Support NeoGAF

[It's Reyn Time!]

What exactly did you expect. A deficit larger than the cost of the NHS and Education combined and you expect there to be a magic money tree?

For both of those things to be the most important thing to look after, right next to people not starving.

 

[kitch9]

What exactly did you expect. A deficit larger than the cost of the NHS and Education combined and you expect there to be a magic money tree?

It's OK, there's always the printers.

 

[kitch9]

How do you know it isn't?

All I can do is point out what the Conservative economic ideology says, which is "in order to deliver a stable economy, we need to slash the welfare bill".

So that's what people voted for.

I'm sure the people who can actually read didn't see that.

 

[Psycho_Mantis]

Nope, it just means that is what they have voted for.

Exactly and your perception may not be aligned with their perception.

 

[kitch9]

For both of those things to be the most important thing to look after, right next to people not starving.

Starvation now?

Damn you dudes are on a roll!

 

[Tak3n]

I know a lot of you are very disappointed the conservatives won, especially in the manner they did as well..

Hopefully this will make you feel better, What would of happened under PR, basically tories still win, but UKIP become 3rd largest party

 

[RobotNinjaHornets]

Out of interest, why do believe what George Osborne has to say about economics?

He got a fucking 2:1 in modern history, how the fuck is he allowed to be in charge of the country's money? And how has he convinced people that he's right?

 

[Deleted member 231381]

What exactly did you expect. A deficit larger than the cost of the NHS and Education combined and you expect there to be a magic money tree?

There's a really good article on the deficit written here:

http://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/a-simple-guide-to-uk-fiscal-deficit.html

It's a blog by one of my professors. I think it's a good read regardless of your political leanings; it's not some Guardian sob piece.

 

[It's Reyn Time!]

Starvation now?

Damn you dudes are on a roll!

Yes, there actual, recorded cases of people dying of starvation after having support withdrawn from them. Some due to no support and mental illness, others due to absolute lack of money. There are millions now reliant on food banks who weren't a few years ago.

Keep your fingers in your ears and your eyes on the prize though.

 

[kitch9]

That's true to a point, but it's not what the Tory strategy has been. They think they can grow the economy by cutting the welfare bill.

It failed, the economy struggled, the recession was deepened, and the welfare bill went up because a lot of people lost their jobs.

I have a question for you.

Do you think that everyone who is claiming benefits is spending wisely and doing their absolute best to find gainful employment?

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I know a lot of you are very disappointed the conservatives won, especially in the manner they did as well..

Hopefully this will make you feel better, What would of happened under PR, basically tories still win, but UKIP become 3rd largest party

For what it's worth, I'd rather UKIP have had more seats. I'm leftwing, and that implies a desire for fairness in all matters. That extends to democratic ones. UKIP deserved more seats then they got. They shouldn't be beaten by an arcane electoral system that depresses the genuine choice of the electorate, but by a meaningful conversation about the issues UKIP raises.

 

[Tak3n]

Labour just leaked this

a meeting about Boundaries, Tories making sure they get a 3rd term

 

[kitch9]

For what it's worth, I'd rather UKIP have had more seats. I'm leftwing, and that implies a desire for fairness in all matters. That extends to democratic ones. UKIP deserved more seats then they got. They shouldn't be beaten by an arcane electoral system that depresses the genuine choice of the electorate, but by a meaningful conversation about the issues UKIP raises.

Left is not a fair ideology. If it was universally accepted as fair there would be no need for politics.

 

[N7Commander95]

Labour just leaked this

a meeting about Boundaries, Tories making sure they get a 3rd term

Gerrymandering to the max!

 

[RobotNinjaHornets]

For what it's worth, I'd rather UKIP have had more seats. I'm leftwing, and that implies a desire for fairness in all matters. That extends to democratic ones. UKIP deserved more seats then they got. They shouldn't be beaten by an arcane electoral system that depresses the genuine choice of the electorate, but by a meaningful conversation about the issues UKIP raises.

