CyclopsRock
Member
How does Murdoch have a monopoly? He only owns 2 newspapers, doesn't he?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
May 7th | UK General Election 2015 OT - Please go vote!
- Thread starter Volotaire
- Start date
- Status
Matt_
World's #1 One Direction Fan: Everyone else in the room can see it, everyone else but you~~~
Its not really a monopoly but together the mail and sun account for around 50% of the print market
anonymous_abc
Member
I think that comparison is a stretch. The boundary conditions are wildly different.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Murdoch doesn't own the Mail. He does own just under 25% of national print media by circulation, which is the bar for being considered for oligopolistic powers. I don't think the problem is strictly Murdoch, but rather the nature of print media in general. They're business and exist to make a profit. While they have some interest in maintaining viewers which sets the frame for the political issues they can or cannot push, they have an incentive to push as much as possible in favour of whatever policies maximize their profit margin within that framework.
His combined share of the print market is more than would be allowed in that bastion of free enterprise the US. Of course they take into account other media ownership over there as well, you can't actually own a daily newspaper and local tv channel in the same locality, and nationwide there's a 45% rule: if your entire owned media output (internet, newspaper, radio, tv) gets over 45% of views in any given market it needs to be broken up.
Infinite_Daremo
Member
I genuinely don't know who to vote for, I only know I don't want Labour back in.
I was sure I would be voting conservative but recently I was told they are planning to privatise the NHS. But I can't find much info on this other than jobs which were given to the private sector.
Anyone with more wits about this care to fill me in? It's the only thing stopping me voting for them.
I was sure I would be voting conservative but recently I was told they are planning to privatise the NHS. But I can't find much info on this other than jobs which were given to the private sector.
Anyone with more wits about this care to fill me in? It's the only thing stopping me voting for them.
If you don't want Labour back in, then vote tory, as it'll be one or the other.
What are your reasons for not wanting Labour, out of interest?
Also, try https://uk.isidewith.com/political-quiz
JonathanEx
Member
Other thing to do is look at your local candidates. Has your existing MP says thongs you like, responded to people well, etc. Or have they voted in ways you really disagree with, and there's another candidate who has a decent track record?
QuicheFontaine
Member
Just heard on the radio that Cam is going to announce no rises in income tax or VAT over the next five years if elected.
Up to now I've been thinking all the " they're desperate" comments were overblown. But I've got to admit, this kinda smacks of a last minute giveaway.
Edit: national insurance too, apparently
Up to now I've been thinking all the " they're desperate" comments were overblown. But I've got to admit, this kinda smacks of a last minute giveaway.
Edit: national insurance too, apparently
Infinite_Daremo
Member
I side with lib dems, ukip and labour all in the 90s. Conservatives in the upper 80s. UKIP?????
I'm just not fond of the abuse of the benefits system and Labour as a government isn't one who is going to sort out that mess anytime soon. I could go as childish as hating millibands face but the same stands for good old Dave.
I'm genuinely lost for this election.
It's not even a giveaway, as I don't think anyone was expecting them to raise those things. It's obvious their tactic will again be to cut benefits to people that don't vote for them.
Jezbollah
Member
Last minute? Didnt they say they were going to freeze this stuff a few months ago?
Not many. Most of it is behind a paywall
QuicheFontaine
Member
I don't remember, but I just assumed it was new from "announce".
Not my words Dan. The words of Radio Wiltshire.
jimbobsmells
Member
As someone who has a severly disabled nephew, any party that fucks with disability benefit is the spawn of satan itself in my eyes.
Jezbollah
Member
No worries mate. I think the words are old, but the "law" they're proposing to introduce to keep to this is new... But it's a bit sad if they need laws to cement election promises..
Obviously it's your choice about what really matters to you, but for me, personally, I think the whole "benefits abuse" thing is massively overblown and is played on by the tories to give them an excuse to cut the welfare state.
EDIT:
Also, this gives a decent breakdown of how benefits are spent
It's not unemployed people who are causing the "problem" (not that I believe it's a problem)
CyclopsRock
Member
But he doesn't own the Mail... "All" he owns is The Sun and The Times - the latter of which scarcely has mad-dog headlines.
Well that's jolly good for the US, but I'm not sure that's a useful metric. It's true that The Times has the largest broadsheet reach and The Sun has the largest tabloid reach, but The Sun has about 24% of the Tabloid share and The Times has about 29% of the Broadsheet market - but someone needs to own those papers, and whoever does will get those market shares (and given there are only 5 proper broadsheets, 29% doesn't demonstrate a significant dominance) - given the fairly distinct market sectors that these newspapers provide for, I don't really see much of a problem with the same person owning one from each (ie a broadsheet and a tabloid).
Does "not raising tax" count as a giveaway though?
