Quote WiredUp:

---

While you sit here reading this thread on your Chinese made computer and making your music on your Chinese made studio and watching films on your Chinese made flatscreen have some thought for the millions who made those products and how they can only dream of earning a fraction of our minimum wage. I would argue that we should man up and stop exploiting those 'out-of-sight' people and exploit our own people first. Instead of paying people to sit at home all day playing xbox they should be working. And maybe, just maybe then the thought of ending up in one of those low paid factories might just give them a little more drive to better themselves. At least then we wouldn't be so hypocritical by exploiting those in another country where we don't have to face the reality of what 'cheap stuff' actually means.

---

Most Chinese people in maufacturing are reasonably well paid & working in adequate conditions. Precisely because they are not 'out of sight'. These are China's showcase workers, it would not make economic sense to display anything else to moralistic Western Markets. However much of this income is spent on Chinese manufactured goods, so essentially never leaves the system anyway. It's not the guy wiring your pre-amp you need to worry about, it's the one growing your beansprouts. That's where you'll find your poverty but unfortunately it's about as 'out of sight' as it gets.

--------------------
Not much in life worth running for. Or from.

Yeah, thats actualy true - dont forget these are modern hi-tech plants needed for computers, not mines. A working class, able to afford relative luxuries and the means to apsire to educating there children is actually what we are not able to provide for many people in this country anymore because everything was moved abroad, or boughtin cheaply.

It was the job creators themselves, who never caring about the workforce caused this problem, the hip Apple included of course etc etc.

People wont scrounge when they are given prospects. How stupid do you have to be to take the blame for being lazy, from the powers that be that took your work away from you in the first place?

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

Quote WiredUp:

---

Johnny, not once in this thread have I mentioned the disabled. Of course anyone who is genuinely sick or disabled should be entitled to help. The problem is for every genuine person there is 10 spongers. And I certainly don't agree with the methods we're hearing about where genuinely ill people are are failing the tests.

Quote:

---

No, things were fine before the banking crisis. Check your facts (not from Tory HQ).

---

You have a short memory. I was having this discussion over ten years ago and public spending being out of control.

---

But it wasn't, was it? Labour had a unprecedented period of economic growth from 1997.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

All completely wrong I'm sorry. Try reading up on economics and having a deep understanding on how the economy actually works. All you have is empty rhetoric.

---

As a business owner I know if I'm spending more than I make sooner or later the s*** will hit the fan. You accuse me of talking empty rhetoric but we've yet to hear your solution to the problem.
As for how the economy works, well, its no different to my business except it has a tremendous amount of variables. But the basic principles are the same. Unfortunately you seem unable to grasp the simplest concept that you cannot continue to spend what you don't have.

---

But the problem is that simple concept doesn't apply to a whole country. When you run a business you do not affect aggregate demand. When you run a country, you do. This is why the continued failure of the economy under Osborne's cuts was very accurately predicted. Even people like Boris Johnson think the cuts are bad for the economy. Its not just about making the lives of the poor that little bit more miserable, its actually bad for us all.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

So what, we are really really really rich, or we have completely run out of money and can't afford to care for our disabled anymore?

---

Let's stop wasting billions on spongers then we'll be able to look after those who truly need it.

---

There really aren't that many spongers. The majority of the social security budget goes on pensions and most of the rest goes to people who are in work or unable to work for health reasons. Please throughly check your facts through reliable sources.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Even the Americans are laughing us

---

The US have postponed the medication that's all. I was there recently and I can tell you things are far from rosy. I drove past their idea of Welfare. It was a soup kitchen!

---

That's fine, but a sample size of one has no validity whatsoever.

Quote WiredUp:

---

The problem is for every genuine person there is 10 spongers.

---

Personally I think this is an argument winner. If you can give us a reliable source for these impressive figures we can lock the thread.

--------------------
Ohm's Law states, "Your PA isn't as powerful as you think it is".

Quote Sam Inglis:

---

Personally I think welfare would now be a lot more affordable if successive governments hadn't permitted massive inflation in house prices, while not building any council homes.

---

+1

Regarding the wisdom of austerity, economists are equally divided about it. And it has to be said mostly ideologically motivated in their respective positions. The reason it was introduced was that sovereign debt rates (bond yields) were becoming too expensive for some countries, including this one. Two things became imperative. Firstly to drive down the debt and then to instill faith amongst investors who buy such bonds, that they may be content with lower yields as an equitable reward for risk. The reality is that austerity is like a tourniquet. Its a crude first aid device. It stops the patient bleeding to death on the street but if you leave it on too long the limb dies. It can be effective up to a point but damaging thereafter, when more sophisticated treatments are required to promote a successful recovery.

