A political revolution? ..er maybe

[????]

StraferJack Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> "I know that would be suicide a"

>

> if that's the case why blame the politician - why

> not blame the people who would judge him/her for

> it?

Because some of it is the politicians and party system

Ask people a question, even a political one, you get a straigth answer normally (doesn't mean it's right or you agree) ask a politician a straight question on any thing vaguely contraversial (eg their views on drug legalisation) you don't you get avoidance for fear of not 'being on message' and it's pathetic and alienating.

Not answering a straight question - politicians and spin doctors fault not the peoples....and that's why people get pisse*d off and it's not our fault..just as one example of this.

[StraferJack]

Btw ? I?m not trying to pick on you Otta. It?s just you expressed an opinion I hear so regularly and I always wonder why people don?t join the dots

If a politician has to be elected to do anything at all, he has to get a critical mass of people behind him. This means finding enough centre ground. This means compromises. This means the people in That Tribe feel their leader isn?t listening to THEM and has gone too far the other way.

It?s a really vicious circle and I don?t know the answer to it

I do know the answer isn?t UKIP mind... as I?ve said many times, OTHER protest parties are available (none of them get the coverage UKIP do tho..)

[????]

plus selection lists continually choose the same sort of candidates for all parties...again, not the fault of non-party members (or even party members in some cases)but the politicians

[Otta]

StraferJack Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Btw ? I?m not trying to pick on you Otta. It?s

> just you expressed an opinion I hear so regularly

> and I always wonder why people don?t join the

> dots

Nope, I expressed an opinion that you mistook for another opinion, then I explained myself, but rather than acknowledging it, you basically said "nope, you meant this".

[Otta]

I reckon you should have to pass a short test on politics before being allowed a vote. Some 20 year olds know the score, I suspect most don't.

At 18 I didn't vote Labour because I wanted to knock that smug grin off of Tony Blair's face. Not the best reason to decide who you want running the country.

Throughout my twenties (or most of them) I just cared about fun and having a laugh with my mates now that I had money to burn (God if only I'd saved some of that).

I always had a moral compass, which isn't much different now to how it would have been at 20. But now I realise that there's a bit more to it than what feels right or wrong.

In honestly it's only since my late 20s that I started really paying attention to the world outside of my life, and now I can't get enough of the depressing bunch of shite. But in all honestly, before that I was voting largely on superficial stuff and who said the right things and sounded like they'd be fairest, I didn't really look any deeper.

Now perhaps I'm alone in that, but I bloody well doubt it, if people are honest with themselves, I suspect a lot of them would hold their hands up and say that they weren't really that switched on to politics until they were pushing 30.

[El Pibe]

"At 18 I didn't vote Labour because I wanted to knock that smug grin off of Tony Blair's face. Not the best reason to decide who you want running the country. "

Sounds like a very wise position to me!!!!!

[Brendan]

???? Wrote:

>

> Some of us have been saying the same thing on the

> forum for years.....

Good to know someone was reading my posts.

[Otta]

Just to clarify.

I blame politicians for not listening enough to what peole really think through sensible discussion. And as Quids points out, the lack of straight answers often makes me not want to bother with the whole thing at all, and leads to "they're all the bloody same at the end of the day" feelings.

I do not blame the politicians for not being able to say publically "I think we could do better on that and may have misjudged public feeling". They can't do that because they'd get slaughtered by both their opposition, the press, and the keyboard warriors.

[david_carnell]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Income Tax...you sure?

Yes, positive. According to polling by YouGov a decent majority (56%) of the public support introducing a 75% tax rate on anyone earning more than a million. Only 31% who oppose it.

And when YouGov asked people at what income level they would like high taxes on the rich to start, the median answer was ?100,000.

> plus Labour haven't been quiet on Zero_hour

> Contarcts or Minimum wage (were you watching their

> conference??)

Yeah, I watched it. And what I gathered is that the minimum wage would go up a bit. By 2020 when inflation will have wiped out it's use. Thanks.

And zero-hours contracts? It's worth noting that Labour's policy doesn't just stop short of the outright ban that some in the party, such as Andy Burnham, would like to see, but actually represents a watered down version of previous proposals.

Back in September, when Miliband addressed the TUC conference, Labour briefed that anyone working for a single employer for more than 12 weeks on a zero-hours contract would be given the automatic right to a full-time contract based on the average time worked over that period. Yet that period has now been extended to 12 months. In other words, workers will now need to wait four times as long for fair treatment. (An additional problem is that employers will simply dismiss workers ahead of the deadline before later rehiring them.)

> But those are 'micro' issues the biggest ones are

> defeceit (ooops, forgot that one David M...and C:)

> ); overall management of the economy and

> Immigration and a bit further down the list the

> NHS. Labour only doing well on one of them.

