Who Will You Vote For In The Coming General Election?

[dyna-ti]

Re: Re:

Bit like being smacked with a bill for ones own birthing service from a US / CHINA health care conglomerate

It was inevitable :shock:

 

[The History Man]

Don't press the little red button.

 

[catf]

slightly meta question, anyone use other forums with similar polls on them? just noticing all the ones im on have tories ahead by miles except this one. guess it goes with teh lifestyle. also this one is missing the "wtf is the point of voting in a GE?" or similar option

 

[kingbling]

Re: Re:

I think you could just as easily argue that it is the 'mainstream' parties that are fixated on the single issue of economic growth at any cost.

Those of us who never made it into the rentier class know the part that we are to play in this 'economic growth'- either insecure sporadic employment for longer hours and longer years with less pay, a steady diet of humiliation rituals and institutional abuse from the job centre, or vagrancy and destitution. In fact the way things are heading it'll probably be all three at once.. already is for some..

..and the NHS are left to deal with the fallout. Then the drugs companies make huge profits from marketing huge quantities of bogus remedies with weird 'side' effects which get pissed out of patients and end up in the drinking water, so we are all 'on' them even if they were never prescribed for us. Hell- even the 'wild' animals are on them. The oceans are so full of plastic that there are gyres the size of countries that are navigation hazards, and the marine fauna choke themselves. The stomach of an Albatross contains half a dozen 'disposable' lighters.

... I could go on, round in a circle back to where I started. And I could do that by any number of routes of varying length. If all that is a 'single issue' that can be put aside while we concentrate on something more important, like ticking boxes to help decide who gets the gig of ensuring continued profits for the shareholders and stakeholders who would seem to wish to continue this craziness until the planet is once more a barren radio-active rock, then we probably deserve whatever we get.

It's a shame that you are right, I am fortunate not to have any children and feel sorry for those that do. Unless there is fundamental change to way of thinking the world will hit the bottom of this slippery slope that we are on with such an impact that will never be recovered from for decades or centuries. I think it's time for a new political party with different agenda's not that anyone would won't for them right now but they too good have their good ideas pouched by the mainstream numpty's.

 

[technodup]

Re: Re:

They may well up their prices beforehand, but it will be regulated afterwards. Smart meters are not compulsory. I am not going to have one.

I say again, why have they not already done this BEFORE dissolvement?

Because it's an election pledge designed to appeal to Labour voters. And as for smart meters, don't count on them being optional forever.

So, in your world, companies can set whatever tariffs they want, because there is no regulation at present?
Would the same go for landlords setting whatever rent they want, squeezing people more and more in the process?

Is that the sort of world you want to live in?

Yes. Companies can't charge what they want, they can only charge what people will pay, otherwise a Mars bar would be £100.

Markets do a good job of setting prices. Governments don't.

 

[The History Man]

Re: Re:

They may well up their prices beforehand, but it will be regulated afterwards. Smart meters are not compulsory. I am not going to have one.

I say again, why have they not already done this BEFORE dissolvement?

Because it's an election pledge designed to appeal to Labour voters. And as for smart meters, don't count on them being optional forever.

So, in your world, companies can set whatever tariffs they want, because there is no regulation at present?
Would the same go for landlords setting whatever rent they want, squeezing people more and more in the process?

Is that the sort of world you want to live in?

Yes. Companies can't charge what they want, they can only charge what people will pay, otherwise a Mars bar would be £100.

Markets do a good job of setting prices. Governments don't.

Essential services, poorly informed/educated, or even just those too busy to check. They just get shafted in your in your unregulated free market world. Nice.

Despicable.

 

[Mike Muz]

Re:

So Technodup, by extension, I imagine the national living/minimum wage is a bad thing, and zero hours contracts should be encouraged?

So Labour voters will vote against Labour, because the Tories will do this, despite not having done it when they are in power?

 

[technodup]

Re: Re:

So Technodup, by extension, I imagine the national living/minimum wage is a bad thing, and zero hours contracts should be encouraged?

I think the NMW is a bad thing, for several reasons.

It's funny, casual labour has been around forever and suited many people. Now we have a minimum wage and we call casual labour ZHC. There's supposedly been an increase in ZHC- I wonder if it's anything to do with the minimum wage...

This is precisely my point about price controls. Unintended consequences. You create/increase NMW, you bring the useless closer to the useful. The useful then want a rise to reflect their standing and so it goes on. Huge extra cost for business, so they find ways to mitigate those costs. Perhaps by limiting their commitment to employee hours...

That notwithstanding ZHC is mostly an excuse for the professionally offended to get antsy on behalf of other people. I linked the McDonald's example earlier where 80% of their employees want to stay on ZHC.

With all the press it gets anyone would think we're all on ZHC. When you take out those on them by choice, well paid contractors and consultants etc, students and those McD's workers there are actually precious few affected.

TLR
It's moronic to think simply increasing NMW or banning ZHC will solve a problem with no knock on effect.

 

[Mike Muz]

Re: Re:

I think it's more of a case of companies wanting to have as little outlay and responsibility as possible
[/b]
This is precisely my point about price controls. Unintended consequences. You create/increase NMW, you bring the useless closer to the useful. The useful then want a rise to reflect their standing and so it goes on. Huge extra cost for business, so they find ways to mitigate those costs. Perhaps by limiting their commitment to employee hours...

Interesting theory. However, the 'useless' are being squeezed by landlords, as they can charge what they want, within reason, depending on local competition. As well as utility companies, who you think should be able to charge what they want. The 'useless' therefore have little - if any - money to spend on anything but essentials, food etc - so who do businesses sell their products to? Better business sense than giving employees a decent living wage? Creating business as a result? Also retaining staff in the process?

That notwithstanding ZHC is mostly an excuse for the professionally offended to get antsy on behalf of other people. I linked the McDonald's example earlier where 80% of their employees want to stay on ZHC.

I want fairness for everyone. Bringing people up to a sensible standard of living. Not squeezing them for all they're worth.

With all the press it gets anyone would think we're all on ZHC. When you take out those on them by choice, well paid contractors and consultants etc, students and those McD's workers, there are actually precious few left.

Isn't that a direct contradiction to your first statement in this post? Or are you suggesting that people are choosing to not know if they will get paid work from one week to the next, and keep their heads above water?

[/b]TLR
It's moronic to think simply increasing NMW or banning ZHC will solve a problem with no knock on effect.

 

[technodup]

Re: Re:

Interesting theory. However, the 'useless' are being squeezed by landlords, as they can charge what they want, within reason, depending on local competition. As well as utility companies, who you think should be able to charge what they want. The 'useless' therefore have little - if any - money to spend on anything but essentials, food etc -

Maybe they should have thought about that before they made such poor life choices. Like it or not some people are always going to be at the bottom.

I want fairness for everyone.

Good luck with that. I want to be C. Ronaldo.

Bringing people up to a sensible standard of living. Not squeezing them for all they're worth.

The money's got to come from somewhere. Inevitably from 'the rich', because as we all know it's fair to remove as much of their money from them as possible. I no longer want to be Ronaldo.

are you suggesting that people are choosing to not know if they will get paid work from one week to the next, and keep their heads above water?

Essentially, yes. It suits many people to have flexibility, consultants, working mums, students and so on. Even burger flippers. Don't blame me when the facts don't suit your emotive hand wringing. 80% opted to stay on ZHC. https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... rs-workers

Is Ronaldo guaranteed a game this week?