To me it's a fairly empty promise since I can't imagine them raising VAT above 20%, and they've just spend this whole parliament cutting income tax (both the 50>45% move and by raising the threshold). NI, too, is somewhere they're more likely to lower, imo.
Depends how you define "fucks with", imo. Nothing, including disability benefit, should be allowed onto a sort of untouchable pedestal. What matters if whether the changes made are good or not (and I'm guessing from your tone that you probably don't think they are).
Edit: I'm not sure why we're all of a sudden trusting the DWP's idea of how much benefit fraud there is. I mean, aren't they the guys that give it out? If it was fraudulant, presumably they'd stop it - if they knew about it. Which I appreciate, as an argument, basically means "IT COULD BE HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS" but I think we should be mindful not to simply present the DWP#s figures are the gospel when there are very obvious reasons why they'd be wrong.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
It's quite simple. The Conservatives are not planning to privatise the NHS. The whole thing is a baseless scare story.
They are certainly planning to increase the amount of private companies operating in the NHS though
PJV3
Member
Well, 40% of contracts this year were awarded to the private sector, it depends if that carries on I suppose. At the moment the total share is 6%, time will tell.
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/apr/25/far-more-nhs-contracts-going-to-private-firms-than-ministers-admit-privatisation
Billy_Pilgrim
Member
I'm sorry but even the most ardent Tory supporters will privately admit that socialised healthcare is one of the major problems they have with the country.
The Tories already are privatising the NHS. The Lansley act was a transparent attempt to get it into second gear.
There are dozens of Tories with personal links and shareholdings of private healthcare companies.
Both sides have been phasing it in for a long time. You farm this service out, then this one, then you introduce an internal competition market, then you "trial" a private service running a whole hospital for the NHS....it's a piece by piece privatisation to be sure. Eventually we'll see it hived off from government to be an "independent body" that's free at the point of delivery, then they'll rework National Insurance and part of income tax to go to an external intermediary body, and then finally collapse the whole thing into an external provider buying in care from the private sector and funded entirely by public health insurance.
It is happening. It has been happening. We are past the thin end of the wedge that things like PFI brought in, we are only going downhill from here. Privatisation, whatever the colour of government, is a genuine long-term threat and frankly something more people should be pissed off about.
industrian
will gently cradle you as time slowly ticks away.
Anyone who takes serious offence to poor people abusing benefits should look into the lengths rich people go to avoiding paying taxes, or how politicians abuse the expenses system to flip flats in London, the multiple loopholes that powerful corporations exploit to get out of paying corporation tax, and the many other factors that affect our system more than a bunch of poor cunts fiddling the benefits system to get an few extra grand every year.
Given the chance, everyone will work the system for their own gain. But the rich cunts who own the media would rather you get riled up about a bunch of ungrateful proles who want to exploit the system rather than put their own necks in the noose. And the readers will lap it up, because they don't like the idea of a bunch of poor people rising to the middle class without first jumping through hoops and grinding out a miserable experience like they had to.
PJV3
Member
We need more tv programmes about benefit cheats, you're not complying with the message.
CyclopsRock
Member
Tbf Skint is absolutely hilarious at times. I mean, in a tragic way, but there's some excellent editing there.
anonymous_abc
Member
Not quite sure why it needs to be either or. Can't people who have issues with benefit cheats also take issue with tax dodgers?
CyclopsRock
Member
I got Tory on that quiz, natch, but the most interesting thing to me was that respondants from London saw a result of Tory 39% to Labout's 36%, which is a higher Tory share than the UK average (38% to 37%). I wonder if this is a) not accurate b) they're including large swathes of the home counties or c) people in London are more likely than other areas to vote tribally rather than on policy?
JesseEwiak
Member
The problem is that the same people telling you about the guy stealing the bread out of your kitchen 'cause he's starving is also telling you that's the reason why you're broke when in reality, it's because the guy telling you about the bread thief and his buddies have stolen the safe out of the back room.
Dirtyshubb
Member
Of course you can, but the narrative is that we must tackle benefits cheats first, when that infographic shows that tackling private companies would get a greater return of anywhere from 30 to 100 times more money and so we really need to solely focus on the companies first because not only does it make financial sense but it also tries to stop the whole 1% taking over even more than they currently do.
Once you have that sorted then go onto benefits but if you were to read the papers or listen to the tories you would think the figures were the other way round.
Infinite_Daremo
Member
Why not hate both?
My neighbours are both jobless, have 5 kids and another on the way. They get their rent paid for them and the benefits received out pay my wage. How is this fair? I do agree tax avoidance needs solving too but I have to have this benefit scrounging shoved in my face on a daily basis which is a much bigger issue in my life.
Either way. With the NHS thing "kind" of cleared up my votes been sealed.
