Politics in the UK

[Nickolai77]

How is politics at University? I'm thinking of taking it myself.

Not bad. I didn't do politics at A-Level, so the stuff where learning about is all new to me. However, to those who have already done A-Level politics, its virtually the same as A-level apparantly.



Tell you what people, screw the political parties because their all rubbish, let's form a new party, the Escapist Party!

 

[Wadders]

Bah. Seems like we'll just go back and forth between Labour and Conservative until the end of the world, and neither will change the country much. I want some excitement. Revolution anyone?

 

[ReSpawn]

Thirdly, the Chernobyl incident was caused by such a remarkable chain of concurrent events that, even with the inherent stupidty of a soviet-era system, the flaws inbuilt into the reactor, and the lax safety protoctls, it still took gross stupidity on the part of incompetent managers AND inadequate safety precautions to cause the incident.

Even then, only a few hundred people died. More people die from coal power every year.

Hey! It's me from ten minutes ago!

Hey Austin from ten minutes from now! You stop the laser beam while I go save the girl!

 

[Raven's Nest]

I wish there was a "none of the above, fuck off and rethink policy" box to tick

I'm so writing that on my poll card next time. I don't even bother voting becuase doing so with this lot would be making myself partially responsible for the crap we deal with because of them.

Democracy doesn't work and it certainly isn't free. It's just a fucking popularity contest. Where's my freedom to live freely AKA Native American style?

 

[Rolling Thunder]

Sorry root, but I have to say you're wrong here... Basically, you've not really researched this properly.

Wasn't me who researched it. It was a combination of my Uncle (Safety Inspector at Dounray) and a number of people involved in the findings at 9/11. Perfectly feasible to drop a plane onto a reactor and it'd be like an air-fuel explosive going off. Twelve feet of concrete wouldn't stop it.

If you want to make it more powerful, then there's a number of ways of increasing the force.

Equally you could do it to the Watford Gap or the Hoover Dam to shut down most of that countries welfare; but the media scare from radiation does terror's work far more effectively.

I'm really going to have to ask for sources on that. I'm aware that nuclear fuel can be flammable, but exactly how this would produce an airburst effect or even a fuel cloud is beyond me.

 

[Dr Namgge]

I wish there was a "none of the above, fuck off and rethink policy" box to tick

I'm so writing that on my poll card next time. I don't even bother voting becuase doing so with this lot would be making myself partially responsible for the crap we deal with because of them.

not voting or spoiling your ballot paper isn't sending a message other than "I don't care". It's never viewed as a "nine of the above" but rather an "any of the above".

The problem with politics, as I see it is that there's never anything drastic done. Whoever's in power adopts the "it's not broke, don't fix it," approach to ruling. Usually this is because all politicians are in it for the notoriety and the craving of power, rather than to actually make a difference to the country they're ruling. It's not surprising though, the last politician to make serious changes and reposition the country's economy to be better suited in the international environment is the same politician who's derilled for "screwing the miners over".

Of course, then the media sticks it's nose in and makes the public think there's a gigantic problem with certain issues, meaning the government have to instead of dealing with more pressing matters, deal with whatever the media's current shitstorm of the week is. I honestly believe the BNP would have much less support if the Daily Mail and Daily Express went out of circulation.

The thing is, everyone seems to think "I could run a country," but when you get right down to it, you have at most five years to implement all your policies, and make them successful before the next election. You have to go with the things that the majority of the public want, and to stay in actual power and be able to keep running the country as smoothly as you think you can, you need to win elections, which means not doing things which will cost you the majority. When you consider everything that comes with running the country, it suddenly becomes obvious why very little is done, and why people just abide to whatever the media is complaining about.

Hence, the true rulers of the country, are the media. It's an unelected position you can hold for as long as you want, but get enough media power and editorial influence and you can persuade joe public to agree with you on just about any issue. Since that gets the public biting, the governments will concede, for the sake of votes, and staying in power. You might not have no true say in politics nor the ability to vote for or against, but you can put enough editorial weight on things to influence government decisions, and get your way. It just takes longer.

Tl;dr, the media controls the influence of what the country is thinking, they in turn influence what the government should do, and thus have a key influence on who wins elections, who's in power, and what they do. Want to rule a country? Build a gigantic monopolistic media empire of newspapers, magazines, TV, radio, and the internet.

 

[Erja_Perttu]

Bah. Seems like we'll just go back and forth between Labour and Conservative until the end of the world, and neither will change the country much. I want some excitement. Revolution anyone?

Yup, revolution would be awesome right now. I respect the french a lot for their ability to go out and actually do something.

POliticians are corrupt and there's no way of getting around it. Almost everyone in parliament and the Lords is a crook, as proven by the expenses stuff.

Also, why vote when everyone is as central and incompetent as everyone else. The moment people start to think the BNP is a good idea because they're the only ones really addressing mass immigration, you know something has gotta be wrong.

I want something fresh and new that has a chance of getting into power and doing something, anything.

I wouldn't mind a revolution, so long as we still ended up as a democracy.

 

[Agema]

Right could you actually read what I am saying for once. I have a problem with those people who CHOOSE not to work.
As for 10p difference between minimum wage and benefits, how about you stay up to date with politics, as a recent report shows the difference between the two to be negligible. How about you read a newspaper instead of screaming unfounded insults?
And I do have experience of poverty, which you clearly do not want to know about as you seem to always think the poor are victims. Some are victims of inaction and bad attitude, but no, no way are you going to admit that.
Again, stop trying to say I'm generalising all the poor as lazy. I am not saying that - I am saying that the system needs changing as it can be abused. But again, you are more hell bent on arguing some other matter for whatever bizarre reason you have. I have said the government needs to create more jobs, but again, you over look that.
Reply when you actually have read what I've said, and not gone on a rant against a straw man.

Here's another interesting article. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7326911.stm :"The money gleaned from reluctant taxpayers, both personal and corporate, has risen from £1.13bn in 1991-92 to a staggering £9.17bn in 2006-07."

This puts benefit fraud - £800 million let's remember - in perspective. Bear in mind what HMRC finds and recoups will be only a fraction of the total tax evasion going on. This is not counting tax avoidance either, which is essentially legal, following the letter of the law if not the spirit.

To look at the figures, it is clear that the people who are really costing the taxpayer are white collar criminals and individuals/businesses with expensive accountants. To drop into the world of anecdote rather than large-scale statistics, a teacher friend of mine told me a story about the independent school she worked in. Some kid happily said in class that his father fiddled his tax, and secondly that he deserved to not pay so much tax. That child will probably get that view from his father, and will be inclined to do the same when he gets a job: attitudes of theft, personal aggrandisement and lack of responsibility go way beyond the unemployed.

I'm not saying you approve of this, in fact I'm sure you're against it. However, what I do question is why there should be so much focus on benefit scams. Going around discussion forums, I frequently see a lot of people raging about various injustices regarding the benefits system, ranging from undeserving wasters or immigrants living off the state.

To tie this in with more recent posts, I think a lot of it is the media. If you search newspapers, especially right-wing ones, you'll find far more articles telling you about benefit cheats than tax evasion. It is to a large extent they, newspapers and other media, that direct public attention to who should be blamed for what and what's wrong with the country. It shouldn't be surprising - the readership of a newspaper is more inclined to be middle class and going to be significantly less comfortable being told they and their social group are actually the worst offenders. Perhaps more importantly, most big media groups also will be using dodgy practices themselves, and they hardly want to draw attention to their, their owner's, or their directors' finances.

It may be true that Labour is less inclined to do anything about benefit cheats because it's more their electoral heartland being targetted. But then it's much less in Tory interests to look at the other end, tax evasion and other white collar fraud, because they are more likely to be Tory voters. Ultimately, it should be obvious from the figures that it's tax dodging that is a much greater problem than benefit fraud.

 

[Agema]

It is a very interesting and valid point on the cost of tax evasion to the public, and yet the media attention, and social attention to it is somewhat minimal.
Though for me the reason why is quite clear. Areas where tax evasion etc are occurring on a large scale e.g. high income areas, are usually pleasant and safe areas. However, areas where the majority of people are receiving benefits are generally unsafe/flat out dangerous areas. It's because of this people see that those people who are unjustly receiving benefits are more at fault than the ones who are evading tax, regardless of the cost to the country.
Once the 'rough' areas have been sorted out, maybe then people will start to ask "Where is my tax money going to?" rather than "Why is that asshole getting away with doing nothing?".
However it does seem to be part of a much greater problem, such as whole judicial system and social attitudes.
All I can say is the benefits & judicial system won't be reworked by Labour due to their targeted areas, and it's the rising rate of random violence & lack of evidence of tax payers money which is worrying me and many other people.

That's a good point - antisocial behaviour needs to be tackled, and many areas need serious regeneration so that they become attractive and relatively peaceful, which will in turn encourage the local community to keep it that way.

However, I don't think that's a pro or con with regard to the benefits system. It's a mostly separate thing that someone needs to spend money on, and David "the government is too big" Cameron doesn't look like the likeliest person to do so. I know he's talked about community activists and charity, but ultimately someone needs to stump up cash somewhere. In fact, what he's really done is taken the language and aims of the left, but the ideas behind it are all Thatcherite, and I'm rather dubious because I think Thatcherism has a strong part to play in what caused social decay in the first place.

Another key factor is getting people jobs. I doubt businesses want to set up in areas with a reputation for low quality workers and crime, so that needs government subsidy. Here again, when Labour has not been very interested in the first place, I suspect the Tories will be less so.

 

[JenXXXJen]

Labour haven't actually done that bad a job, the recession would have happened if the Tory's were in power, and was pretty ineviteble considering it was a world-wide recession. Well, the last part I'm just guessing, but it makes sense.

For most of their term, Labour have done pretty well, despite what the media (I'm looking at you, Sun and Daily Mail) would have you believe. It's recently that things have gone a little downhill...

My main thing thing against the Conservative's is that they're - what? - 80% middle class? Most people in the country are poor, why vote some posh twits that no nothing of real life to run the country? Plus all rich people hate poor people by definition - fact.

 

[Shoqiyqa]

I've been alive long enough to see both Labour and Torries arse things up, so I vote LibDems on principle. I don't care what the morons who say you should vote for them because they've got low odds of winning. Such people epicly fail at understanding what voting is.
At least any party is better than BNP.

Good for you!

Every Lib Dem vote is a vote against having two politically indistinguishable parties taking it in turns to rob the poor to pay back their rich sponsors and shaft the whole country up the arse.

It's also, imo, a vote for better policies. To some extent it has to be, because the Lib Dems have to be better to get anywhere. Unfortunately, people are ******* STUPID.

Labour: We'll improve services without raising taxes.
Conservative: We'll cut taxes without reducing services.
Lib Dem: We'll improve services and protect the environment but it'll mean raising more with 45% taxes on higher earners.

People voted Labour and Conservative and now the country's in record debt and Labour have had to bring in a 50% tax rate.

So who'll they vote for this time?

The largest party that voted against the war half a million people marched through London to oppose, or the two parties that voted in favour of it?

Unfortunately, people are ******* STUPID.






...






http://politicalcompass.org/extremeright

The quiz on that site tends to put me between Lib Dem 1999 and Labour 1982, ...

... more authoritarian than the Dalai Lama and some way to the right of Nelson Mandela:

It's a simplification, of course. I'm right at the top of the chart when it comes to shooting drunks to prevent them driving, a long way down on some drugs, way up on drug-pushing, down at the bottom on police brutality, out to the left on public transport, healthcare and minimum wage, out to the right on overtime and on the science end of the science-dogma axis (not shown) and the artists' end of the artists-corporations axis (also not shown).

If I had my own country, Sony would be told to **** off. Why? One word: rootkit.

 

[littlelacysurprisepageant]

As someone whos not legally allowed to vote yet I try to keep my political views very open. I agree with some parts of each party. For me one of the main problem with parties is that one party thinks of a good policy then they keep hold of it like a nazi hording gold. So other parties can't use this good idea so they have to rack their brains for something else. It goes on and on until the newer parties (Green Party for example) have nothing left to work with. I'd personally love a green britain. But the world doesn't work like that.

We have -
Every other party - Mediokire at best.
BNP - A bag of racists and ex national frontists.

No matter what party you choose its all going to be the same, they'll lack in some sectors and improve on others. Anyway, I'm open to a change in mind.

Welcome to the Escapist! Your first post on this site is one of the best I've seen in a long time.

 

[DraftPickle]

@Shoqiyqa, I'm not sure all of that is correct, just due to the fact that British politics isn't actually that accessable vie le internet, although you could be entirely right , I'm just a lil sceptical at the moment

 

[cuddly_tomato]

I've been alive long enough to see both Labour and Torries arse things up, so I vote LibDems on principle. I don't care what the morons who say you should vote for them because they've got low odds of winning. Such people epicly fail at understanding what voting is.
At least any party is better than BNP.

Good for you!

Every Lib Dem vote is a vote against having two politically indistinguishable parties taking it in turns to rob the poor to pay back their rich sponsors and shaft the whole country up the arse.

It's also, imo, a vote for better policies. To some extent it has to be, because the Lib Dems have to be better to get anywhere. Unfortunately, people are ******* STUPID.

Labour: We'll improve services without raising taxes.
Conservative: We'll cut taxes without reducing services.
Lib Dem: We'll improve services and protect the environment but it'll mean raising more with 45% taxes on higher earners.

I would have voted for Lib Dem before this Clegg character. He is all about cutting services and stuff now. Every party it seems is bragging about how much it is going to take the UK to the cleaners to give the banks another bail out. A few Liberals are uneasy with it, Menzies Campbell said that while they wouldn't abolish tuition fees now they would aspire to abolish tuition fees, which is nice. It worked for Bush. While Iraq was a complete mess he at least aspired for it to be great.

In any case, we had two Conservative parties in the UK up until Clegg was elected. Now we have three as far as I am concerned. I don't vote anymore.