Arbtalk 2015 General Election Poll

[skyhuck]

Come on then Dave post one of your links let's have a look

 

 

RBS set to pay back last of £163bn loan from taxpayer - Telegraph

[RichieR]

Well done Dave you pulled that one out of the hat

[Two Acres]

I was thinking about this over the weekend as I pruned the apples. My problem is that I can't see a solution from any of them.

 

Politics in the 19th century was exclusively dominated by public school educated people from a privileged background. Government was something done 'to' the great unwashed masses, not on their behalf as elected representatives. Things moved on and the Conservative party of my youth (80s/90s) was run by bright people from fairly normal backgrounds - Maggie Thatcher was the daughter of a grocer, not sure what John Major's parents' occupations were but he went to a state Grammar School (and William Hague's background was pretty normal too). This lead to policies which were relevant. I didn't necessarily agree with them, but they genuinely sought to act on behalf of the general population - usually based on an aspirational ideology such as owning your own home, owning shares etc. Somehow, the party has reverted 150yrs to being dominated by highly privileged, privately wealthy people with public school backgrounds and no connection with normality.

 

I don't have a prejudice against the rich, or against public school education, but I do have a problem with people who promote through nepotism rather than ability, and who do not take steps to address the gaps in their understanding by ensuring that they take soundings from people who understand the impact of their policies which they will not otherwise comprehend. Otherwise it becomes the callous application of ideology with no thought as to the suffering caused, or worse still, causing harm deliberately.

 

Look at who this government has targeted. Bash the public sector - not just because it is top heavy (those losing their jobs are very rarely from the top end) but hit nurses, teachers, the police - ordinary front-line workers. Teachers have not had an inflation-matching pay rise since 2003 (yes, that's under Labour due to the pay settlement agreed by the Unions) but then hit them with pay freezes and refuse to comply with the law and value their pension pot because it would inconveniently reveal that there was not a gap, because they did not take a pensions holiday, unlike many in the private sector. Then use it as an excuse to put pension contributions up to a level which causes teachers to drop out of the scheme because having a pension is a luxury they can no longer afford, but still bang on about the fantastic pension scheme, the 'short hours and long holidays' and generally give them a good kicking. If teaching is such a fantastic, cushy number, why do more people not choose to do it, and why is the average time working as a teacher 1yr before they drop out and join the private sector? The same applies to bashing other, ordinary public sector employees. It is not their fault that they took jobs in the public sector - the jobs were advertised and they applied, yet they are now publicly castigated. Of course, if you and your friends have your children privately educated and can afford private healthcare, why does it matter to you what happens to public services?

 

Bash the unemployed and call them benefits scroungers. Who cares whether there are jobs they can actually apply for, or whether they are in reality unpaid carers for family members. If you have two children, childcare costs mean you typically need to earn £27k gross per annum before you are better off working but it is easier to criticise than to understand, and it makes a good target for the tabloids.

 

It is easier to hit people who are weak, and they are less likely to be your friends (and less likely to vote for you). It's called bullying, and it is the politics of contempt, inciting the mob against people who cannot defend themselves.

 

It is also not about the money, it's about the ideology and who might vote for you. Next target is the young. Parental responsibility ends at 18, but the plan is that no benefits will be paid to under 25s. Think about it, if your parents slung you out on your 18th birthday, could you instantly afford to rent somewhere to live? If not, how would you get a job if you couldn't get clean and look presentable, and had no address? But the young are less likely to vote, and certainly less likely to vote Conservative than pensioners, so lets not means-test the winter fuel allowance and let's give all pensioners index-linked pensions and a big rise (on the grounds that they are less able to increase their income - but how exactly is a nurse or teacher supposed to do this?)

 

I see 5 more years of this as a remit to ride roughshod over ordinary people, causing pain and suffering as a consequence of ideology, rather than applying pragmatism and compromise to minimise the impact. There is clearly a need to limit spending, but I believe the state should be a safety net, providing security for those who have no alternative. The Conservatives currently do not appear to have this sense of social responsibility.

 

Labour has this rather better, but unfortunately it also has a track record of poor economic performance, and it has Ed Milliband who I cannot see as Prime Minister.

 

The Lib Dems have, so far as I am concerned, done surprisingly well. Having met Vince Cable, I would say he is pretty strong economically, and so is Danny Alexander. They have also tempered some of the excessive Conservative ideology-based plans. However they will be remembered for the single issue of breaking their promise on tuition fees, which means they will be set back several decades.

