Is Cameron that bad?

[Brendan]

mockney piers Wrote:

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

> You do realise that we don't vote for a prime

> minister don't you. You vote for your own elected

> representative, the majority party(ies) form a

> government and choose a first minister, the

> electorate have never voted one in.

This is worth keeping in mind when voting conservative. You won?t be voting for Cameron you will be voting for an entire party of individuals who at their best are purely self serving and out to make a profit or name for themselves and at their worst see their political activities as some sort of holy quest to further entrench their own inherited positions of privilege. (as opposed to labour who were more the former)

Sure Cameron?s a right of centre rich boy who may even on some level feel that his views are what is best for everyone but he is part of an organisation that does not have the best interests of society at heart.

[mockney piers]

I thought it a refreshing chNge that Obama took no contributions from lobby groups. That's not to say he didn't take campaign contributions from interested parties (I think collectively the banks were far and awaythe biggest contributors to his coffers, but then also to Clinton and mcclain, I guess they know all about hedging).

Personally I think there should be even tighter regulation on political contributions and lobby groups should be banned.

Anyone else disturbed by announcements of go ahead for huge nuclear building programme with edf, who's head of sales to the uk gov't is a certain brother of the prime minister, while on topic of dubious interests?

[Magpie]

Typical left wing arrogance: "an organisation that does not have the best interests of society at heart"

The role of any political party is to run the country for the benefit of the electorate, if they are successful they get re-elected. Therefore any party in a democracy has to have the best interests of society at heart.

Now the right may have a different view to you as to what the interests of society are. Perhaps you lean towards a greater role for the state for example and higher taxes on the rich. The right believe in a lesser role for the state and greater personal responsibility. They consider the state does not alway know best, and that people should be given the freedom to manage their own lives with minimal interference. They also believe that lower taxes provide an incentive for hard work, encourage new business, employment etc

Just because you disagree with their political idealology does not mean that your statement is true.

[david_carnell]

Well given how few companies can build nuclear power stations there wasn't much competition anyway.

Your point is no less valid though.

[????]

Was going to make a similar point re Unions. They represent their members fair enough to a degree but kind of try and have it both ways that because they are 'leftish' they somehow have the best interests of society as a whole at their core...which is by and large horsehit.

[david_carnell]

.

[david_carnell]

Hmmm - well I would counter that unions are mass-membership, democratic organisations so their input into the political process could be seen to have more representative of society than say "big business" which, by-and-large, supports and backs the Conservative Party.

Business does not have societies interest at heart - merely it's shareholders. Essentially, if the share price rises, business couldn't give a flying ?$%^ about society. Only when it is forced to by government (and by that I also include the public who influence govt policy) does business become responsible or accountable.

[Keef]

I don't think that your average member of a Union has much say on how ther union does things. If you disagree, you either get pushed out, or ignored. Most people tow the line, because they're scared not to.

[????]

DC...mmm..maybe this debate needs a more considered approach in the drawing room but the unions record on accountbility and democracy is appalling....the Unions bought down a democratically elected governemnt direcly in the early 70s and arguably a Labour one at the end of that decade. They certainly helped usher in the conservatives in 1979 and then helped them stay in power as the electorate had decided that it was better that the democratically elected government run the country than a largely political motivated Union leadership - history maybe but if we're going to generalise about big business and Unions I know which I believe was more dangerous to the democratic process in relative recent history.

[Magpie]

Fine but businesses don't vote - individuals do. Thus for a Conservative or any right wing party to get voted in they need enough of the electorate to consider that their approach achieves a better result for themselves and hence collectively society than a left wing approach. It is incorrect to say that a right wing party works solely in the interests of business - politics in the US for example is generally far to the right of the UK, yet the anti-trust legislation and punishment of white collar crime (such as fraud) is far stricter than in the UK. The right does not slavishly believe in markets without protection against market failure and abuse, it believes that in general the collective decisions of individuals is a more efficient means of making choices in most cases (long term energy policy being one of the many exceptions) than the "heavy hand" of the state.

For example, a right-wing approach to poverty should encourage privately run, locally based initiatives and groups to encourage enterprise, self reliance, and advancement through education, rather than simply handing out benefits. The reality is that both the left and right result in some combination of the approaches, the balance may simply be different.

[david_carnell]

Keef Wrote:

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

> I don't think that your average member of a Union

> has much say on how ther union does things. If you

> disagree, you either get pushed out, or ignored.

> Most people tow the line, because they're scared

> not to.

Not wanting to divert too far off topic but this isn't what I've experienced. As a fellow public service worker Keef I imagine you might well be a PCS member. We get to vote for branch reps and other officials all the way up to the Gen Sec all of whom have a say in policy decisions. Industrial action is balloted and majorities needed for it to go ahead. What were you expecting, personal phone calls from head office asking your opinion?

I'm also not sure who is "scared" or of what? Does your union rep rule your office like some Stalinist apparatchik? Or have you been a blackleg and been given the skunk-eye by some brothers and sisters who were on the picket line? C'mon, seriously?!

And whilst in the past, unions have been less accountable than they are now I'll take them over ICI et al anytime.

[Brendan]

Thank you for the remedial lesson western politics there Magpie. I had no idea that was how it worked.