And what will that recovery look like? Will we return to the sort of growth based economy we had become accustomed to? Well, most people expect that whilst a minority caution that we should be managing expectations. For me simple logic tells us at some point endless growth becomes unachievable, or unsustainable. To breath in you first have to breath out. Its a cycle and a natural law. More developed economies may very well be looking at a period of negative growth to balance out a lengthy period of artificially high growth. Whilst the faster developing economies in India, Brazil and the far east, which need double digit growth to put in place the social and physical infrastructure we take for granted in the UK may well be looking at a period of growth at rates we have typically been experiencing here (say 3%). Which is not enough for them to afford the investment they want to fund.

Ergo: Everyone is likely to be feeling a little poorer and that will be more keenly felt by those who already have less to start with. This is what makes immigration and benefits systems more thorny issues at the moment, everywhere. Especially by the so called 'squeezed middle' and I don't see this conversation going away any time soon.

I do agree with Johhny H in that Cameron has already lost the 2015 election to Miliband. But that is because of his party's schism over our EU membership, which makes them unelectable to the majority of center/floating voters (consistently and clearly evidenced in opinion polls). Not their management of the economy, which has not been especially impressive but we have already seen Ed Balls in action...

--------------------
Strictly project and just for fun

Quote shufflebeat:

---

Quote WiredUp:

---

The problem is for every genuine person there is 10 spongers.

---

Personally I think this is an argument winner. If you can give us a reliable source for these impressive figures we can lock the thread.

---

Ok, so I was being generous with that figure but none of you, or indeed the government know how many fraudulent cases there are. Clearly a lot otherwise there would be no urgent need for a crack down.
Either way, I'll retire from this thread and leave some of you to your high horses, reliable sources and credit card applications so the country can continue to live beyond its means. Over & out.

Quote Frisonic:

---

Regarding the wisdom of austerity...

---

Nicely and above all, calmly made arguments -- thanks F. Good to know some people can still manage it.

Quote:

---

I do agree with Johhny H in that Cameron has already lost the 2015 election to Miliband. But that is because of his party's schism over our EU membership, which makes them unelectable to the majority of center/floating voters (consistently and clearly evidenced in opinion polls). Not their management of the economy, which has not been especially impressive but we have already seen Ed Balls in action...

---

I'd say it was way too early to tell. A lot can happen in two years, especially with the current instability within the EU.

In my view, the only way the common currency-based EU can work is if all countries settle into one fiscal management system, and that will inevitably and inherently mean, essentially, one country. A truly united states of europe. That concept is not one that a lot of current EU countries want to embrace and it seems to me that the UK is not the only country wanting to establish a different framework that maintains the common market and many other aspects of common standards, but that returns a far greater degree of self-goverance and fiscal control. I don't believe Cameron or the Civil servants that really run the country are stupid enough to believe that total withdraw is an option. This is a poker game and lots of other players are looking to our lead before they play their own hands.

hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Quote Hugh Robjohns:

---

I don't believe Cameron or the Civil servants that really run the country ...

---

I thought it was actually the top few big corporations - Goldman Sachs, Trashco etc ?

Quote WiredUp:

---

Quote shufflebeat:

---

Quote WiredUp:

---

The problem is for every genuine person there is 10 spongers.

---

Personally I think this is an argument winner. If you can give us a reliable source for these impressive figures we can lock the thread.

---

Ok, so I was being generous with that figure but none of you, or indeed the government know how many fraudulent cases there are. Clearly a lot otherwise there would be no urgent need for a crack down.
Either way, I'll retire from this thread and leave some of you to your high horses, reliable sources and credit card applications so the country can continue to live beyond its means. Over & out.

---

OK, Bye.

That's an interesting logic - I need to take drastic action because of this serious situation. I know the situation is serious, otherwise there would be no need for drastic action. Mmmm.

I must say, you guys do know or live near some right dodgy bar stewards.

While I don't doubt the validity of your testament I feel it must be acknowledged that whatever system we put in place there will always be selfish, manipulative sons of dogs who will abuse the system. It's human nature, hence the MPs' expenses scandal, bankers' bonuses and misselling, my recent tax return (Dear HMRC, that was a joke and not a very good one).

