The 2015 Popularity Contest (aka UK General Election )

[bring the ghost on]

Of course it is. David Cameron went to university. He planned to go into politics. He understands his most important supporters (businesses) and he does very well by them indeed, no?

No one here is going to suggest David Cameron doesn't do well by businesses, that is his whole raison d'etre, to support his high flying friends in the city.

However, growing up the way David Cameron has done, he can't possibly empathise with the average working man, and that shows through his policies. He put Iain Duncan Smith in charge of welfare for Christ sake!

 

[Bruce Wayne]

No one here is going to suggest David Cameron doesn't do well by businesses, that is his whole raison d'etre, to support his high flying friends in the city.

However, growing up the way David Cameron has done, he can't possibly empathise with the average working man, and that shows through his policies. He put Iain Duncan Smith in charge of welfare for Christ sake!

Knowing the intimate details of the leader should be irrelevant though surely? I mean of any 100 items you buy on a regular basis, could you name the CEO of the company that makes them? I dare say most folks wouldn't be able to, and what's more they wouldn't really care either. Just so long as they're being well served, and can go somewhere else if they're not.

Sadly, that last option isn't an option for most of our public services, which is maybe why we seem to get so bogged down in the personalities of politicians.

I mean seriously, without Googling him, how many could say much about Simon Stevens background or Nick Houghton or John Manzoni? All are equally as important as politicians (if not more so), yet I dare say most of us wouldn't know them if we bumped into them in the street.

 

[bring the ghost on]

The interview Natalie Bennett did on the Daily Politics a month back doesn't really support that. The ideas seemed pretty poorly thought out and certainly not costed, which is a shame as having someone shake up the LabCon duopoly would certainly be very welcome.

When the coalition borrow about 90 billion a year, and with the deficit as it is, the parties who have been in govt in recent years have certainly not costed things very well with either. That doesn't justify the greens proposals, but surely it shows that there is a need for a rethink. Let's not forget, the economy is in such a state because of irresponsible lending, deregulation of the financial markets, and these are flagship policies of the centre-right tory/new labour govts.

 

[bring the ghost on]

Knowing the intimate details of the leader should be irrelevant though surely? I mean of any 100 items you buy on a regular basis, could you name the CEO of the company that makes them? I dare say most folks wouldn't be able to, and what's more they wouldn't really care either. Just so long as they're being well served, and can go somewhere else if they're not.

Sadly, that last option isn't an option for most of our public services, which is maybe why we seem to get so bogged down in the personalities of politicians.

I mean seriously, without Googling him, how many could say much about Simon Stevens background or Nick Houghton or John Manzoni? All are equally as important as politicians (if not more so), yet I dare say most of us wouldn't know them if we bumped into them in the street.

No I don't know the man behind the companies who make my digestive biscuits or cornflakes, but seeing as they are not responsible for governing the entire country, it is not if particular interest.

I can't believe you're arguing that the personality of the prime minister is no more important than some randomer who sells a product in the market. Try telling that to Germans in 1930, or even working class people in this country in the 1980s. Why do you think historians study these people, if their beliefs, personalities and backgrounds are not important?

It's important to understand those who are ruling over us and making decisions which effect our lives and the lives of future generations. If we didn't try to understand them, we would be ignorant to all that is going wrong.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

When the coalition borrow about 90 billion a year, and with the deficit as it is, the parties who have been in govt in recent years have certainly not costed things very well with either. That doesn't justify the greens proposals, but surely it shows that there is a need for a rethink. Let's not forget, the economy is in such a state because of irresponsible lending, deregulation of the financial markets, and these are flagship policies of the centre-right tory/new labour govts.

No government has done that though. I think over the last 25 years, the UK government has balanced the books a mere handful of times. Whether it's boom or bust, few governments seem capable of only spending what they bring in.

 

[bring the ghost on]

No government has done that though. I think over the last 25 years, the UK government has balanced the books a mere handful of times. Whether it's boom or bust, few governments seem capable of only spending what they bring in.

Exactly, but when the greens propose something as ''radical'' as paying a living wage and raising taxes for the rich, we still have to listen to the ''money doesn't grow in trees'' argument.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

No I don't know the man behind the companies who make my digestive biscuits or cornflakes, but seeing as they are not responsible for governing the entire country, it is not if particular interest.

I can't believe you're arguing that the personality of the prime minister is no more important than some randomer who sells a product in the market. Try telling that to Germans in 1930, or even working class people in the country in the 1980s. Why do you think historians study these people, if their beliefs, personalities and backgrounds are not important?

I'll help you out. Simon Stevens runs the NHS. Manzioni runs the civil service and Houghton runs the armed forces. By your logic, presumably as the vast majority of us have no idea who they are, that renders their post rather useless as they aren't people that historians would study? I doubt that's the case at all.