Also, this is assuming everyone would have voted the same if we had a better voting system. I'm pretty sure the Greens would have got a higher number of votes, given I've seen a lot of people saying that they voted for Labour to stop the Conservatives getting in. Plus a decent number of those votes could just be protest votes to get exactly what's happening now to happen - people are talking about how much the Greens and UKIP got shafted.

 

[It's Reyn Time!]

I have a question for you.

Do you think that everyone who is claiming benefits is spending wisely and doing there absolute best to find gainful employment?

It's very far the other way - there are far more people who should be able to claim benefits who've been locked out of the system. Fraud is a negligible amount.

The ATOS - benefits withdrawal - mandatory reconsideration - appeal - tribunal process costs an estimated £6k per person, and 38% (last I checked) result in a successful appeal and the client receiving the benefit they were entitled to for the 6 months to a year that this process takes. To put that into context, that's a year's worth of benefits spent to assess each claimant, every two years at most.

Unless you know what you're talking about, be very careful before you start with the same benefits bashing bollocks that Murdoch spouted into your ear.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Left is not a fair ideology. If it was universally accepted as fair there would be no need for politics.

I disgree. There are values other than fairness which people can prioritize. For example, maximizing welfare (in the sense of human well-being, not benefits) can be an unfair process. Freedom can have unfair outcomes. The point of politics is to decide which values (freedom, welfare, fairness, among others) we want the most.

 

[tomtom94]

I'm sure the people who can actually read didn't see that.

So as far as I understand it the Conservative manifesto reads as follows:

1. We need to finish what we started.
2. What we started was the road to a successful economy.
3. Austerity was and still is necessary for a successful economy.
4. We will produce £12bn in welfare cuts.
5. Therefore, if you let us finish what we started, we will deliver a successful economy.

Like, if you genuinely believe that's successful, then cool. I still think it's fucked up but I at least acknowledge there are different economic theories. But you seem to be trying to deny that that is the Conservatives' ideology in the first place and I don't understand why.

 

[Ding-Ding]

Labour just leaked this

a meeting about Boundaries, Tories making sure they get a 3rd term

These were the recommended changes set out by an independent commission, deferred in 2013 till 2015 by parliament. Libs deferred as they didn't get lords reform and Labour deferred as they benefited the most on the current boundaries (to the tune of an estimated 20 seats extra)

 

[Psycho_Mantis]

I disgree. There are values other than fairness which people can prioritize. For example, maximizing welfare (in the sense of human well-being, not benefits) can be an unfair process. Freedom can have unfair outcomes. The point of politics is to decide which values (freedom, welfare, fairness, among others) we want the most.

We must also place importance on the things that we deem to be needed.

 

[War Peaceman]

These were the recommended changes set out by an independent commission, deferred in 2013 till 2015 by parliament. Libs deferred as they didn't get lords reform and Labour deferred as they benefited the most on the current boundaries (to the tune of an estimated 20 seats extra)

Although I dislike the impact of these changes, this is correct. These are the due process being carried out in accordance with precedent.

 

[Saiyar]

Labour just leaked this

a meeting about Boundaries, Tories making sure they get a 3rd term

The boundary changes don't really matter that much anymore since most of Labours advantage with the current system came from Scotland. Their percentage of seats would only have dropped by 0.5% if the election had used the new boundaries.They would still have won 97, 01 and 05 comfortably.

 

[Ding-Ding]

Although I dislike the impact of these changes, this is correct. These are the due process being carried out in accordance with precedent.

Absolutely correct. We should also point out politicians are allowed to accept or defer till a later date, however they are not allowed to amend anything

 

[tomtom94]

Absolutely correct. We should also point out politicians are allowed to accept or defer till a later date, however they are not allowed to amend anything

It's a little confusing when the Daily Telegraph refer to senior Tories hoping that Labour are kept out of power for decades by these boundary reforms.

 

[kitch9]

It's very far the other way - there are far more people who should be able to claim benefits who've been locked out of the system. Fraud is a negligible amount.

The ATOS - benefits withdrawal - mandatory reconsideration - appeal - tribunal process costs an estimated £6k per person, and 38% (last I checked) result in a successful appeal and the client receiving the benefit they were entitled to for the 6 months to a year that this process takes. To put that into context, that's a year's worth of benefits spent to assess each claimant, every two years at most.

Unless you know what you're talking about, be very careful before you start with the same benefits bashing bollocks that Murdoch spouted into your ear.

You answered my question with another question. Possibly a legitimate one also, maybe even leads down the same path I'm going down

I'm not implying fraud either.

 

[War Peaceman]

It's a little confusing when the Daily Telegraph refer to senior Tories hoping that Labour are kept out of power for decades by these boundary reforms.

If that's what is decreed by the boundary commission then Labour need to change the way they are structured and how they electioneer.

There is nothing wrong with a political party using the quirks of a electoral system to their advantage, the problem emerges when they change or alter or design it to be biased. Which has and can not happen. Obviously that could change, but that is fantasy at this point.

 

[Empty]

it's mildly amusing that tories used to be really annoyed at how labour traditionally had fewer votes per seat, hence the insistence on boundary changes, and now they have better vote efficiency.

 

[War Peaceman]

it's mildly amusing that tories used to be really annoyed at how labour traditionally had fewer votes per seat, hence the insistence on boundary changes, and now they have better vote efficiency.

The Crosby effect.

And/or possibly they learned their lesson.

 

[RedSparrows]

Facebook is absurd. Guy I don't even know popping up on my social feed, having a good old go at 'lefties' for moaning. Apparently they're idiots, because the rich get richer because of 'interest' (seriously), which nobody can control (?!!?!?!?!!), and the NHS costs a lot because people use it.

Seriously. Get out of my advert feed.

 

[Real Hero]

Facebook is absurd. Guy I don't even know popping up on my social feed, having a good old go at 'lefties' for moaning. Apparently they're idiots, because the rich get richer because of 'interest' (seriously), which nobody can control (?!!?!?!?!!), and the NHS costs a lot because people use it.

Seriously. Get out of my advert feed.

Just to counter balance. I've seen lots of people claiming to protest the Tory Government for...being elected basically.

 

[War Peaceman]

Just to counter balance. I've seen lots of people claiming to protest the Tory Government for...being elected basically.

Yeah it is just venting. Don't take any of it verbatim.

 

[kitch9]

Yes, there actual, recorded cases of people dying of starvation after having support withdrawn from them. Some due to no support and mental illness, others due to absolute lack of money. There are millions now reliant on food banks who weren't a few years ago.

Keep your fingers in your ears and your eyes on the prize though.

Never happened under Labour I assume?

 

[Tak3n]

Never happened under Labour I assume?

do we believe IDS when he said the reason the numbers shot up is because the Job Centre now advertises it, rather than it did not under Labour

 

[kitch9]

do we believe IDS when he said the reason the numbers shot up is because the Job Centre now advertises it, rather than it did not under Labour

I don't believe any political party / paper when it comes to this stuff.

I'd rather read the full report they cherrypick their bullshit from to get the full picture instead of a tiny part of it.

 

[kitch9]

So as far as I understand it the Conservative manifesto reads as follows:

1. We need to finish what we started.
2. What we started was the road to a successful economy.
3. Austerity was and still is necessary for a successful economy.
4. We will produce £12bn in welfare cuts.
5. Therefore, if you let us finish what we started, we will deliver a successful economy.

Like, if you genuinely believe that's successful, then cool. I still think it's fucked up but I at least acknowledge there are different economic theories. But you seem to be trying to deny that that is the Conservatives' ideology in the first place and I don't understand why.

Productivity growth will shrink welfare naturally, now if they can ween the people who just want benefits instead of actually needing them out of the system then it would help the money go where it needs to.

Unfortunately the benefits system always has people willing to take advantage especially the more generous it gets which means there's less money to focus where it's actually needed.

 

[RobotNinjaHornets]

Oh hey, Brighton and Hove council election results are in

...motherfucker, Labour and Conservatives now just outnumber the Greens on their own. Goddamnit. I was hoping that maaaybe we could get a legitimately Green council.

 

[War Peaceman]

Oh hey, Brighton and Hove council election results are in

...motherfucker, Labour and Conservatives now just outnumber the Greens on their own. Goddamnit. I was hoping that maaaybe we could get a legitimately Green council.

Isn't the green council there fairly unpopular? Rubbish collectors strikes or something?

As opposed to Lucas who has personal popularity.

 

[RobotNinjaHornets]

Isn't the green council there fairly unpopular? Rubbish collectors strikes or something?

As opposed to Lucas who has personal popularity.

Yeah, but it's the sort of unpopular that involves no mental input. It wasn't really a properly green council, they only had 23 seats out of 54, so the chances of them being capable of doing things on their own terms wasn't great.

With the bin strikes, I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that's because they were trying to make it fairer for everyone across the board which meant the bin men had to take pay cuts, which they didn't like.

After a quick bit of Googling - http://www.brightonhovegreens.org/factsheets/bin-strike-and-equal-pay-factsheet.html

Not saying they did the right thing, I haven't had time to read through it properly, but it looks like they at the very least had their hearts in the right place, which is more than can be said for a lot of other parties.

 

[tomtom94]

Productivity growth will shrink welfare naturally, now if they can ween the people who just want benefits instead of actually needing them out of the system then it would help the money go where it needs to.

Unfortunately the benefits system always has people willing to take advantage especially the more generous it gets which means there's less money to focus where it's actually needed.

The problem is that the idea of "welfare queens", to borrow a term from American politics that I think is what you are getting at, is not borne out by the reality of people claiming benefits. The majority of our welfare spending goes on either people in work (tax credits) or state pensions. This means that any cuts to actual benefits yield little more than diminishing returns.

I just made a post on Facebook about some of the articles I've been reading, curious to see what GAF thinks:

SInce the election there has been a significant outcry by many people, including friends of mine, about the fact the Conservatives have a majority. Some of this has taken an extremely aggressive and accusatory tone towards Conservative voters, which has caused a significant backlash from other people who are (for obvious reasons) happier with the result.

As a result, without getting into party ideology, accusing people of hating the disabled, and so on, I'd like to just explain some of the reasons why the election result caused such an emotional reaction for me personally, followed by my thoughts on other people's responses.

1) The surprise factor. If the polls had represented the true thoughts of the British people, then the probability of a Conservative government would have been apparent a lot sooner. As it happened, myself (and many others) had spent most of the last few weeks and election day itself somewhat optimistic about late polling data suggesting that Labour and the Conservatives were level. This made both the exit poll and the actual result a metaphorical punch in the gut.

2) No chance of electoral reform. While I was somewhat apprehensive about the possibility of a deal between Labour and the SNP, it did seem to herald some sort of backlash against the first-past-the-post system, which provides strong but not necessarily proportional government. This is why your feed is currently full of people contrasting the vote share of the SNP and UKIP (a very dodgy comparison, incidentally, and one I wish people would stop making, since it contributes to the narrative that the SNP are not legitimate participants - a better one would be Labour vs Conservative seat/vote share). A Conservative majority means absolutely no reason to change it.

3) Negative campaigning. The tabloid press (that includes the Mail and the Express, they will never be broadsheets) have plumbed new depths in their campaigns this year, backed up by Lynton Crosby's thoroughly pessimistic electoral strategy, which predominantly relied upon perpetuating half-truths about Labour and the coalition's record while terrifying people about the SNP. It may be somewhat sentimental of me but it hurts to see such things vindicated and it bodes poorly for the EU referendum, let alone the next election.

4) Fixed term parliaments. In spite of the fact it was little more than a symbolic gesture when it was first introduced, the Fixed Term Parliament Act does mean that the new government will, barring a vote of no confidence against itself, probably last a full five years. Without wishing to demean the democratic process, five years is a very long period of time to imagine and it does make it easy to despair about the possibility of change.