The trick is to weed out the thieves without starving many pensioners. The way that's being proposed is ill thought through, clumsy and not worthy of a supposedly professional administration.

--------------------
Ohm's Law states, "Your PA isn't as powerful as you think it is".

Quote johnny h:

---

Quote ken long:

---

Too right Wired Up.

---

Not at all. Even without the social issues austerity is an economic nightmare. Even the Americans are laughing us. In Forbes!

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/04/25/british-eco...

But of course a lot of people will just ignore all that and watch gleefully as disabled people are subjected to humiliating intrusive interviews and families are thrown out of their homes. Some people take comfort in the mistreatment of those less fortunate than themselves.

Encouraging this level of nastiness is extremely dangerous. As this proves.

---

You do tend to take things out of context. No-one is saying the disabled shouldn't get help. Yes, the banks are shysters, yes the government is in cahoots. Yes, Goldman Sachs are evil. But the rest of society need to take responsibility for their actions also. Why are so many people in negative equity? Why did so many people take out 95% mortgages (and some lied on their applications), why do so many people have multiple credit cards? Why is my neighbour, who doesn't go to work - ever - going on holidays all the time - Spain, Italy, Croatia? I run my business and my wife works part time. We are struggling but we manage to keep our heads above water. We never ever though "let's buy a 500K house" and pay interest only. Holiday? The last we went was almost 4 years ago and that was to see my in-laws. Apart from child benefit, we don't get anything from the state. Speaking to some people I know - they say benefits are an entitlement. You talk about the Americans but at least in America, people have no choice but to strive and work hard for a better life. There is no handout culture. The state doesn't look after them. This isn't a nation which manufactures - those days are gone. It is almost entirely reliant on the financial services. You can hate those guys, but they are sustaining what little growth there is. I want those guys to do well in their 80 hour a week jobs, make big money, and pay their taxes. I have more respect for them than for those who think they can waltz by in this life without lifting a finger. And this has nothing to do with the most poor and the most vulnerable so don't go twisting or taking of context. If you accept that there are wankers in the banking industry, then you must also accept that there is undeserved scum in society.

--------------------
I'm All Ears.

Quote Hugh Robjohns:

---

Nicely and above all, calmly made arguments -- thanks F. Good to know some people can still manage it.

---

Actually, i don't think that's a very fair comment. This discussion has been,IMO, quite restrained, (and in some cases, articulate) from all posters. I have certainly read posts on this forum over the years that have been much more aggressive than this one.

Allthough, i did find the last sentence of WiredUp's final post in this discussion rather churlish & a little patronising.

Quote ken long:

---

Why is my neighbour, who doesn't go to work - ever - going on holidays all the time - Spain, Italy, Croatia?

---

Either he's a prince among benefit fraudsters, or a criminal careerist, or has a big inheritance/windfall he hasn't declared, or is doing something to make lots of legitimate money on top. What he isn't is any kind of average benefit claimant.

Quote ken long:

---

You talk about the Americans but at least in America, people have no choice but to strive and work hard for a better life. There is no handout culture. The state doesn't look after them.

---

The truth is nobody looks after them. 'Decent' Americans fly between LA and New york because they're in denial about what lies in between. They never drive more than a couple of miles off the interstate because besides a few tourist hotspots and a couple of cities propped up by an aging generation of oil tycoons there's nothing to be proud of & plenty to be afraid of. If you don't live in a major city or an arty-farty town like Santa Fe, then you probably live in either a housing project or a shack that wouldn't look out of place in the third world.

In the UK we have a romantic view of America fuelled by films & songs. But should ever you find yourself standing on a corner in Winslow, Arizona remember this: The Eagles were from Chicago.

I love America. I love Americans. But most Americans are not living the dream, and in the States you don't get a voice until you are.

--------------------
Not much in life worth running for. Or from.

Of course we have poverty in the UK. I've been all over Africa and although their income may be negligible, compared to what someone on benefits here (USED TO GET), but they don't have massive taxes, rents, water rates, VAT, income tax, fuel charges, extortionate living costs, stress etc like we do in the 'developed' world.

Yes, we're better off than most in this country in terms of education and healthcare etc but based on what we pay into the system and what we get out of it we're idiots. What surprised me about visiting Africa, India and Bangladesh was that, despite their poverty, most people were genuinely happy! I can't say that for this slave nation.

