You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
As you go up salary brackets then yes it becomes more in your self interest to vote Tory.
Also Tory policy tends to favour business growth which means the main man/women gets more money. However what it does do though is help create more jobs.
Recently parties are a mess. Comrade Corbyn doesn’t have the balls to say what he stands for, conservatives clearly can’t organise a piss up in a brewery, so you may as well vote for self interest.
I vote for the local candidate I believe can win with the policy’s I favour with a net to catch those less fortunate , it’s all a balancing act,
I live in a predominantly labour area (m62 belt) and I hate the fact that labour can win the vote by just turning up, what have labour done for my local borough, pretty much ruined it over the last 15 years, whilst blaming the Tories 100% for austerity. Bad decision after bad decision doesn’t help the austerity.
Corbyn and his money trees would incentivise a minority to do **** all..
We make our own life choices through education and working smarter, government policy doesn’t necessarily impact me, a strong economy does.
But I have a social conscious I pay tax and with no kids I’m more than happy my tax/ni/vat is spent on education and welfare.
If you work on minimum wage with no aspirations then you will struggle in life.
Corbyn and his money trees would incentivise a minority to do **** all
Do you really believe that?
We are in a dire situation where those at the bottom currently have nowhere good to go. There's certainly no incentive in shite wages and expensive living costs.
And don't kid yourself there isn't a magic money tree. It's called MMT (modern monetary theory - see Stephanie Kelton advising for Bernie Sanders - she's taking everyone to task on it) - Governments use it for finding cash all the time especially for defence. It's already in play. The trick is to put some of that money to good use for all.
Corbyn and Labour may not have dared jump on the back of MMT but at the very least they're going to bring some redistribution back to the fold.
That is better for everyone. You bring the bottom part of society upwards and crime, jobs and communities all benefit.
We make our own life choices through education and working smarter, government policy doesn’t necessarily impact me, a strong economy does.
You're not seeing the big picture.
There is no 'smarter' - that is called a race to the bottom.
Government policy impacts you directly because the economy is under their control. And we don't have a strong economy - it's propped up by a cheap workforce living on debt and low interest rates. It's not strong at all.
And then you have to say what about everyone apart from you? How do they all work smarter if they have a terrible set of cards to start with.
Your thinking is outdated. By at least 30 years.
Also Tory policy tends to favour business growth which means the main man/women gets more money. However what it does do though is help create more jobs
It's creating poor quality low paid jobs where you have no spending power.
You have to borrow to survive.
That will not go on, and is not growth.
Well, yes, they did forget the cardinal rule of don’t be the smaller partner in a coalition.
No, sorry but that is simply letting them off the hook. It was their job to say these are our immovable policies without which we cant go into coalition. They failed to set the terms to ensure that happened.
I don’t think Nick Clegg swung them to the right,
Clegg was/is a member of the orange book grouping which is the more right wing side of the lib dems. It wasnt him alone (most of those who ended up in government were from that side of the party) but he certainly contributed.
MMT is nationlist isolationist smoke and and mirrors.
It’s creating poor quality low paid jobs where you have no spending power.
They were singing the same 'highest working population ever' nonsense again yesterday
Do you know what the definition of 'in employment' is? Under Universal Credit, if you've worked one hour over a two-week period then you're classed as working.
We've seen an explosion in zero hours contracts, part-time, insecure work and bogus self-employment, none of which will actually pay you enough to live even the most rudimentary existence. Hence the huge increase in the number of children living in poverty. Most of the people using food banks are the working poor who can't even afford to eat
Do this lot look like they're even prepared to acknowledge these people exist, never mind do anything to actually help them?
