March for the Alternative - London - Today

[beth]

i'm just about to go to uni so i don't have time to quote, but @undertaker; even if conservative and labour were exactly the same i would never vote conservative. i don't like the history of the party or where they started from or where they've stood on issues in the past.
they are a bunch of middle-class ******s, and i'd rather have nothing to do with them.
i tend to believe a lot can be learned from learning the history of something.

[FlyingJesus]

That's a bit daft, the history isn't anything to do with their current build. The history of Spain is to be treacherous and oily but that doesn't mean I wouldn't go there now. People voting for party loyalty over issues and proposals is the reason we get governments voted in that people afterwards decide not to like

[beth]

That's a bit daft, the history isn't anything to do with their current build. The history of Spain is to be treacherous and oily but that doesn't mean I wouldn't go there now. People voting for party loyalty over issues and proposals is the reason we get governments voted in that people afterwards decide not to like

i'm not saying live by history, i'm saying learn from history.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Councils are not staffed by thousands of diversity managers.

Not just diversity managers, the public sector has become bloated with non jobs such as diversity managers, but also pencil pushers.

This is all ideological - none of what you have said is actual fact.

The part on regulation is true, the more you tax and the more you regulate the less growth and jobs you will get in return - small business struggles across Europe under the burden of EU regulation, whether its for bendy fruit or the standardisation of tractor seats.

And no, i'm not making those examples up.

Do the families of public sector workers eat food which comes out of nowhere or do they spend every penny in the private sector. This 'real economy' rubbish you come out with every time you have an argument is an ideological term. When the government spends money, the money is used in private sector businesses and increases output and employs people. Cutting spending in the public sector without any increase in the private sector cuts the GDP.

I think you will find that is fact, the private sector pays the bills and is thus the real economy because it makes the money which in turn makes the world go around. If government was so great at creating economic growth, then we'd just have it over and done with and nationalise the lot and thus grow a far stronger economy - but look at past examples (including ourselves) and that ideology is shown not to work as it is nothing more than a failed experiment.

When a 'private sector' business relies on government subsidy to function and do business, it is not private sector - it is public sector in all but officaldom. The reason why the public sector makes a loss is simple; because government cannot run business and in order to pay for its bloated self, it has to tax the productive parts of the economy in order to fund itself - again, if this was not the case then we would re-nationalise everything.

The green jobs issue for a prime example, public sector ends up costing the productive private sector;
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-12597097

i'm just about to go to uni so i don't have time to quote, but @undertaker; even if conservative and labour were exactly the same i would never vote conservative. i don't like the history of the party or where they started from or where they've stood on issues in the past.
they are a bunch of middle-class ******s, and i'd rather have nothing to do with them.
i tend to believe a lot can be learned from learning the history of something.

And Labour politcians aren't? most of the 'working class' Labour politicians aren't working class at all, and even if they were - they now live in ivory towers (hence are oblivious to the ghettoising effects of mass immigration among other issues) whereas the poorest continue to live in these areas because they have no choice. The Labour frontbench team (and the Tories also) all mostly send their children to the best schools (good schools in wealthy areas or they simply go private) whilst they force the comprehensive education system on the rest of us, which, again - only punishes the poorest. A study a while back showed that apparently now, UKIP now picks up more 'working class' votes than Labour does (see the Barnsley by-election) so if you are going to vote based on just class, which I don't think you should as you should vote based on reason and thought, you are picking the wrong horse.

I believe we can learn a lot from history also, and i've learnt that Labour (and Conservative/Liberal Democrat) government only results in more sovereignty being surrendered to the EU, more uncontrolled immigration, higher levels taxation, general corruption within government, a poor education system, no action on crime, an appalling justice system, ridiculous wars at the behest of the United States... I could go on and on.

I mean i'm being fair and honest there, because thats what we get - so why do we keep falling for their rhetoric before election day?

even if conservative and labour were exactly the same

They are the same, I ask somebody - anybody to pick out some real differences between them both.

[Agnostic Bear]

i'm not saying live by history, i'm saying learn from history.

"People voting for party loyalty over issues and proposals is the reason we get governments voted in that people afterwards decide not to like"

Why not learn from that bit of history?

[FlyingJesus]

They are the same, I ask somebody - anybody to pick out some real differences between them both.