I think my point is that you can't measure wealth/ health by being well adjusted to a profoundly sick society. Materialism is not conducive to happiness. Community, balance and equality is.

Quote ken long:

---

Quote johnny h:

---

Quote ken long:

---

Too right Wired Up.

---

Not at all. Even without the social issues austerity is an economic nightmare. Even the Americans are laughing us. In Forbes!

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/04/25/british-eco...

But of course a lot of people will just ignore all that and watch gleefully as disabled people are subjected to humiliating intrusive interviews and families are thrown out of their homes. Some people take comfort in the mistreatment of those less fortunate than themselves.

Encouraging this level of nastiness is extremely dangerous. As this proves.

---

You do tend to take things out of context. No-one is saying the disabled shouldn't get help. Yes, the banks are shysters, yes the government is in cahoots. Yes, Goldman Sachs are evil. But the rest of society need to take responsibility for their actions also. Why are so many people in negative equity? Why did so many people take out 95% mortgages (and some lied on their applications), why do so many people have multiple credit cards?

---

Simply because they could! I'm not sure how familiar you are with the whole origins of the financial crisis, but essentially a lot of it was caused by a economic decision made by the Ameicans after the 2001 terrorist attack. In brief it made the cost of borrowing money very, very low by historical standards. Most of the boom in asset prices have their origin in this decision. The reasons why banks were allowed to push credit on people who really had no business borrowing money is a matter of debate. A lot of people got rich off the back of it.

Quote:

---

Why is my neighbour, who doesn't go to work - ever - going on holidays all the time - Spain, Italy, Croatia? I run my business and my wife works part time. We are struggling but we manage to keep our heads above water. We never ever though "let's buy a 500K house" and pay interest only. Holiday? The last we went was almost 4 years ago and that was to see my in-laws. Apart from child benefit, we don't get anything from the state. Speaking to some people I know - they say benefits are an entitlement. You talk about the Americans but at least in America, people have no choice but to strive and work hard for a better life. There is no handout culture. The state doesn't look after them. This isn't a nation which manufactures - those days are gone. It is almost entirely reliant on the financial services. You can hate those guys, but they are sustaining what little growth there is. I want those guys to do well in their 80 hour a week jobs, make big money, and pay their taxes. I have more respect for them than for those who think they can waltz by in this life without lifting a finger. And this has nothing to do with the most poor and the most vulnerable so don't go twisting or taking of context. If you accept that there are wankers in the banking industry, then you must also accept that there is undeserved scum in society.

---

I'm fully aware that as vilified as their are, those in the financial industry are responsible for a huge chunk of the UK's wealth and tax income. But, the system failed to the point of collapse. The people who made the bad loans and pushed toxic credit around the system made incredible amounts of money out of doing so and left the banks in crisis. The government was forced to pay for the mess they caused.

I feel pretty bad that my taxes are being used to pay advertising companies to promote feeling distain for the poor and for the disabled. The link between the government actions and the huge rise in attacks on the disabled is no coincidence. Yes some people are lazy, and yes bankers are greedy, but encouraging society to attack each other is really not good for anyone.

I do feel bad that all those Tory Eton guys are sitting around laughing as they pass a bill to make the poorest in our society even poorer. Its cruel. When people have no confidence calling them lazy scum just makes them feel more useless. Its not even about saving money in my opinion. Social problems resulting from these policies may even cost more than the cuts. Its about refocusing the blame away from the rich and onto the poor, and unfortunately it seems to be working.

Quote johnny h:

---

I do feel bad that all those Tory Eton guys are sitting around laughing as they pass a bill to make the poorest in our society even poorer. Its cruel. When people have no confidence calling them lazy scum just makes them feel more useless. Its not even about saving money in my opinion. Social problems resulting from these policies may even cost more than the cuts. Its about refocusing the blame away from the rich and onto the poor, and unfortunately it seems to be working.

---

So what are you saying? Once you've got a benefit, it's yours for life with no questions asked? I remember when jobs were like that. Not any more! Why should benefits be?

It's not all one-sided though. I'm not in a desperate position yet, but was recently investigating options. The house I've been happily inhabiting for the past 30 years would need thousands spent to bring it up to a standard where it could be let as social housing. There should be a safety net, and I may be grateful for it one day. But it shouldn't be TOO gold-plated.