Government policy hasn't been about creating long-term growth but winning votes in the next 5-year election cycle - they make gestures towards long-term spending, a minister makes some 'bold' announcement and then a year later the whole programme gets cancelled and the money switched to some fresh initiative. The UK has a chronic productivity issue - over-reliance on low-skill / low paid jobs in sectors like retail and under-investment in technology in comparison to our peers. Sectors like retail that survive because of in-work tax benefits to employees - tax payers effectively subsidising businesses. The problem is those business pay dividends to investors such as pension funds, so the incentive is to retain the status quo.
So true. He couldn’t get any tractiom with a broader audience though – see above.
Clegg got the attention the lib Dems needed to amke them a ‘proper’ party.
I don't know why you want to give Clegg so much credit and Kennedy so little.
Until Charles Kennedy became leader the LibDems had been losing support in every general election since its foundation. Then under Kennedy's leadership support for the LibDems increased by almost a third.
Contrast that with Nick Clegg who the best he ever managed was a derisory 1% increase in LibDem support, at a time when neither the Tories or Labour had anything to offer. And then went to lose two thirds of LibDem support, their worst ever result.
To answer my own question I guess it's to support the narrative that parties should aim for the mythical "centre ground". Facts such as the disastrous consequences for the LibDems, or the 10% increase for Labour under under Corbyn, the greastest increase in Labour vote since 1945, are simply ingnored.
As a higher earner I can honestly say paying more tax doesn't bother me so long as that money is used to the net benefit of everyone. Has been the case up here for a year or so now and I've not seen any real drop in my standard of living.
There also seems to be conflation of libertarianism/authoritarianism as exclusive left/right ideologies. Now SNP are hardly the communist party but I would describe them as left, certainly compared to what we've had for the past near decade. They are authoritarian though, preferring to enact legislation (more so when populism dictates) over addressing the root causes. Mostly for better but sometimes for the worse.
We’ve seen an explosion in zero hours contracts
There's nothing wrong with zero hour contracts, those who are suited to them enjoy the flexibility. i.e. working mums, students etc. Some businesses are exploiting it, as with anything regardless of whoever is in government.
Income tax receipts are increasing year on year, so this whole notion that everyone in the employment figures are doing bugger all hours is total bull.
Most recent growth has been the result of immigration (which is why they don't report per capita growth). Firms have cheap credit but don't invest in production because labour is cheap but do invest in assets (hence property and equity prices etc). As immigration from Europe has faltered the system has allowed for more non-European immigration, which is sadly ironic for the Brexit voters who thought they were voting for a whiter Britain.
Paying into a welfare state is good for everyone, compare social democratic Denmark with the neo-liberal US. I see a big business opportunity for trailer parks, doss houses and gated communities in this country with food prices (and hence wages) being kept down by bleached chicken and beef on steroids.
There’s nothing wrong with zero hour contracts, those who are suited to them enjoy the flexibility. i.e. working mums, students etc. Some businesses are exploiting it, as with anything regardless of whoever is in government.
The people who are doing well on Zero Hours are the ones choose to be on them, lots of people are on them are not on them by choice and would love to have fixed or at least regular hours.
Income tax receipts are increasing year on year, so this whole notion that everyone in the employment figures are doing bugger all hours is total bull.
That is a bold claim based on one figure.
Most recent growth has been the result of immigration (which is why they don’t report per capita growth). Firms have cheap credit but don’t invest in production because labour is cheap but do invest in assets
Again not in my experience of working in automation, improvements and working alongside companies delivering automation solutions. Loads of people are investing heavily in tech and moving workers about. Again it's not that straight forward but people are investing here and have been.
Presumably Mike you're not in a low skill/low wage sector. Higher wages encourage investment and efficiency, which is why the UK productivity compares poorly across Europe. Neo-liberals are aiming for a low skill, low pay, low tax, highly unequal economy which partly explains the lack of concern over real cuts in education, and street sleepers can act as a warning to us all.
I work across just about every part of UK industry at the moment, even agriculture is pushing tech solutions for traditionally manual jobs.
Some of the projects I've worked on are all about replacing the low paid roles.
I'd vote for anyone ahead of Corbyn and his lot, and anyone to keep them out. Social conscience is one thing but the poor will be a lot poorer when the entire country is bankrupt.
I’d vote for anyone ahead of Corbyn and his lot, and anyone to keep them out. Social conscience is one thing but the poor will be a lot poorer when the entire country is bankrupt.
As someone said on another thread - we need an informed electorate for democracy to work properly. If people are just going to make stuff up it will end badly - especially now communication is so fast (e.g. see Ch4 report on Leave.UK fake films of migrants)
Have always voted Conservative but will never do again. I'm now in my 40s have plenty of money and thinking more now about my children and grandchildren and the world I want them to grow up in than my own wealth. Brexit has been the nail in the coffin and I could never again vote for the party which I blame for bringing us to this point.
It was their job to say these are our immovable policies without which we cant go into coalition. They failed to set the terms to ensure that happened
That's pretty much what they did. They then got outmanouvered by a far more cunning and experienced backroom.
It is true that Clegg moved them to the right of where they were but even that didn't move them all that far right on the broader spectrum. That had more to do with the nature of the coalition.
I don’t know why you want to give Clegg so much credit and Kennedy so little.
I don't, particularly. Not do I think Clegg should have all the blame and Kennedy all the credit. Kennedy was good, but ask most voters about a lib dem leader they can name and it'll be Clegg, not Kennedy. Why? Because he took the party to aplace of real influence and notice. Then, as often happens with parties in that position, they were outplayed.
If you want to be a credible alternative, until we have PR (which will be the 12th of never) or a per vote subsidy (same date) you need traction with the voters. Moving to the centre can do that, whereupon you slowly move back to your natural position.
Labour's increase in the polls has nothing to do with Corbyn taking the party left, the feedback on him and the party make that clear. That was about out punishing the others.
Some of the projects I’ve worked on are all about replacing the low paid roles.
Any of it involve figuring out what to do with the people roboted/automated out of a job?
Government policy impacts you directly because the economy is under their control. And we don’t have a strong economy – it’s propped up by a cheap workforce living on debt and low interest rates. It’s not strong at all.
Rubbish. The government doesn't control the economy at all. They don't have control of interest rates, inflation or any of the economic derivers. The economy does well 100% because of the people working in it generating the GDP through the products and services our economy offers. All thy can control are things like business rates and corporation tax which can help influence the economy by creating the environment that is conducive for the economy to thrive.
Having a strong economy is important because without it the government doesn't have any means to generate revenue to spend on the NHS, Police etc. Public sector workers taxes are of no real value..its like if I give you £10 and you give me £2 back, I'm not £10 up, I'm just £8 down. I have no idea why public sector workers pay tax from their public sector salaries. Just pay them net of tax and take out a whole swathe of bureaucracy.
Brexit has been the nail in the coffin and I could never again vote for the party which I blame for bringing us to this point.
If Brexit has proven one thing..it was nothing to do with the conservatives...they just Brough it to a head after the political elite keeping it from us all these years..it was a tinder keg that was always going to explode eventually. And Brexit hasn't happened and might never happen...but one thing is for sure...you can put your success down to conservative policies over the year that has given you the opportunity to make the choices you've made to get yourself where you are today and been able to bring your children up in a nice and comfortable position. Do you really think Comrade Corbyn and his collection of Neo-Marxists would have created the opportunities you have been able to take advantage of? Corbyn is a bigger threat to this nation than any hard Brexit scenario..even the hardest of the hard. Business are taking sensible contingencies agains Brexit...but at the same time they are planning their flight from the UK in the event of a Corbyn Brexit. Businesses won't abandon the uK under Brexit, they will if Corbyn gets in.
MMT is nationlist isolationist smoke and and mirrors.
Really? You've just politicised the way the money system works. That demonstrates you don't understand it.
Nonsense.
Qualify it.
It's not an ideaology or policy, it's not got nationalistic attributes.
