The 2015 Popularity Contest (aka UK General Election )

[L4Everton]

So he has definitely done it has he? Caught and proven guilty and everything?

Quite. The trial by media generation is a frightner, its the next step of its evolution that could see a very big shift in attitudes.

 

[Mrk]

The public really need to recognise that whoever is voted in will only serve the interests of finance and markets and business, though paint as much as possible as social conscience politics, the patronising attitude that is disappearing only to be replaced with a genuine two fingered salute to the majority of the public.

The advance in the 80's of laissez faire capitalism and it's victory (sic) over social democracy heralded the fracture of recognised society and its fabric, creating scapegoats that has continued to this day. The public fell for the trickle down lie and have now reached a point, where once they had aspirations, they now have fears, fear of being pushed down the social ladder, the bottom rung being highlighted constantly as a pointer to what will happen if you complain, strike or push against these corporate policies.

You (rightly) identify that our economic system is largely corporatist, but then suggest that 'laissez faire capitalism' was victorious.

For a start, the capitalism in the 80's was anything but laissez faire, even Thatcher and Reagan were believers in state interference when it suited them.

If we had tried laissez faire capitalism, maybe we wouldn't live in a corporatist society now... who knows.

 

[EFCNIK]

Does it even bloody matter you imbeciles? A convicted murderer, someone who plotted to kill and then buried his wife and served 7 years in jail I.e a dangerous man, was let into this country to do as he pleased.

If he didn't kill her this doesn't change that fact. If he did, which is highly highly highly probable, then it just compounds the point. We should not be putting our population at risk in the interests of some bollocks European made human rights law.

Some people will just defend our deplorable immigration situation till the cows come home. All in the interest of 'progressive' thinking of course.

 

[L4Everton]

Does it even bloody matter you imbeciles? A convicted murderer, someone who plotted to kill and then buried his wife and served 7 years in jail I.e a dangerous man, was let into this country to do as he pleased.

If he didn't kill her this doesn't change that fact. If he did, which is highly highly highly probable, then it just compounds the point. We should not be putting our population at risk in the interests of some bollocks European made human rights law.

So were you throwing yourself in front of the jet that took Gary Glitter to Thailand? For the good of the children he preyed upon there of course.

 

[EFCNIK]

So were you throwing yourself in front of the jet that took Gary Glitter to Thailand? For the good of the children he preyed upon there of course.

What a stupid point.

If im honest, I couldn't give one [Poor language removed] about thailand. I care about my country and what sort of a country my future children will grow up in.

 

[The Esk]

Let's keep the name calling and insults out of this thread please. Otherwise thread bans will operate.

 

[Eggs]

....despite doing it to A-Level I find economics really difficult to fathom but I wonder why Labour do little to fight back from the kicking they get in this area. The Brown Treasury years were relatively good times for all as I recall. Certainly working in the Public Sector the service offering was as good as it gets.

Labour won elections on the back of a robust economy and then the crash came. There's an acceptance that enough wasn't done to regulate the banks when times were good, but I don't recall opposition parties calling for that at the time - apparently the Tories were asking for greater freedom. The economic crash wasn't unique to UK, yet Labour appear to accept responsibility. I might be naive, but surely what occurred would've happened regardless of who was in power.

 

[Mrk]

....despite doing it to A-Level I find economics really difficult to fathom but I wonder why Labour do little to fight back from the kicking they get in this area. The Brown Treasury years were relatively good times for all as I recall. Certainly working in the Public Sector the service offering was as good as it gets.

Labour won elections on the back of a robust economy and then the crash came. There's an acceptance that enough wasn't done to regulate the banks when times were good, but I don't recall opposition parties calling for that at the time - apparently the Tories were asking for greater freedom. The economic crash wasn't unique to UK, yet Labour appear to accept responsibility. I might be naive, but surely what occurred would've happened regardless of who was in power.

If anything, their ratings on the economy are so dire because they haven't taken responsibility.

 

[Coach]

Does it even bloody matter you imbeciles? A convicted murderer, someone who plotted to kill and then buried his wife and served 7 years in jail I.e a dangerous man, was let into this country to do as he pleased.

If he didn't kill her this doesn't change that fact. If he did, which is highly highly highly probable, then it just compounds the point. We should not be putting our population at risk in the interests of some bollocks European made human rights law.

Some people will just defend our deplorable immigration situation till the cows come home. All in the interest of 'progressive' thinking of course.

What level of criminal do you draw the line at?

 

[The Esk]

....despite doing it to A-Level I find economics really difficult to fathom but I wonder why Labour do little to fight back from the kicking they get in this area. The Brown Treasury years were relatively good times for all as I recall. Certainly working in the Public Sector the service offering was as good as it gets.

