal for an open vote on fox hunting - these policies are unlikely to have a direct economic impact on people who are concerned about them.

I mean, as usual you do have a point (these aren't necessarily election winners) but your brush is far too broad - some people do care, it's not *ALWAYS* about money.

[uscore]

meh, this all still seems to boil down to the "wah, I'm not voting for Corbyn because no-one else is" self fulfilling prophesy.

Owen Jones has been pretty critical of Corbyn in the past and not unfairly, but at the moment he understands that to avoid a Tory landslide this isn't the time to do your best to destroy the most likely alternative.  Recriminations are inevitable AFTER the election, and before the next election campaign starts, but during an election campaign you have to pull together against the greater enemy.

[eFestivals]

39 minutes ago, blackred said:

Tory's certainly have this forefront of their messaging, but can't really claim to have acheived it in the time they have been in power. Since 2010 we have had a recession, productivity has plateaued (a key theme you bring up) and the average person has less spending power than they did in 2008. Certainly there are arguments to be made around the impact of external factors in these outcomes, but they can hardly claim to have succeeded on these points. In terms of spending power, a much more useful measure than absolute wealth, people are still worse off than they were 10 years ago.

Yep - but the opposite needs the false assumption that things can always be improving. It's not necessarily the case that things would be better if Labour had been in charge.
(I'd like to think things would be better, but i'm smart enough to know there's no guarantee).

What we do have is just-about full employment - unlike just about every other country that was hit hard by the global financial crisis. I know there's plenty of problems around that 'full employment', but I reckon people would be screaming more if we had unemployment at some of the EU rates.

 

Quote

I mean this is in danger of falling into the no true altruistic act fallacy, but certainly there are plenty of people unhappy with Tory policies that are not directly linked to allocation of resources. For example a lot of people are unhappy about the digital economy and the investigatory powers 2016 bills and a lot of people are unhappy about the proposal for an open vote on fox hunting - these policies are unlikely to have a direct economic impact on people who are concerned about them.

The people banging on about the fox hunting thing are a joke who don't pay attention. The same policy has existed for the tories since 2010, with no vote. The tories are smart enough not to punch themselves in the face (they might get round to it one day, but it's certainly no priority when there's other things to be done). May only mentioned it cos she was asked about it.

But yep, I agree there's other things which matter too, tho they're only rarely the sorts of issues which have people change their vote.

 

Quote

I mean, as usual you do have a point (these aren't necessarily election winners) but your brush is far too broad - some people do care, it's not *ALWAYS* about money.

There's always exceptions, but to start talking of them gets to mean you can find everything of every view.

Ultimately it's the broad strokes that matter.

[eFestivals]

34 minutes ago, uscore said:

meh, this all still seems to boil down to the "wah, I'm not voting for Corbyn because no-one else is" self fulfilling prophesy.

I'm very definitely NOT voting Corbyn. I can't support the brexit-wanting c**t, who's supporting worse things than the tories have done in the last 7 years.

I'm still inclined to vote Labour, tho I'm waiting for word from my local Labour candidate about whether I can.

 

34 minutes ago, uscore said:

Owen Jones has been pretty critical of Corbyn in the past and not unfairly, but at the moment he understands that to avoid a Tory landslide this isn't the time to do your best to destroy the most likely alternative.  Recriminations are inevitable AFTER the election, and before the next election campaign starts, but during an election campaign you have to pull together against the greater enemy.

The tory landslide we're about to get is HIS fault, not mine. If the likes of Jones hadn't been a self-obsessed cock, there'd be no chance of that tory landslide.

[blackred]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

Yep - but the opposite needs the false assumption that things can always be improving. It's not necessarily the case that things would be better if Labour had been in charge.
(I'd like to think things would be better, but i'm smart enough to know there's no guarantee).

What we do have is just-about full employment - unlike just about every other country that was hit hard by the global financial crisis. I know there's plenty of problems around that 'full employment', but I reckon people would be screaming more if we had unemployment at some of the EU rates.

 

The people banging on about the fox hunting thing are a joke who don't pay attention. The same policy has existed for the tories since 2010, with no vote. The tories are smart enough not to punch themselves in the face (they might get round to it one day, but it's certainly no priority when there's other things to be done). May only mentioned it cos she was asked about it.

But yep, I agree there's other things which matter too, tho they're only rarely the sorts of issues which have people change their vote.

 

There's always exceptions, but to start talking of them gets to mean you can find everything of every view.

Ultimately it's the broad strokes that matter.

Agreed, but obviously it does rankle people on here when you tar them with your broad strokes, nothing wrong with using most rather than all.

The only thing I would disagree with is employment figures, while high unemployment is certainly a negative headline if it was a cost of those in employment having more spending power I'm not sure it would be a vote loser, as you point out most people are concerned about their own wellbeing - those in employment are more likely to see it as succesfull, and would account for a larger voter base than the unemployed (assuming non-catastrophic employment levels).