It's a description of the how the money system operates in places like the UK and USA.
Rubbish. The government doesn’t control the economy at all. They don’t have control of interest rates, inflation or any of the economic derivers
The BOE is an agent of the Government. It's owned by the Government. That fact they say it's independent means ultimately nothing.
Read your post back to yourself.
Having a strong economy is important because without it the government doesn’t have any means to generate revenue to spend on the NHS, Police etc. Public sector workers taxes are of no real value..its like if I give you £10 and you give me £2 back, I’m not £10 up, I’m just £8 down. I have no idea why public sector workers pay tax from their public sector salaries. Just pay them net of tax and take out a whole swathe of bureaucracy.
More rubbish.
Listen - the government can spend before it taxes. Tax is a way controlling inflation and taking money back out of the economy. Stop kidding yourself over the receipts and spend of our tax system. We issue our own currency.
But that's more nationalist nonsense apparently.
My guess is most people don't understand the money supply and should spend time with Richard Murphy or Stephanie Kelton.
If Brexit has proven one thing..it was nothing to do with the conservatives…
We issue our own currency.
The value of that currency does matter though. To pretend it doesn't is fine, if you don't want to buy anything made abroad… such as most drugs.
If you model your money supply as if a country is a closed system, then, yes, that is just nationalist isolationist smoke and mirrors.
The economy does well 100% because of the people working in it generating the GDP through the products and services our economy offers. All thy can control are things like business rates and corporation tax which can help influence the economy by creating the environment that is conducive for the economy to thrive.
The government also provides the roads and services, educates the young and trains people, the state tries to keeps people healthy which means they can be more productive, the state upholds law and order to provide the safe and stable environment for the economy to grow, the state saves you when things go wrong and literally puts out the fires in your business. They have a huge part to play in creating the environment in which business can grow.
Having a strong economy is important because without it the government doesn’t have any means to generate revenue to spend on the
The entire thing is circular, once it's started both sides should support and enable each other.
The BOE is an agent of the government.
Read your post back to yourself.
The BoE was given independence from the political aspect of the government to stop politicians doing stupid things for popularity. It's part of the government not the politics of it.
The Democrats in the US are starting to look at it but both parties have avoided hinging policy around it until now.
Republican's already enact it with defense spending, as in they don't concern themselves with paying for it out of tax receipts.
The BoE was given independence from the political aspect of the government to stop politicians doing stupid things for popularity. It’s part of the government not the politics of it.
What like maintaining low interest rates so the Government can politicise this and benefit from it?
Cheap borrowing is at the heart of a neoliberal capitalist society that has nowhere to go.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monetary_Policy_Committee
Well you can go through the minutes of the MPC and let us know how you are proving that as a conspiracy.
Well you can go through the minutes of the MPC and let us know how you are proving that as a conspiracy.
Who said it was a conspiracy?
You know you don't need to go to Wikipedia.
From the BOE's own site.
We do this (monetary policy) within a framework set by Government but free from day-to-day political influence.
So not really independent.
Do you think Q/E in 2008 was influenced by the Government or by the BOE?
Or is that not messing in day-to-day political affairs?
It also pursues the Governments intended level of growth.
So not independent then?
Labour’s increase in the polls has nothing to do with Corbyn taking the party left, the feedback on him and the party make that clear. That was about out punishing the others.
People have very short memories for something which happened only 2 years ago.
Labour's fortunes changed the day their election manifesto was leaked to the press.
Up until that point all the opinion polls showed overwhelming support for Theresa May, the Tories, we were told, would win a stunning landslide victory. There was no evidence that voters wanted to "punish" the Tories.
And why would they? The Tories had only been in power 2 years after almost 20 years of being unable to form a majority government.
What changed everything, and all the dire predictions of Labour meltdown, and ultimately, the greastest increase in Labour support since 1945, was that Labour offered something different.