Quote Frisonic:

---

I do agree with Johhny H in that Cameron has already lost the 2015 election to Miliband. But that is because of his party's schism over our EU membership, which makes them unelectable to the majority of center/floating voters (consistently and clearly evidenced in opinion polls). Not their management of the economy, which has not been especially impressive but we have already seen Ed Balls in action...

---

Cameron never had any realistic intention of winning the 2015 election. The coalition are bankster asset strippers and their intention is the taking down of the welfare state, to be replaced by privatisation, in the five years they guaranteed for themselves, a continuation of the Thatcher dream, as revealed by the recently released cabinet papers.

All the fuss about re-organising benefits is actually just preparing for US-style privatised insurance by the Unum Corporation, who will doubtless richly reward Duncan-Smith and Lord Freud for their work. (Google 'Unum scandal' for more alarming details)

Similarly the NHS re-organistation is obvious preparation for privatisation, hence commissioning groups and providers.

And Gove is doing the same for education, which is what Rupert Murdoch wants to run next

Meanwhile, we are encouraged by the 'independent' media to worry about dead paedophiles, Xfactor winners, racists in football crowds and some female actors with their tits out....

Quote johnny h:

---

I'm not sure how familiar you are with the whole origins of the financial crisis, but essentially a lot of it was caused by a economic decision made by the Ameicans after the 2001 terrorist attack.

---

Don't make stuff up! Interest rates were just as low before 9.11.01 as they were after. The first wave of the financial crisis was caused by profligate spending (by the public) made possible by cheap credit secured against illusory property values (offered by high street banks at rates set by central banks and traded about wholesale investors like a ticking bomb by investment banks - which inevitably blew up, in September 2008). The second wave was caused by profligate borrowing by sovereign states, mostly secured against cooked books - it kicked in over the summer of 2010 when investors noticed their bond yields were looking a bit flakey. I'm sure al-Qaeda would love to take the credit but the truth is we in the liberal, louche west managed it all by ourselves.

--------------------
Strictly project and just for fun

Quote Exalted Wombat:

---

Quote johnny h:

---

I do feel bad that all those Tory Eton guys are sitting around laughing as they pass a bill to make the poorest in our society even poorer. Its cruel. When people have no confidence calling them lazy scum just makes them feel more useless. Its not even about saving money in my opinion. Social problems resulting from these policies may even cost more than the cuts. Its about refocusing the blame away from the rich and onto the poor, and unfortunately it seems to be working.

---

So what are you saying? Once you've got a benefit, it's yours for life with no questions asked? I remember when jobs were like that. Not any more! Why should benefits be?

It's not all one-sided though. I'm not in a desperate position yet, but was recently investigating options. The house I've been happily inhabiting for the past 30 years would need thousands spent to bring it up to a standard where it could be let as social housing. There should be a safety net, and I may be grateful for it one day. But it shouldn't be TOO gold-plated.

---

I was on benefits a while ago and it certainly didn't feel gold plated. It was actually really awful. I wasn't actually trapped in the whole council house / no job / no education thing at all so it wasn't anywhere near as bad as it could have been. Now my taxes are pretty high, and I feel its fine, I feel happy to help people when they need it, as I was when I needed it, and should there ever be a time when things go really, really wrong again it will be there again. Welfare is becoming a very dirty word, and in my view that's a very backward step.

Quote Frisonic:

---

Quote johnny h:

---

I'm not sure how familiar you are with the whole origins of the financial crisis, but essentially a lot of it was caused by a economic decision made by the Ameicans after the 2001 terrorist attack.

---

Don't make stuff up! Interest rates were just as low before 9.11.01 as they were after. The first wave of the financial crisis was caused by profligate spending (by the public) made possible by cheap credit secured against illusory property values (offered by high street banks at rates set by central banks and traded about wholesale investors like a ticking bomb by investment banks - which inevitably blew up, in September 2008). The second wave was caused by profligate borrowing by sovereign states, mostly secured against cooked books - it kicked in over the summer of 2010 when investors noticed their bond yields were looking a bit flakey. I'm sure al-Qaeda would love to take the credit but the truth is we in the liberal, louche west managed it all by ourselves.

---

People are really stupid with money. I see it all the time. I know people who complain about money who are earning relative fortunes. If cheap credit is available, it will be taken.