They wear different colour ties yesssssssssssssss what do I win

[GommeInc]

They wear different colour ties yesssssssssssssss what do I win

Oh, oh! And when a coalition comes along they blend their party colours to make a different colour! Nick Clegg now wears a green tie, possibly because him and Cameron washed their ties together at too hot a wash.

"People voting for party loyalty over issues and proposals is the reason we get governments voted in that people afterwards decide not to like"

Why not learn from that bit of history?

It's for this reason I might vote for a different party to the top 3 which are too similar and too "corrupt" for my liking. Lib Dems have proven they are not to be trusted, and Labour and the Conservatives like to waste money but in different ways. UKIP/Greens maybe?

[alexxxxx]

Not just diversity managers, the public sector has become bloated with non jobs such as diversity managers, but also pencil pushers.

This is your assumption. Not ever business/authority is efficient.

The part on regulation is true, the more you tax and the more you regulate the less growth and jobs you will get in return - small business struggles across Europe under the burden of EU regulation, whether its for bendy fruit or the standardisation of tractor seats.

And no, i'm not making those examples up.

Here we go! get an EU jibe in

I think you will find that is fact, the private sector pays the bills and is thus the real economy because it makes the money which in turn makes the world go around. If government was so great at creating economic growth, then we'd just have it over and done with and nationalise the lot and thus grow a far stronger economy - but look at past examples (including ourselves) and that ideology is shown not to work as it is nothing more than a failed experiment.

No what I am saying is that if you CUT government funding too fast, you cut private sector output (ie there are less government orders, there is less orders from government staff - what part of this do you not understand?), possibly by even more.

When a 'private sector' business relies on government subsidy to function and do business, it is not private sector - it is public sector in all but officaldom. The reason why the public sector makes a loss is simple; because government cannot run business and in order to pay for its bloated self, it has to tax the productive parts of the economy in order to fund itself - again, if this was not the case then we would re-nationalise everything.

When my dad pays for fish and chips with money that he's earned from working at the council, does that count as a government subsidy? Is this local business being given a government hand-out?

Schools, roads, street lighting, parks and playgrounds are not businesses, they are services.

[-:Undertaker:-]

This is your assumption. Not ever business/authority is efficient.

Indeed, and they go bust in the real economy whereas in the government sphere they simply carry on making a loss, supported by the taxpayer.

Here we go! get an EU jibe in

Most of the regulation we have put on us pours out from the EU, none of it needed - thus you get ridiculous legislation (fruit and tractor seats).

No what I am saying is that if you CUT government funding too fast, you cut private sector output (ie there are less government orders, there is less orders from government staff - what part of this do you not understand?), possibly by even more.

The fact that the government is taxing/raising revenue through business which does not require government orders hurts the real economy, not the nationalised-in-all-but-name companies which you keep mentioning. These companies which rely on government money would go bust yes, but it would allow for the real economy (those productive companies which do not need government orders) to expand, rather than contract under the burden of taxation and regulation which is what they face now.

I said before, if nationalisation worked so well - every major economy would be at it.

Tried it, and it failed.

When my dad pays for fish and chips with money that he's earned from working at the council, does that count as a government subsidy? Is this local business being given a government hand-out?

In a way yes, as he isn't working for a productive company - the state sector, although some parts are of course needed (teaching, managers, councillors and so forth) are run at a loss - there is no such thing as 'state money'. The money your Dad earns is taxed from the productive parts.

Thats not to say he is not needed, which brings me onto..

Schools, roads, street lighting, parks and playgrounds are not businesses, they are services.

Which is what I have said, some parts of the state are needed of course as some things will not ever run at a profit (the Royal Navy) and are needed.

I'm talking about the layers of management we have working for the state and the public sector 'private companies' which rely on the government - all of them need to be cut. The NHS is another example; http://www.metro.co.uk/news/819186-s...ding-to-report; article states that the number of managers in the NHS has risen by 84% in the last decade - in the real economy, this would not happen otherwise the company would face going bust.

..but because it is run by the state (like many other things), it simply goes on sucking the money out of the real economy.

[Mathew]

they are a bunch of middle-class ******s, and i'd rather have nothing to do with them.

..and to think that you were the one having a moan at Robbie earlier in this thread when he stereotyped Labour voters. Clearly both of your assumptions are stupidly immature, but damn.. don't fall for it yourself :rolleyes:

It's a shame that people can't agree to disagree on one's political stance on this forum.