Because that's how you keep everybody spinning without ever questioning things. They know the well off wont be bothered because they are happy and comfortable. The idea of trying to better the world is looked down upon as "Not appreciating that things are quite good for us right now in this particular moment, in this particular location." It just strikes me as Selfish... Or entirely blinkered. Billions starve, millions in developed countries struggle along on low pay, looked down upon because they happened to be born in a part of the country/world that doesn't have the same upbringing you had. Not that we should even draw country or class divides in our currently entirely connected planet. That's a whole other issue though.
A good idea would be to introduce a specific IQ test for the electorate, fail it and you lose the right to vote. .........once again <lightsbluetouchpaperemoticon>
If there was a tried and tested repeatable test to judge people's aptitude of politics and the world then I'd be all for it. Simply asking them if they read the Daily Mail might suffice though!
What when Tony Blair was supporting outscoring work to India and China at the time? Around 200,000 or so people lost their jobs in this country. The motor industry in Northamptonshire has done relatively well recently, it's not particularly brilliant but considering around seven odd years ago companies like Cosworth were losing jobs, they've now opened up a new high tech manufacturing facility.
Oh I get it now. It was Blair who was responsible for all those calls from Mumbai offering cheap phone and energy deals. If we are talking F1 that is an incredibly small niche market. The job losses came when Cameron and Osborne's pals came close to collapsing the entire banking system remember that? That was the one when Alan Greenspan head of the U.S. Federal Reserve stated that Gordon Brown had averted global meltdown. Part of me wishes that he had let the whole caboodle go tubeside. The Greens would have loved it. I do get a bit fed up when people who clearly know nothing of economics offer these glib viewpoints as if they are facts rather than Daily Mail leaders.
I have been very interested in politics for most of my life and have early memories of the night that George Brown lost his seat in a Tory landslide (bit like the Portillo moment the other way round) and have been fascinated by General Elections and the various implications of swings affecting the new political landscape ever since. Slowly I have begun to fully understand the old adage "If you are young and don't vote Labour you haven't got a heart and if you are older and don't vote Tory you haven't got a brain". For this election, if I could be bothered, I would put a cross for none of the above but probably will not even bother to waste the shoe leatherfor that exercise as it would have no impact and noone would care. This Government IMO has not been a bad one overall. Yes we can all nitpick at things like the bedroom tax for example but what they inherited was a very serious financial posiion and they are leaving the economy in decidedly better shape for sure, even with a definite Southern bias to it. However, we did not exactly vote for the coalition, we voted for just one of the parties (which may or not have formed that Government) and the thought of a full-blown Tory Governement with the obvious looming peril of the EU vote I find very worrying. There would obviously be loads of bluster from Farage to whoop up the anti-European feeling and the effect on the UK could be disastrous. So what is the alternative? Ed Miliband is pathetic. No, he is worse than pathetic and has not got any coherent plan for the future, leading us very soon reeling economically once again. He has allowed their domination of Scotland to disappear on his shift and the impact of that means that there is no way that Labour can govern without SNP support which for the UK as a whole is a bloody disaster. he also seems to have overlooked that the previous Labour Government overspent to a shocking level and was completely reckless. That is a Government that saw the UK in a healthy economic period for a lot of their time in office and had no provision for any downturn. Remember prudence Mr. Brown? I have some sympathy for the LibDems who were essentially forced into the coalition (as the alternative would have been another election which none of us would have wanted) and so they have had to swallow a lot of principle to achieve a stable Government and for that of course they will be decimated come May. They will have grown up as a party but this election will be a difficult one for sure. Anyone looking at the Greens will very soon realise that the reality of any form of electoral success for them would be a disaster for the country as even their leader is inaware of their policies or totally embarrassed by them. After that you are left with the Welsh Nats (no comment) and the N. Ireland parties where no doubt the Tories would want to see some Unionist success. I think that the UKIP bubble has truly burst and do not expect any more than 2 seats for them and they should be non-players anyway. What a mess and oh for the days where we could truly agonise over who to vote for from the two credible alternatives. Let me know when it is all over.
Excellent post Thurnby and agree with most of what you say (other than the European issue where we will have to agree to disagree), I will however be putting a 'cross in the box' as my belief is that if you don't vote you have no right to complain about any government that is elected to power.
Yes I agree that Thurnby's post is excellent. Labour achieved reasonable reduction in the levels of unemployment by opening 'government offices in Newcastle etc (I wonder who was paying their salaries??), but GB sold a HUGE chunk of our gold reserve if I remember correctly. I'm with KIO and I will at least be voting!!
It will be a first for me as I say as I have always had the same philosophy as you, vis a vis the right to complain. Every day one party has a scandal and it just goes to show that they are effectively all the same, hence my sad summary above.