Similarly Charles Kennedy offered voters an alternative to the Tories and New Labour, Nick Clegg did not. LibDem support increased impressively under Kennedy but totally collapsed under Clegg.
Don't believe opponents of radical change who claim that the only way to win elections is to do it from a non-existent "centre".
Do you think Margret Thatcher "made a pitch for the centre ground" when she was leader of the Tory Party? She was fairly successful in winning elections.
when the entire country is bankrupt.
As someone said on another thread – we need an informed electorate for democracy to work properly. If people are just going to make stuff up it will end badly – especially now communication is so fast (e.g. see Ch4 report on Leave.UK fake films of migrants)
Yeah. Anyone who doesn't see what I see is I'll informed :!
Stupid shit like this is the most divisive.
That’s pretty much what they did
err no. They didnt hence why they got their arses handed to them. They had one job. Get PR through and they would have been forgiven a lot of the other stuff. As it was they instead allowed a miserable compromise to be put on the table and set the entire thing back.
It is true that Clegg moved them to the right of where they were but even that didn’t move them all that far right on the broader spectrum
Yes he did. Which is the really damaging thing by him and Blair. They surrendered to the hard right economically and allowed them to dictate what was and wasnt normal economically. As such the entire window shifted dramatically rightwards.
Moving to the centre can do that, whereupon you slowly move back to your natural position.
Apart from the "centre" will have shifted hard right and people will be declaring that this is the normal. The problem with politics is the baseline is quicker to reset than in other fields. If you allow someone else to dominate the narrative then the baseline will shift.
Labour’s increase in the polls has nothing to do with Corbyn taking the party left, the feedback on him and the party make that clear
I am not sure it does. There was clear feedback from the previous election for example that once Milliband actually dared to push some mildly leftwing policies he started doing better it was just too little too late.
Cheap borrowing is at the heart of a neoliberal capitalist society that has nowhere to go
Did you fashion your own tin foil hat good sir? Neoliberal, nationalist, insolationalist, you're just typing long words and quoting off-centre economists views.
So the justification for voting Tory, so far, is because they are not Labour / Corbyn / Blair / Winter of Discontent?
We just need British Leyland, Scargill / Miners, and Michael Foot for a full house bingo.
So we're 5 pages in and the above still stands. But we've now had terrorist sympathiser, Marxist, how Brexit is not the Tories doing, the Lib-Dems zig-zagging left and right, and how the BOE isn't the government.
Only two people have answered the OPs question.
People have very short memories for something which happened only 2 years ago.
I remember well the moment the campaign turned - it was when Theresa May brought up "dementia tax", means testing the winter fuel allowance and ending the "triple lock" guaranteed 2.5% increase in pensions. They got punished for that.
Then Labour courted young voters. You know, the ones who thought Corbyn was someone's commie old grandad.
Similarly Charles Kennedy offered voters an alternative to the Tories and New Labour, Nick Clegg did not. LibDem support increased impressively under Kennedy but totally collapsed under Clegg.
Kennedy offered PR. That's what the lib Dems stood for in the public eye. And that was never going to fly. Don't think it ever will, either. Not unless something drastically changes.
Clegg stood for marginally more, which is partly why he got to government and Kennedy didn't. Lib Dem support collapsed undr the coalition, which was inevitable.
. Get PR through and they would have been forgiven a lot of the other stuff. As it was they instead allowed a miserable compromise to be put on the table and set the entire thing back.
That was never, ever going to happen. Not untik the Lib Dems got a majority. At which point they would see absolutely no reason to go to PR and jeopardise their future. Which is why basically no one has switched to PR.
The Lib Dems put all their demands (cards) on the table at the start and got shafted because of it. They were dumb.
The centre moves about a bit but always comes back. That's why it is the centre. Thatcher was much farther right than this lot so we are already in the way back.
