ARmy Rumour SErvice

Labour talking about finance is akin to Fred West talking about patio substrate......

Two problems with assuming people will see the stupidity of Balls's proposals.

1) It was no accident that Labour created a large client state of the work shy living on benefits. If IDS takes away their comfortable 'professionally unemployed' life style, they'll vote Labour in the hopes of getting it back.

2) I would guess that 10% - 30% of the electorate don't understand the remotest thing about economics and will vote for the party that promises them the most benefits and handouts.

People don't sit down and agonise over which party is best for the UK - they vote for the one that best serves their personal interests.

Wordsmith

Originally Posted by guzzijon

So in actual fact the parties are closer than thay care to admit and all the posturing and bullshit is just desperate manoeuvring to stay in / take power. But the meaningless sneering and baseless digs from Balls and his trained monkey can't be doing much for anyones morale but their own. I do wish they would shut up if they have nothing constructive to say.

The idea of being in opposition is not to venomously oppose absolutely everything the incumbent government does, even when it happens to be one of your own policies. Then again, what do you expect from a party that managed to find somebody even posher than Cameron to put across their "out of touch" message.

ITV news has never told anyone anything that wasn't 3rd class turgid tabloid shite.

Originally Posted by Wordsmith

Two problems with assuming people will see the stupidity of Balls's proposals.

1) It was no accident that Labour created a large client state of the work shy living on benefits. If IDS takes away their comfortable 'professionally unemployed' life style, they'll vote Labour in the hopes of getting it back.

I think it depends. Most of the workshy would likely enjoy working for a living if pushed into it. The trick is to do it very early on, and when the economy is doing well enough to ensure they have work. Ah...

Originally Posted by Wordsmith

2) I would guess that 10% - 30% of the electorate don't understand the remotest thing about economics and will vote for the party that promises them the most benefits and handouts.

I'd guess it's rather more than 30%. Even intelligent people seem to think of the government like a spoilt child thinks of its father.

Originally Posted by Wordsmith

People don't sit down and agonise over which party is best for the UK - they vote for the one that best serves their personal interests.

Agreed, and they're quite open about it. For all their idealism when it comes to bankers and rich people, they're incredibly self interested when it comes to voting.

Originally Posted by 3123

When I was a kid I asked my dad why he used to buy more than one newspaper each day, and he told me that it was so he could see what everyone with relevance had to say about current affairs and be better able to make his own mind up as to what he thought (course he explained it in an appropriate form as I was about 7 at the time).

This, obviously, before the media environment we now enjoy... sage advice in hindsight... Every now and then the media types are blindsided by someone with common sense who has learned his song well before starting to sing, and nice it is to see too...well done that economist..



Or maybe dad just liked to see more than one page 3 set of tits and was bulshitting me...

I am assuming that your point is that it is helpful to take your open source info from a number of sources? If so I quite agree, however the point remains that ITV news is utter shite.

This is demonstrated by the the way that they have got a random economist (professional witness) to take on a member of the opposition ( who is not an economist) in order to produce some spurious stats that no doubt 100 other economists picked at random would dispute.

I couldn't give a toss about the party politics involved, I would rather have dry, objective facts; my point is that the majority of media outlets (and particularly ITV news) are more concerned with the former than the later.

I would also happily throttle Alister Stewart

Originally Posted by Wordsmith

Two problems with assuming people will see the stupidity of Balls's proposals.

1) It was no accident that Labour created a large client state of the work shy living on benefits. If IDS takes away their comfortable 'professionally unemployed' life style, they'll vote Labour in the hopes of getting it back.

2) I would guess that 10% - 30% of the electorate don't understand the remotest thing about economics and will vote for the party that promises them the most benefits and handouts.

People don't sit down and agonise over which party is best for the UK - they vote for the one that best serves their personal interests.

Wordsmith

You are talking about those that bother to vote. 35% of the electorate couldn't be arrsed at the last general election..

Originally Posted by Wordsmith

Two problems with assuming people will see the stupidity of Balls's proposals.

1) It was no accident that Labour created a large client state of the work shy living on benefits. If IDS takes away their comfortable 'professionally unemployed' life style, they'll vote Labour in the hopes of getting it back.

2) I would guess that 10% - 30% of the electorate don't understand the remotest thing about economics and will vote for the party that promises them the most benefits and handouts.

People don't sit down and agonise over which party is best for the UK - they vote for the one that best serves their personal interests.

Wordsmith

I would raise your 10-30% to 80-95%

The number of times I've tried to explain that a Public sector employee's tax doesn't actually add anything new to Government coffers because that's where it came from after it was taken from the private sector..... Most flatly refuse to believe it.

The UK economy is expected to run like some sort of financial perpetual motion machine.