He did sell a huge chunk of the gold reserves JR, at a knockdown rate too. Must have responded to one of those ads and stuck the gold bars in the post!
I haven't had time to respond to this but I have finally got around to it. How did you get your nice house, decent car and comfortable life? You worked for it didn't you? You said you were a business man of 40 years or something. The guys who work for me are trying to get to the same place you are, a nice house, car etc...... Some of them have made bad financial decisions or got divorced etc which has massively effected their outlook but most of them want the same as what you have got. I repeat again, that while the conservatives have been in power my company has employed a few more people as the company and myself get taxed less. It's hardly complicated is it? I make no bones about it, I am in business to make money. This then helps me employ more people and help them get on the housing ladder. Something that you have taken for granted in your above statement. I can tell you it is bloody difficult to buy your own house these days.
I got lucky. I bought my first house in 1976 for £9.300. Four years later ii had doubled. I bought a large detached house in 1986 and that more than doubled in 18months (I sold half the garden as a building plot) So I decided to help out those who worked for me by paying a lot over the going rate. There were only six of us but it enabled my co-workers to get themselves on the property ladder. Our work atmosphere was more like a social club and I rather enjoyed running a happy company. It would surprise me somewhat if many of the current crop of businessmen pay a penny more than the minimum that they can get away with.
I don't think that's entirely fair. I think there are plenty of good businessmen out there who recognise that paying a healthy wage is good for society and actually good for the productivity of the company. The trouble is though, for large parts of the country, you are right - the complete freedom of volatile market forces combined with immensely employer-friendly labour laws (as well as a culture of not complaining about working conditions) all help to ensure that the majority are paid as little as their employers can force them to accept.
Cruyff can you explain to me how the current Government are responsible for zero hours contracts? Are they something that has cropped up since the coalition came into power? How have you calculated that there are 2 million of them in place? I can't disprove your figure but that sounds like an awfully large number relative to the working population. Whilst I could not agree with you more that zero hours contracts (particularly from massive plc's) are nothing short of a disgrace and frankly should be outlawed I do accept that every developed economy has higher and lower paid jobs and that whilst it is easy to dismiss McJobs as you call them they will always exist within the service industry for as long as we want fast food/shelves stacked etc and we are not prepared to pay more for them. There are choices we can all make - don't use companies who utilise zero hours contracts or try to use companies who pay the living wage not just the minimum wage. In my opinion until individuals start voting with their wallets these companies will never change. It is not the fault of the Government, it is all of us who choose on a daily basis where we buy from. If people stopped shopping at Tesco or ASDA because they have zero hours contracts or don't pay the living wage and switched to their competitors who don't have zero hours contracts and do pay the living wage then you would soon see a change of policy from the companies regardless of who is in power.
It's actually incredibly likely that most of the "McJobs" will be easily achievable by automation soon, as well as a huge amount of other jobs. These technologies could be used to improve everyone's lives. Politics is all thinking in the short term. They manage to hold back progression.
The only stat I've seen is 1.4m on zero hour contracts from the ONS. They've been around for some time, though of questionable legality. They really boomed from 2008 onwards as businesses found them much easier to use so that they could meet demand without hiring an employee. I don't think it's that the Tories have promoted them per se, it's more that the combination of Tory policies in respect of employment rights and favouring businesses have indirectly encouraged this. It also looks good for unemployment stats so the government like it.
Ahhhh, so you were part of the housing boom and by the sound of it benefitted greatly from this. Those times are long gone I'm afraid, the only way you can get a deposit for house these days is by working for it or if you get some inheritance. I've always worked for everything in my life and never benefitted from any housing booms or inheritance. Like the guys who work for me. I do pay quite a bit more than the large industrial weighing companies as I only want the best people and that's how you get them and keep hold of them. I find your statement about modern businesses only paying the minimum completely out of touch. I socialise with many company owners who bend over backwards to keep their staff and help them when they can. Maybe things were better in the "good old days" or maybe it's perception as we age? I know plenty of guys who would love to be in your position with a nice house and car etc... But there are no housing booms left to help them out. One more thing, zero hour contracts. We have a lady who works for us that is going to have a baby in 6 months or so. She WANTS a zero hour contract when she is ready to return because it is flexible. Just saying...... Every story has 2 sides......
Excellent post K E M P. I remember in the early 70's, when a decent 3 bedroom semi cost under £10K, but my salary was under £3K, so approx 3 times salary and it stayed like that until around the mid 90's and it's really in the last 20 years that things have gone ridiculous. As has been said, today's would e house buyers can generally only get a deposit from an inheritance or 'the bank of Mum and Dad'!!!