 

The SNP is has made it quite clear it will be looking to achieve preferential treatment for Scotland. As such, it is not an appropriate party to form part of a national government (as the nation is currently defined) since it cannot rise above regional issues. The same goes for the other regional parties.

 

The Greens and UKIP are typical small parties, with ill thought-out policies which are collectively inconsistent and as such it is fortunate that they will not have an opportunity to put them into practice.

 

I rue the demise of Screaming Lord Such - the Monster Raving Loony Party is beginning to look like a worryingly viable option.

 

 

 

Alec

 

Excellent post Alec. I'd take you up on a couple of things.

 

Firstly do you not feel that nepotism in our society often begins with a public school education?

 

Secondly is it not worth voting for a small party such as The Greens? Yes they may have many inconsistencies in their policy, but, in my opinion, there is much to like too. Would a vote for them at least help, perhaps, to save a deposit and therefore be a vote for the democratic process itself?

[Wolfie]

The conservative s have had five years to sort it out

 

 

Labour had 12 years with the country's credit card and you expect the conservatives to pay it of in 5 years - dream on.

 

It's easier to spend it than to save it - Labour will give a very good demonstration of this once again if they regain power.

[s.varty]

 

Im not religious, but god help us if they do return

[agg221]

Firstly do you not feel that nepotism in our society often begins with a public school education?

 

Secondly is it not worth voting for a small party such as The Greens? Yes they may have many inconsistencies in their policy, but, in my opinion, there is much to like too. Would a vote for them at least help, perhaps, to save a deposit and therefore be a vote for the democratic process itself?

 

I think the link between nepotism and a public school education is coincidental. Strictly it isn't nepotism (which is preferential treatment of a relative, originally a nephew) but cronyism, which is favouritism to a friend or associate. I think cronyism tends to occur in many fields, but politics is associated with power and influence, and those with power tend to have a money, and use this to purchase the public school education which builds the links with the establishment which perpetuates the cycle. One of my former administrators used to work in Whitehall - she said that Yes Minister is still an accurate documentary.

 

I agree that a vote for the Greens, or Lib Dems or UKIP for that matter, depending on your preference, might at least save their deposit which makes it worthwhile.

 

Alec

[skyhuck]

Excellent post Alec. I'd take you up on a couple of things.

 

Firstly do you not feel that nepotism in our society often begins with a public school education?

 

Secondly is it not worth voting for a small party such as The Greens? Yes they may have many inconsistencies in their policy, but, in my opinion, there is much to like too. Would a vote for them at least help, perhaps, to save a deposit and therefore be a vote for the democratic process itself?

 

This is a most excellent point

[matelot]

 

Much of the immigration issue stems from this. Figures show that whilst the native British public are a drain on the British public purse (taking approximately 10% more in benefits/services than paying in tax), immigrants are a net gain (EU migrants especially, who contribute much more than they take). It's no wonder so many people want a stop to EU migration when better motivated, harder working people come here, willing to work for less money.

 

 

perhaps you could post some evidence that says immigrants are good for the public purse?

 

the bulk of the evidence that I've seen says that immigrants take out more than they put in.... most EU workers migrants I come across are doing jobs at minimum wage.. do you really think they pay more in tax than they take out?

[Two Acres]

I think the link between nepotism and a public school education is coincidental. Strictly it isn't nepotism (which is preferential treatment of a relative, originally a nephew) but cronyism, which is favouritism to a friend or associate. I think cronyism tends to occur in many fields, but politics is associated with power and influence, and those with power tend to have a money, and use this to purchase the public school education which builds the links with the establishment which perpetuates the cycle. One of my former administrators used to work in Whitehall - she said that Yes Minister is still an accurate documentary.

 

I agree that a vote for the Greens, or Lib Dems or UKIP for that matter, depending on your preference, might at least save their deposit which makes it worthwhile.

 

Alec

 

I was thinking its nepotism because normally it wouldn't be the recipient of the private school education that would be paying for it, that would be a wealthy relative, most likely a parent or grandparent. My dislike of it would be for that reason and because I feel that much talent that doesn't have wealth to support it doens't get the education it deserves and is therefore potentialy lost to society as a whole. It isn't meritocratic

 

I believe we're pretty much in agreement Alec

[RichieR]

Labour had 12 years with the country's credit card and you expect the conservatives to pay it of in 5 years - dream on.

 

It's easier to spend it than to save it - Labour will give a very good demonstration of this once again if they regain power.

Well said .