Its a complex subject to explain and there's plenty of good material about it available to read about it. Essentially though the lion's share of the blame lies on those people who were repackaging obviously bad loans (to ex-criminals with no source of income, for example), and selling them onto banks as very secure AAA loans. The banking crisis began when it became known that much of this supposedly very secure debt was actually worthless.

Its all nothing to do with Labour, with welfare, with the disabled, and actually not really much to do with the UK other than a few financial institutions who reside here.

The cuts are purely ideological. You need to boost the economy in a recession and slow it down during a boom. The size of the debt is just an excuse to shift resources from the poor to the rich, and the toxic adverts are propaganda to ensure people accept it.

That's a perfectly valid view point Johnny H. I don't agree with all of it but its perfectly valid and plenty of respected commentators would agree with you. In particular I would question that the financial crisis has nothing to do with illusory property values here in the UK. My personal view is that there is a significant correction in UK property values still waiting to be made but it has been postponed by devices such as quantitive easing, continued artificially low interest rates and inflation, and various other public policy levers. I would say that far too much attention is paid to how the investment banks managed the debt and not enough to how public policy created it and how retail banks and other lenders dished the dosh out to Joe Schmoe in the first place. And to me this anomaly would seem to be aimed more at protecting the middle classes than big business.

--------------------
Strictly project and just for fun

Quote Chaconne:

---

You can argue for genocide quite easily using made up facts that stir up the reptile brain.

---

This might have to be my next signature block.

On the other hand, here are some facts from a Conservative pen which everyone should read. And re-post at every opportunity.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ramesh-patel/growth-cameron-...

Edited by Hugh Robjohns (03/02/13 11:43 AM)

Thanks for that, RG. V enlightening.

--------------------
Ohm's Law states, "Your PA isn't as powerful as you think it is".

Quote shufflebeat:

---

Thanks for that, RG. V enlightening.

---

Indeed so, but why aren't the opposition jumping all over this?

--------------------
It wasn't me!
(Well, actually, it probably was)

Quote Folderol:

---

Quote shufflebeat:

---

Thanks for that, RG. V enlightening.

---

Indeed so, but why aren't the opposition jumping all over this?

---

I expect they are, but the BBC won't report it...

Quote Gone To Lunch:

---

Quote Folderol:

---

Quote shufflebeat:

---

Thanks for that, RG. V enlightening.

---

Indeed so, but why aren't the opposition jumping all over this?

---

I expect they are, but the BBC won't report it...

---

It's a fair question, but I think there's only so many times Milliband and co. can deny that they created this mess before it sounds like they are in denial. Also it is now pretty much fixed in "the public mind(lessness)" that Labour were responsible. It's like the article says, if you repeat a lie often enough it becomes the truth. Of course this didn't work for Blair over Iraq, but it seems to have worked for Gideon and Dave on the economy.

--------------------
Battle flags are flown at the feet of a garden gnome.

Quote Richard Graham:

---

I think there's only so many times Milliband and co. can deny that they created this mess before it sounds like they are in denial.

---

There's probably an element of truth in this. It's the price we pay for the yah-boo politics of Westminster. I'd still take that so we can have them answerable for their actions on live tv, though.

I suspect the Labour party are fairly confident others with some independent credibility will increasingly make the point.

I didn't think I'd hear it from the HP. Who'da thunk it?

--------------------
Ohm's Law states, "Your PA isn't as powerful as you think it is".

Quote shufflebeat:

---

...It's the price we pay for the yah-boo politics of Westminster. I'd still take that so we can have them answerable for their actions on live tv, though.

---

I'd have said the proliferation of live TV platforms now available to our politicians has markedly reduced the substance of what they have to say. Certainly reduced it to little sound bites, which are meaningless and can only ever amount to platitudes. Worse still, I suspect many of them actually believe that is what passes for commitment these days. Live TV debates during general elections is the worst American import we could possibly have chosen to buy into. A puffers paradise! Personally I'd rather they were more accountable than that. TV is too fluffy and because that is the exposure they all want so now are our politicians. And of course the less telegenic ones are now excluded, regardless of ability.

It was better when debates were necessarily more drawn out, people knew they only had so many chances to make their case through the media and therefore used the opportunities to maximum effect. It meant they had to say something worth saying and stand by what they said, instead of just blowing off and then changing their script every five seconds, which 24 hour rolling news offers endless opportunities to do. Sycophantic political corespondents who like being on TV as much as the politicians don't help either. There was a time when politicians had to travel their constituency, or the country, talk to real people and look them in the eye. Somehow a studio audience is less than that - people are reduced to props.