As for the politicians, we care so much about their personalities because once they're elected in we're stuck with them for 5 years whether we like it or not. That doesn't make them important, it just shows what a poor system it is.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Exactly, but when the greens propose something as ''radical'' as paying a living wage and raising taxes for the rich, we still have to listen to the ''money doesn't grow in trees'' argument.

Yes but just because very few governments seem to spend what they raise doesn't mean it's right to continue loading debt onto future generations. Greece will find that out I suspect.

Andrew Neill doesn't come across as a particularly likeable bloke at the best of times, but he sadly tears Bennett to shreds here.

 

[Clint Planet]

As I've said before, make people more skilled and they won't have to worry about their income. Surely you can get on board with that?

It's just an empty platitude, though. There are plenty of skilled people who are worried about their income, for a start. Today in the UK.

And I'm still confused as to how being "more skilled" is going to help a hotel chambermaid or a contract cleaner.

 

[Jxg]

Well no, it would be funded by fairer redistribution of wealth. You seem to brand anyone who disagrees with your capitalist mindset as a ''looney lefty'' just because they dare offer an alternative way of thinking. The greens aren't proposing anything which can't be achieved.

They haven't stated how they'll fund their policies at all. They say a "fairer redistribution of wealth" but go into no further detail. It's going to cost an immense amount (£280 billion) to give everyone seventy-odd quid a week. Bennett is simply trying to cast her lovely utopian idea on the left-leaning British public who want to believe so very much more than they care for how these ideas are going to be implemented.

As for the personal attack on me, I've said nothing of the left nor the right. Although the left does tend to run their policies off of "just tax the rich more, it'll work". Hollande saw an exodus of the wealthy from France because he tried that and it hit the country hard.

 

[Kurt.]

Errrrmmmmmm lads there's a game on you know

 

[Toffeelover]

Why bring it up if you're going to ask me to find the information?!

You asked me but originally in view of your comment I was under the impression you were a green supporter. How is anyone to know you were being facetious to me you were serious os I made the comment about Brighton. You asked for more info.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

It's just an empty platitude, though. There are plenty of skilled people who are worried about their income, for a start. Today in the UK.

And I'm still confused as to how being "more skilled" is going to help a hotel chambermaid or a contract cleaner.

I'm not for one minute suggesting that people aren't having a hard time of things, not at all. As I said previously, there are a lot of (skilled) self-employed people at the moment that don't earn that much. It isn't easy at all and the jury is still out (imo) on whether the huge leap in self employment is a liberating movement or a lot of folks floundering to get by.

I'm just not sure the minimum wage, or a living wage, is the answer. If you look at the hotel business for instance, they're under huge pressure from the likes of Air BnB, who of course don't (usually) have a chambermaid service at all.

With your tomato picking example, the number of people working in agriculture is a fraction of what it was in the past. We were talking a few pages ago about the pressure being put on jobs from a range of technologies and the like, and whether those pressures are the same as previous ones (ie the loom/luddites) or whether this is more serious. If a livelihood is under pressure from various things already, I'm not sure how making that person more expensive to hire is going to help them to keep their job.

If (big if) things are such now that those with capital gain from the economy far more than those who simply offer their labour, then it's possible that more redistribution may be beneficial/required. I just don't know, and I'm not sure anyone really does at the moment.

 

[Milk]

Brighton ............

http://www.spectator.co.uk/features...lesson-in-why-it-is-a-disaster-to-vote-green/


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ry-Britains-loopiest-party-took-Brighton.html

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/10/brighton-has-lost-patience-chaotic-greens

And I thought it was only the Loony Party that has the right to call itself Loony

 

[bring the ghost on]

I'll help you out

Well that's very kind of you.

Manzioni runs the civil service and Houghton runs the armed forces. By your logic, presumably as the vast majority of us have no idea who they are, that renders their post rather useless as they aren't people that historians would study? I doubt that's the case at all.

Firstly, I didn't even pass comment on the individuals you named, I took issue with what you were saying about CEOs of companies who sold me 100 items being as important as politicians in terms of their beliefs and personalities.

Those people you have mentioned are in important roles and yes, I do want them to be the best people for those jobs. However, you are comparing people in administrative, strategic and managerial roles to front line politicians who set the framework that these people operate in and make policy.

I can only really reiterate that I think it's very important to know about those people who were are voting to run the country. I can't believe I even have to justify it.

As for the politicians, we care so much about their personalities because once they're elected in we're stuck with them for 5 years whether we like it or not. That doesn't make them important, it just shows what a poor system it is.

Of course they are important. They are elected representatives of the people of our country and they deal with everything from foreign affairs and taxation to benefits and jobs.

When I talk about personality, I don't mean what their favourite TV program is, I mean how their personality impacts on the important decisions they make. We have a man who is prime minister and has no understanding (or no desire to understand) the working man's plight, why should this not be criticised?