I'll ignore the economy for now ;-)

You think immigration is higher on the agenda that cost of living. No way. People want food in their bellies and warm houses. They couldn't care less if the guy picking cabbages is from Lithuania.

Looking at wages and bills would hit those targets.

The Tories tried to fight on immigration under Howard and it got them nowhere.

[Loz]

david_carnell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Interestingly, the public are to the left of Miliband on a number of issues. Rail, energy and

> mail renationalisation, income tax, minimum wage, zero-hour contracts and rent-capping yet on all of

> these issues Labour remain silent.

But aren't some of those just UKIP-style play-to-the-irrational-fears-of-the-masses stuff?

Would rail be any better nationalised? Energy prices in the UK are some of the cheapest in Europe - would nationisation change anything? What would mail renationalisation achieve? How did raising the top level income tax rate in France work for Hollande and would it actually raise any more money? Does rent capping actually work, when you consider rents in Berlin has risen three times the rate of London in the last 10 years?

I want serious policies that make a difference, not idelogical fiddling.

[DulwichVillageLady]

Loz you're an idelogical fiddler!

[david_carnell]

Loz

I'm not giving any of those things a value or merit. I'm just saying it's what the majority want according to polling.

It's also stuff that would sit well among the Labour party activists and the heartland voters who are deserting in their droves to UKIP if last night is anything to go by.

Miliband's current strategy isn't working. I'm presenting options that I believe would increase his support and be popular in the country at large.

Sadly they weren't aimed at you ;-)

[Loz]

david_carnell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Loz

>

> I'm not giving any of those things a value or merit. I'm just saying it's what the majority want

> according to polling.

My point was - isn't that exactly what UKIP are doing?

[david_carnell]

None of these policies encourage xenophobia I s'pose!

So....what's your solution?

[DaveR]

It's important to distinguish between what people say they will vote for, and what history shows they actually vote for. UK voters have consistently said in polls that they would support higher taxes to pay for better public services, then voted against it. Obviously, if you ask people whether taxing people earning ?1m+ is a good idea a majority are going to say yes (tho' still only 56%), but I would seriously question whether as a policy that is a game changer. In any event I think people's faith in government to spend money wisely has been seriously eroded, hence the importance of economic competence.

As to the gulf between what people will vote for and what might credibly work in practice, that's another story.

[Loz]

Most people aren't, at heart, xenophobic, but they do lash out and go tribal when they are scared.

If we leave Europe/ban immigration/have a big top rate of income tax/renationalise the railways will the lives of the average Brit be any better? Almost certainly not. The problem seems to be that all of the parties are listening to the solutions being proposed, but not actually trying to understand what is the base cause of the fears.

It's a classic IT issue - people say "I need one of these", when actually having one of those won't solve their actual business pains. Until the politicians understand what is paining the working class, they'll never work out what will be the cure and all that will happen is they will grab for any worthless policy that seems popular.

[????]

exactly, and Milliband is falling into populism rather than what's needed so in that sense is already mirroring UKIP except being populist on issues that sit ok in Islington circles and the Guardian - lower rail fares YEAH YEAH, nasty rich tax em, er but not you just those on ?100k plus, energy price capping (any idea what that'll do to investement in our enery infrastructure - give you clue it'll F*ck it up)

I do support an increase in the minimum wage tho.

I'm interested in our economy getting fixed so we can build a better future not 'my party' getting elected.

Not sure if I'll bother voting but it won't be Milliband for sure

[Loz]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> exactly, and Milliband is falling into populism rather than what's needed

Though, to be fair, so is Cameron.

[david_carnell]

But all that is easy to say but it doesn't actually get you elected.

Too many voters DO vote with those who pander to their views and fears. Have you just seen what happened in Clacton? That's not twelve thousand people thinking rationally.

My point was that Miliband could be bold, left-wing and populist all at the same time. I'm not necessarily saying any or all of those policies would be "successful".

[????]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ???? Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > exactly, and Milliband is falling into populism

> rather than what's needed

>

> Though, to be fair, so is Cameron.

Yes, it's a fair point he is too. Very unlikely to get my vote too.

[david_carnell]

So let me get this right - you chaps all want commitment politicians who have ideological convictions, stick to them and offer bold, radical but pragmatic policies, that are popular (have to get elected) but not populist (spit), that help abate working class grievances and still go down well in East Dulwich?

Yeah. Good luck with that.

[StraferJack]

Are people on here starting to equate working class with UKIP voters? Because that's not right surely?

[????]

Grown up politicians-grown up parties- grown up electorate....

...not too much to ask :)

[Otta]

StraferJack Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Are people on here starting to equate working

> class with UKIP voters? Because that's not right

> surely?

Indeed, not right.

But then again, they will do best in areas where people are struggling most.

[StraferJack]

Not sure I agree. Have a look at results in May. I suspect many struggling areas won't have a bar of UKIP. Struggling doesn't make people thick.