5) The magnitude of the rebuild. It bears repeating that the scale of the defeat - for both Labour and the Liberal Democrats - is huge, so huge that it is quite possible the rebuild they have to make to engage with voters again will not be achieved in time for the next election. Change, as we all know, is difficult, while despair and apathy are extremely tempting viewpoints - this is why Russell Brand has at least been able to engage with people, and it's certainly one reason why people are tempted into abandoning the democratic process.

There's more among the little points, like the giveaways the Conservatives already plan not to keep since they planned on bargaining them away in a coalition, but protesting about the ideology on which they were elected is not really fair. I think the point that Labour, the Greens, and the Lib Dems all failed to present their own positive vision in response is a fair one.

I believe that the majority of people who have attacked Conservative voters, rather than the party, have only done so because they were so emotionally engaged in, and surprised by, the result. It doesn't make it acceptable, let alone good. If there is anything the Left need to do after this election it is to avoid smug, negative responses attacking people who engaged with the democratic process in a way we dislike. Not least because it's one of the reasons they failed to capture voters, but also because it's one of the problems I have with the right-wing press, I don't need the Mirror and the Guardian doing it as well.

Equally, however, I feel that there are very valid reasons why people are upset that go beyond simple ideological differences. If you've made it this far, thanks for reading. Sorry for the ramble.

 

[Moral Panic]

full of people contrasting the vote share of the SNP and UKIP (a very dodgy comparison, incidentally, and one I wish people would stop making,

Why is it a dodgy comparison tho

 

[tomtom94]

Why is it a dodgy comparison tho

For one thing, the SNP did not stand in as many seats as UKIP. For another, Scottish constituencies are smaller in general than English constituencies.

For another, it's very easy to accidentally end up sharing stuff written by Britain First.

 

[phisheep]

I just made a post on Facebook about some of the articles I've been reading, curious to see what GAF thinks:

I really appreciate that you posted that, tomtom. I've been rather reluctant to post here today in the midst of so much potential lash back. Thanks.

 

[Empty]

For one thing, the SNP did not stand in as many seats as UKIP. For another, Scottish constituencies are smaller in general than English constituencies.

For another, it's very easy to accidentally end up sharing stuff written by Britain First.

it's a pretty simple example of exactly what fptp benefits vs what fptp penalizes though. easy for people to understand despite it being about complex electoral systems. that the snp didn't stand in many seats is part of the point.

very good facebook post overall though

 

[Biggzy]

Isn't the green council there fairly unpopular? Rubbish collectors strikes or something?

As opposed to Lucas who has personal popularity.

That's what I have heard as well, so it does not surprise me.

 

[Conan-san]

It took about 30 hours for London to explode into riots.

That has to be a record.

If only Cameron et all could put that energy into serving anyone other than themselves we might get somewhere without the country flying apart at the seams.

 

[iapetus]

For one thing, the SNP did not stand in as many seats as UKIP. For another, Scottish constituencies are smaller in general than English constituencies.

For another, it's very easy to accidentally end up sharing stuff written by Britain First.

So compare UKIP's seat share to that of the Conservatives. Three times the votes get you three hundred and thirty times the seats. Simples!

 

[danwarb]

Still nothing on the BBC about the protests/riot in London?

I suppose the government decides what new is nowadays.

 

[Saiyar]

Still nothing on the BBC about the protests/riot in London?

I suppose the government decides what new is nowadays.

it has been on the BBC live news feed since it started.

 

[JonathanEx]

Still nothing on the BBC about the protests/riot in London?

I suppose the government decides what new is nowadays.

1. Rule of 'nothing on the BBC' means that it is inevitably covered by them.

2. it's 100 people angry at the government who are always angry at them

who gives a shit

 

[Kinky John]

Still nothing on the BBC about the protests/riot in London?

Fly Jim Murphy down there and get someone to shout at him.