--------------------
Strictly project and just for fun

I certainly would agree that most of it is predigested puffery but it does mean that when someone nails their genitalia to a statement it can't be denied 10 mins later.

They are very well aware that their comments and claims are being scrutinised by old guard political commentators with more access to background information than I do and that obvious misrepresentation can only last until Eddie Mair gets his hands on a historian or Tim Harford a friendly statistician to put a few things into perspective.

There was at least as much news management before TV was introduced to Westminster. The reason it's become such a preoccupation for politicians is because it's so easy to make an idiot/liar/convict out of yourself.

I like to know what lies they're telling about people as in the subject under discussion so I can investigate further.

--------------------
Ohm's Law states, "Your PA isn't as powerful as you think it is".

Quote shufflebeat:

---

...obvious misrepresentation can only last until Eddie Mair gets his hands on...

---

Indeed. But that's radio! Which being less 'celebrity' friendly I think makes for a far better medium for political debate than television.

--------------------
Strictly project and just for fun

Ah, but that's the beauty of the whole thing. You make a statement on "I'm A Nobody, Make Me a Celebrity" but then have to explain yourself on PM.

Perfect chess.

--------------------
Ohm's Law states, "Your PA isn't as powerful as you think it is".

If its appeared on reality television it has ceased to be a politician. Certainly in my eyes.

--------------------
Strictly project and just for fun

Quote Frisonic:

---

If its appeared on reality television it has ceased to be a politician. Certainly in my eyes.

---

The three greatest misnomers of our age are, reality television, social media & suicide bombers. Can I please promote the use of- unreality tv, antisocial media & indiscriminate murderers?

--------------------
Not much in life worth running for. Or from.

--------------------
Strictly project and just for fun

...and back in the room.

Anyome who remembers the good old days of Thatcherism might recognise the technique of divide and demonise that characterised the early '80s. This time it's relatively easy to check facts and figures, minority groups generally have at least one forum for self expression and mutual support and we are all a bit more media savvy/cynical.

There's no more money of course but for my IOU there seems to be a slightly more level playing field than then.

--------------------
Ohm's Law states, "Your PA isn't as powerful as you think it is".

Quote shufflebeat:

---

Anyome who remembers the good old days of Thatcherism might recognise the technique of divide and demonise that characterised the early '80s.

---

I think in the public sector this has been refined into divide and demoralise. Broken spirits within broken unions are failing to mount any resistance. Every health & welfare structure is being gradually dismantled with the private sector cherrypicking the bits that might generate a short-term profit. I'm disinterestedly following tenders for a 10 million pound NHS contact offered using monthly figures I provided, erroneously projected as an annual forecast. Also what doesn't appear in the contact is that I prefixed these figures with 'To be honest I have no idea, if I had to guess...' What do I care if some Richard Branson wannabe suddenly finds his projected profit margin is light by a factor of 12 and a lucky guess.

If I remember the eighties correctly we must be overdue for a jingoistic overseas conflict to distract us from home affairs. Argentina II- Attack of the Clones anyone?

--------------------
Not much in life worth running for. Or from.

I think of myself as a 'Union' type of person. People who elbow their way to the front of the queue (all very Darwinian and perfectly understandable) tend to be united and driven by an innate love of self. For the rest of us who, I would argue, have a more inclusive outlook we need some organisational framework to hang our hats on. Unions have been the framework in the workplace and thankful we should be for that.

Since dear Margaret's time the workplace has changed to the point where the traditional union structure is less relevant. One cannot unite those who don't see common interest. The economic and political pressures described by both Adam Smith and Karl Marx have not changed but the public perception of how things are has so beer and sandwiches will only antagonise the self employed.

Thatcher and Blair have somehow managed to give warmongering a bad name so, while we're obviously not quite ready for a grass roots revolution my old school communist father is laundering the red flag and polishing his megaphone.

--------------------
Ohm's Law states, "Your PA isn't as powerful as you think it is".

"Call out the instigators, because the revolution's here,

And you know that its right....."

http://www.coalitionofresistance.org.uk/

"Here comes the future and you can't run from it,

If you've got a blacklist, I want to be on it..."

--------------------
Not much in life worth running for. Or from.

"Up the workers" - my new Corporate Slogan.

--------------------
Ohm's Law states, "Your PA isn't as powerful as you think it is".