Yes he did. Which is the really damaging thing by him and Blair. They surrendered to the hard right economically and allowed them to dictate
If you hadn't lopped off the part of my quote that said he, as part of the coalition did, then we'd be saying basically the same thing.
No one would describe Blair as 'right' in any sense of the word.
I am not sure it does. There was clear feedback from the previous election for example that once Milliband actually dared to push some mildly leftwing policies he started doing better it was just too little too late.
Certainly Corbyn's anti austerity played well but May's personal unlikeability and the words dementia tax, means test and end of pension guarantee did it.
Yeah right, the Tories were "punished" because they had the wrong policies. And young voters were drawn to Labour because they saw Corbyn as an old grandad.
I can see this is going nowhere - you are just going to ignore all the facts that don't suit whatever point you are trying to make.
But I'll leave you with this, since you mentioned it :
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42747342
I can see this is going nowhere – you are just going to ignore all the facts that don’t suit whatever point you are trying to make.
I was just thinking exactly the same thing. Particularly if you distort what I actually say so you can refute what I didn't say.
I'm not sure you read the whole article you posted a link to like;
51% of respondents told Comres that the Conservatives had "more realistic and well thought out policies than Labour" as opposed to 31% who thought that Labour's policies were more realistic.
And despite backing Labour policies overall, 47% of respondents said they were "less likely to vote Labour" after hearing their policies than they had been before, as opposed to 34% who said the opposite.
Meanwhile 56% of respondents told Comres that they believed Jeremy Corbyn "would be a disaster as Prime Minister" as opposed to just 30% who said he "would be given a fair chance of leading the country."
Doesn't sound like the kind of feedback that would lead you to think it was going to turn the election in labour's favour, does it?
I'll leave this for you. I'll even give you the Coles notes version:
The turning point of the campaign, according to insiders, was Theresa May's U-turn on social care.
and
Labour (not Corbyn) countered Tory attack ads on Facebook with upbeat messages and celebrity endorsements. Labour's successful push to get out the youth vote was a decisive factor in some seats, although there is still some debate about the size of the surge in voting among 18 to 24-year-olds.
The whole thing:
https://www.bbc.com/news/election-2017-40237833
Only two people have answered the OPs question.
Yep and no more have answered yet. It can't be that hard to answer can it?
I have voted conservative in the past when I was younger as a "it's what my parents did " vote.
I have not in years now dispite on the face of it being a conservative target. I don't like government interference. I believe a correctly organises market is efficient. (Note correctly organised, i.e. regulated to minimise asymmetric relationships).
I would not vote conservative anymore, especially after Brexit.
I also would not vote labour. They are dishonest is there approach of better public services "we can get the rich to pay for that" but with a very low bar to be regarded as "rich". Better public services mean everyone has to pay more. Even if this mean those at the bottom get some more money back via some form of benefits it help with the phycology if everyone pay more. This is why I think lib Dems are the only party who are honest about this point.
Well, yes, they did forget the cardinal rule of don’t be the smaller partner in a coalition.
Seems to be working fine for the DUP 🙂
To be fair, the DUP are far more used to saying NO! than the Lib Dems
Not untik the Lib Dems got a majority
Of course it could have. They were in the position to do so in the coalition. To put it into perspective just look at the influence the far smaller DUP are having.
The centre moves about a bit but always comes back. That’s why it is the centre.
No it is the "centre" because its arbitrarily placed there based on the alignment of the major parties or, sometimes, just because people like to declare themselves as such since they think it makes them look balanced. The casual example of this is looking at the "centre" in the UK, USA and mainland Europe. It is in a very different position.
The only way you move it is by actually offering something to the left or right. If you chase the other party then the centre moves with you.
means test and end of pension guarantee did it.
Aside from when you look at the votes the older generation still turned out enmass for the tories. So it doesnt seem to have had quite the effect you are claiming. The "unlikeable" May got a massive increase in pro tory votes. If Labour hadnt managed to also increase their turn out it would have been a landslide.