Labour won elections on the back of a robust economy and then the crash came. There's an acceptance that enough wasn't done to regulate the banks when times were good, but I don't recall opposition parties calling for that at the time - apparently the Tories were asking for greater freedom. The economic crash wasn't unique to UK, yet Labour appear to accept responsibility. I might be naive, but surely what occurred would've happened regardless of who was in power.

Agree totally on this Eggs.

Many things baffle me about the Labour Party currently but you have hit the nail on the head. How they have allowed Cameron and Osborne to get away with the complete misrepresentation of Labour's economic record is beyond me.

 

[Donald Twain]

Does it even bloody matter you imbeciles? A convicted murderer, someone who plotted to kill and then buried his wife and served 7 years in jail I.e a dangerous man, was let into this country to do as he pleased.

If he didn't kill her this doesn't change that fact. If he did, which is highly highly highly probable, then it just compounds the point. We should not be putting our population at risk in the interests of some bollocks European made human rights law.

Some people will just defend our deplorable immigration situation till the cows come home. All in the interest of 'progressive' thinking of course.

Angry pastry anyone?

 

[roydo]

....despite doing it to A-Level I find economics really difficult to fathom but I wonder why Labour do little to fight back from the kicking they get in this area. The Brown Treasury years were relatively good times for all as I recall. Certainly working in the Public Sector the service offering was as good as it gets.

Labour won elections on the back of a robust economy and then the crash came. There's an acceptance that enough wasn't done to regulate the banks when times were good, but I don't recall opposition parties calling for that at the time - apparently the Tories were asking for greater freedom. The economic crash wasn't unique to UK, yet Labour appear to accept responsibility. I might be naive, but surely what occurred would've happened regardless of who was in power.

It wasnt so much that the crash was or wasnt Labours fault, there was little anyone in power at the time could have done once the perfect storm had been created. The issue was more of economic mis-management of an epic scale, that meant, after 13 years in government, and presiding over an economy that had in his own words, "abolished boom and bust", the UK didnt have much cash to spare.

The only one who had the balls to say it as it was, Darling, had the Brown attack dogs unleashed on him when he mused that this would be the biggest economic disaster for 60 years.

So not their fault, but they did not help matters. Not saying the Tories would have averted it. In fact, they almost certainly wouldnt.

Always thought it a good idea to have the Chancellor to have a decent grasp of economics.

 

[roydo]

Agree totally on this Eggs.

Many things baffle me about the Labour Party currently but you have hit the nail on the head. How they have allowed Cameron and Osborne to get away with the complete misrepresentation of Labour's economic record is beyond me.

It wasnt that great though, was it?

 

[magicjuan]

You (rightly) identify that our economic system is largely corporatist, but then suggest that 'laissez faire capitalism' was victorious.

For a start, the capitalism in the 80's was anything but laissez faire, even Thatcher and Reagan were believers in state interference when it suited them.

If we had tried laissez faire capitalism, maybe we wouldn't live in a corporatist society now... who knows.

You're looking at that in a context from today, at the time their ideal of intervensionism was just a stepping stone to the system today. Both being true advocates of the Chicago school, supporting the test runs in South America before unleashing it in the west, proper lovers of Friedmanomics.

The idea that we don't have laissez faire capitalism now is down to ignorance and smoke and mirrors, the governments don't interfere because they do the bidding of the corporations.

 

[Mrk]

You're looking at that in a context from today, at the time their ideal of intervensionism was just a stepping stone to the system today. Both being true advocates of the Chicago school, supporting the test runs in South America before unleashing it in the west, proper lovers of Friedmanomics.

The idea that we don't have laissez faire capitalism now is down to ignorance and smoke and mirrors, the governments don't interfere because they do the bidding of the corporations.

Context isn't really the issue, laissez faire capitalism is laissez faire capitalism, it's an ideology that is centuries old - and it's perfectly clear that neither Reagan or Thatcher ever implemented laissez faire policies. They were capitalists, but they were capitalists who also believed that the state had a necessary role to play in employing people and regulating markets. That isn't laissez faire capitalism, no matter what context it is looked in.

It's not an 'idea' that we don't have laissez faire capitalism now, it's a fact. Anybody who thinks we live in anything like a laissez faire capitalistic system clearly has no idea what laissez faire means. We have a corporatist system, which is basically an ugly mix of Capitalism and Social Democracy.

In a laissez faire system, governments wouldn't be in the pockets of big business, because they wouldn't have any power over big business.