It seems you affiliate with one of the preordained groups in modern politics (I realise this makes the world simpler for many people) and you obviously take offence to my criticism of this group. Perhaps you would prefer I criticise a group you don?t identify with. Let me know and I?ll happily give it my best shot.

Me saying something that you don't like is however not a reason for you to assume that I am uninformed or that I have political views that you can happily package into a neat little category.

[Magpie]

You didn't criticise it, you made an assertion based on your opinion, which ignored some basic facts.

Its something I have observed left wing people often do:

"The right/tories are stupid"

"The right/tories are selfish"

"The tories only care about the rich"

etc

I apologise if you don't fit into any particular box, your comment suggested you did

[Brendan]

Oh don?t apologise. I was actually just looking for a fight.

[Keef]

What were you expecting, personal phone calls from head office asking your opinion?

Actually David, I am not a member of any Union, because the likes of Unison are so watered down, they'd do nothing for me quite frankly. I did once get pushed by an over excited man on a pickett line (of 2 people), when I wasn't even an employee of the office in question. They may do good elsewhere, but in my years of public sector work, I've never really seen the likes of Unison do much at all. Unions are better when they support a specific work force.

I am talking about unions based on experiences of other people I know.

Anyway, there was no need for your sarcy tone in that response!

[mockney piers]

But people aren't going to vote for the Tories because they believe charity will cure poverty, and mark my words the poor WILL get even poorer underthe next government (Ive kind of resigned myself to it), just as nobody voted in the last election in support of Iraq and Afghanistan (though a certain notable Islamist chose to interpret it that way and to a certain extent who could blame him).

I do think the electorate are divorced from anything approaching real democracy, every five years we get to vote on a lollipop flavour basically. Mmmmm this five years I think strawberry.

Curretly the choice is between centrist managerialism wih a vague notion of less government and less regulation versus centrist managerialism with a vague notion towards overregulation (except in financial markets), overreliance on legislation and some waters down keynsianism.

And once again I ask is it any wonder noone engages with politics?

[Magpie]

Well does it matter if politics is boring? Look at Germany, they get endless coalition governments all of whom peddle slighly different brands of the same policies. Big political changes are disruptive and damaging. Surely if there is largely a political consensus as to what is the best way to govern across Western Europe, with only slight variation depending on national preferences, why should the UK be any different?

The Tories under Cameron will only be subtly different than Labour under Blair/Brown, the world will not end if he gets in. The poor will not get poorer as they never have in modern history (but the gap between the richest and the poorest may change). People are offered a choice - eg Greens, BNP, Socialist workers party etc, and by far the vast majority prefer centrist politics.

[mockney piers]

Sorry if my points wernt explicit enough.

I'm not suggesting politics needs to be exciting but that there needs to be more engagement and some mechanism wherby we actually have a say on issues rather than being robbed off with some bollocks about there needing to bs. Adebate and then getting one paltry vote every five years by which we're supposed to be able to say what we think about an enourmous broad range of issues.

Think legions of voters in the US going republcsn because they think (mistakenly) that they're voting for 'pro-life' and electing pro-business who care not one jot for their economic interets and troubles.

It's ridiculous and not really democracy.

I've often voted green bit what's the point, they'll never get so much as a minor say about anything.

As for the modern history lesson, plenty of evidence that not only is the gap widening, but the poor are indeed getting poorer as are the middle classes and the next generation can reasonably expectgto be the first one in the post war world to be worse off.

[Magpie]

I agree that we need more localised politics and more decentralisation of decision making. However, I'm not sure the outcome will be any different.

In absolute terms, this year excepting, there is no evidence to support the idea that people are getting poorer - at any level of income distribution incomes and GDP per capita have risen continuously since 1992. The relative gap between the rich and the rest has increased. Its also not true that the next generation will be worse off than the last unless you believe that the economy will never grow again.

[mockney piers]

And as a newcomer I must ask you to forgive my English. I'm not an imbecile I just have a very small

keyboard. It can make exressing ones thoughts and spelling the

correctly very difficult.

[david_carnell]

Magpie - welcome to the forum - you seem like the type of person we need more of.... measured, intelligent and not shouty at the first sign of dissent.

Anyhoo - as you agree the wealth gap is increasing do you think this is acceptable (or even desirable) when all the evidence is to the contrary. Repeated surveys have shown that countries where the gap is smallest are the happiest and with the least social problems.

And finally, I do not believe that Cameron would do anything to address this. Do you?

[mockney piers]

Many ways to measure things and a few simple economic indicators, paetcular growth as a reflection thathe poor are gettng richer seem to be either naive or arrogant.

If we think a return to growth via a retrn to cheap credit and house price increases os sensible then fair enough. Meantime I see jobs in my sector going elsewhere just like our industry beofrehand. What's left, the finance isndustry and call centres, is that it?

Then we have yet to feel the full effects of peak oil and the fact that prices are going to

rse across the board, especially for energy and food, no to mention that effects tha global warming will have on the cost of food production and imports.

It's never a simple as saying the economy will not grow again, but it's head in thE sand time if you think a simple upward trend of economic growth is the be all and end all.

[david_carnell]

Piers, for gawds sake man, you're turning into TLS - proof read before posting or get a full-sized keyboard! ;-)

[mockney piers]

I'll have a tidy up when I get home, I promise. I might even put a bit of discipline into my thinking post-hoc.

[Keef]

Are you going to bed smileys and call people m8?