Being on benefits doesn't allow for a glamorous life style. It provides the bare minimum to live even remotely decent. If their benefits are besting your pay, it's probably because they have so many children, and whatever else. It could also be because your job is paying the bare minimum, but that's a whole other separate issue. The issue that the lowest level pay grades haven't really properly increased or aligned with the rate at which inflation and rent has increased. But look at it this way, whilst they will basically be living on the bare minimum for the longest time, a shit way to live if I'm honest, you at least have the chance of working your way up the ladder in your job, and getting future pay rises that will hopefully allow you to live more luxuriously.
The alternative to not providing for this family next door to yours, is that they and their children starve, or go homeless. We're a civilised nation, full of what I'd hope were generous people, and ought to make sure that kind of thing is prevented. At the end of the day, there are enough wealthy people and corporations in the country, that we can actually afford it. Mega corp tax avoidance is a much bigger issue, and costs us considerably more money, than benefit scroungers.
But the conservatives aren't even dealing with that. They're just punishing everyone, legitimate claimants and all, and are painting the unfortunate as villains. Meanwhile, firms like Vodafone are given permission to screw us out of billions every year.
He must have, because he's really good at not landing on "Go To Jail".
industrian
will gently cradle you as time slowly ticks away.
A crime is a crime, but my main concern is that there's no real focus on the people who can afford to get away with their crimes and to sweep it under the rug. Or when there's no actual legislation in place to recognise that a crime has been committed.
This too.
What annoys me is I voted Lib Dem last time and got a conservative government. This time I would want to vote Lib Dem but would only on the condition they would never form a coalition with the Tories. So because of that I will be voting Labour, which is like wanting a 4 star hotel but playing it safe on a 3 star hotel.
I'm not fond of benefits being abused either, but I don't really trust any party to come up with a solution that doesn't ultimately do more harm than good; I think a few false positives are an acceptable sacrifice to ensure that the people who really do need them get them. And I don't think the issue of false positives is quite such a massive problem as some claim.
QuicheFontaine
Member
S'alright. It was just something overheard at breakfast. I may well have the wrong end of the stick, and I'd like to know if so!
Well, yeah kinda. I was under the impression that tax rises was one of two things about which I could be absolutely sure (the other being death). If, as you say, the act of not raising them doesn't turn out to be that difficult, that doesn't mean that the headline of "NO TAX RISES FOR FIVE YEARS" isn't attractive any more.
Audioboxer
Member
A lot of Scots hate what is going on in Westminster, which is a large part of why many voted Yes. You can see why when you look at all the scare mongering and bashing of the SNP/Scotland that goes on from London. That has absolutely nothing to do with a person being English though. It grinds my gears when people think just because I'm Scottish I have a beef with anyone English. I don't mind where you are born, no one can choose that. You're simply another human being to me. However I'm going to vote what's best for the country I live in, as unashamedly I want the best for my life and future lives.
I believed independence was the right move so decisions could be made up here by people that actually live in Scotland, and not from millionaires in London. I'll vote SNP and I'll vote yes again if given the chance. Nothing convinces me from any other party, especially reading all the bullshit said in this run up to a vote. I'm voting the best of a bad bunch in my opinion. Anyone up for scraping Trident is also a good vote in my opinion.
Jesus, can these Scots get any more ruthless??
HazySaiyan
Banned
Sounds about right
Cameron saying he will pass a law to stop him raising tax.
Errr, hold on on, that's completely worthless.
And even if it wasn't, it would be handing over power on taxation to the judiciary rather than parliament.
He's gone stark raving mad (as did Brown when he announced something similar and the Tories rightly tore him a hole over it).
Errr, hold on on, that's completely worthless.
And even if it wasn't, it would be handing over power on taxation to the judiciary rather than parliament.
He's gone stark raving mad (as did Brown when he announced something similar and the Tories rightly tore him a hole over it).
CyclopsRock
Member
Sure, I just don't think it can really be called "a giveaway" when, by it's very definition, it's a form of inaction. Taxes are absolutely a one-way stream of money from people to the government. A promise not to raise that isn't, to me, a giveaway.
so with the Tories pledge today it is now a clear choice
if you receive any type of benefit you need to hope and pray the tories don't get in as they are about to tear you a new one in cuts to pay for the lock on taxes for 5 years.
if you don't receive any benefits then you should vote tories as they are about to fuck over benefit people good and proper
simples, and it really is like that now
if you receive any type of benefit you need to hope and pray the tories don't get in as they are about to tear you a new one in cuts to pay for the lock on taxes for 5 years.
if you don't receive any benefits then you should vote tories as they are about to fuck over benefit people good and proper
simples, and it really is like that now
anonymous_abc
Member
Not everyone who receives no benefits is a heartless Muppet who does not recognise that some people really do need benefits.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked