Support NeoGAF

[CyclopsRock]

I don't think the free market has ever been about "leave it to the free market, it'll all be OK" - it's about "leave it to the free market, and people are responsible for their decisions." If a business makes a poor decision and replaces their quality, experiences, diligent older employee with an inexperienced but qualified graduate to save money, maybe it'll have an impact on their business. Maybe they'll lose sales or lower productivity or any number of other things that can befall a company. And they'll have to live with those consequences. Maybe they'll learn from it and not do it again, or maybe they won't and it'll compound the problem. On the other hand, maybe it'll turn out to be the right decision. Maybe the older employee wasn't offering anything that the younger employee wasn't also offering, but cost a lot more. In this instance, what justification is there for "penalising" a company for getting rid of the older worker?

The free market doesn't make problems go away, it makes people and businesses accountable for them. This (get me, Hegal!) dialectical approach eventually leads to better decisions being made. Or, put simply, the free market means the freedom to fail! I don't think the government should be there in all cases to protect people from this failure.

Edit: Also, the free market doesn't have too much to do with benefits. The free market is about consenting adults being able to agree to trades if they want to, whether that trade is between two products, a trade of money for ones labour etc. The freedom to do this without external constraints. You can support a significant benefits system as well as a free market, up until the point where benefits are actively competing with wages.

 

[anonymous_abc]

what justification is there for "penalising" a company for getting rid of the older worker?

Social responsibility towards the older worker?



I feel like left wing UK PoliGAF is seriously underrepresented.

 

[jimbor]

If you company took ten years to realise somebody was shit at the job, I have very little sympathy for them. I thought the conservatives changed the law so that you could get rid of Am employee for almost no reason up to two years after employing them? Please do correct me if I'm wrong.

Also, it's a lot easier to get rid of under performing employees than people are making out here. Managing somebody out is pretty easy with even a tiny bit of thought.

 

[Bony Manifesto]

I think you're overstating the case a little bit there. I'm not on a 0-hour contract. Are you? Estimates vary, but the highest one I can find suggests that 8% of the workforce have 0 hour contracts. This might be 8% too many for some, but it's not exactly "a standard feature in almost every employment contract".

Sorry if I wasn't clear, but I meant that almost every employment contract for a job with an hourly wage is a zero contract one. They might not enforce it, but it's just one of those formalities that you have to agree to, along with (somewhat ironically) the requirement that you waive your European Working Time Directive rights.

I know this because I've been trying to find full-time employment for the last three years or so, and have been flitting between zero-hours jobs to make ends meet and try to mitigate the hole in my CV.

As for sacking people, I think we need to get over that. I don't really see why employers should need to be "penalised" for getting rid of workers, whether they're crap employees or just redundant. Getting rid of employees is something that a) needs to happen and b) needs to be able to happen in a healthy labour market.

Firing crap employees is not something I really have any experience with, but I don't think you can just lump them together with those who work hard and lose their jobs for no fault of their own. It might be an unfortunate necessity to make people redundant sometimes, but I feel the regulation we have now for full-time employees strikes a balance between allowing companies to lay people off if it's absolutely necessary, but discourage them from doing it on a whim.

If you only need someone to do a job for a limited time, I don't understand why you wouldn't just use a fixed-term contract - that's what they're there for! For someone like myself, I'd much rather know that I'm covering for someone's maternity leave, and after that, I need to find something else, rather than getting my hours slashed to nothing out of the blue. Indeed, I'm not exactly sure what kind of employee has such a haphazard, unpredictable schedule that they'd need the added 'flexibility' of a zero-hours contract (apart from someone working multiple zero-hours jobs of course).

 

[CyclopsRock]

Social responsibility towards the older worker?

I feel like left wing UK PoliGAF is seriously underrepresented.

A number of other European countries have a salary continuation scheme for redundancies, paid for by the state. Not that I'm particularly thrilled with this either, but to me it seems - like maternity and paternity leave - a better solution to have the state pay for things like that out of general taxation than whatever business had the misfortune of hiring them.

Sorry if I wasn't clear, but I meant that almost every employment contract for a job with an hourly wage is a zero contract one. They might not enforce it, but it's just one of those formalities that you have to agree to, along with (somewhat ironically) the requirement that you waive your European Working Time Directive rights.

I know this because I've been trying to find full-time employment for the last three years or so, and have been flitting between zero-hours jobs to make ends meet and try to mitigate the hole in my CV.

Fair enough! The last hourly-wage contract I had was in 2004 at McDonalds! I actually can't for the life of me remember whether it was 0-hours. Certainly, given I could count to ten without using my fingers, I never found myself in a situation where I was lacking for shifts.

Firing crap employees is not something I really have any experience with, but I don't think you can just lump them together with those who work hard and lose their jobs for no fault of their own. It might be an unfortunate necessity to make people redundant sometimes, but I feel the regulation we have now for full-time employees strikes a balance between allowing companies to lay people off if it's absolutely necessary, but discourage them from doing it on a whim.

If you only need someone to do a job for a limited time, I don't understand why you wouldn't just use a fixed-term contract - that's what they're there for! For someone like myself, I'd much rather know that I'm covering for someone's maternity leave, and after that, I need to find something else, rather than getting my hours slashed to nothing out of the blue. Indeed, I'm not exactly sure what kind of employee has such a haphazard, unpredictable schedule that they'd need the added 'flexibility' of a zero-hours contract (apart from someone working multiple zero-hours jobs of course).

I don't think any company fires someone on a whim. They fire someone because keeping them at the business will do more harm than having no one in that role. That's not a sustainable position to ask a business to take on, I think.

As for an example, I mentioned my brother, earlier - he took on more shifts when he wanted more money, and went down to none when he had exams and stuff to revise for.

At the end of the day, no amount of legislative jiggery pokery will create more work or greater numbers of hours to be worked. We're really just squiggling about with who they go to. If you find that you're covering maternity leave and, upon the person's return, find your hours slashed to 0, you're always allowed to leave, just like if you'd had a finite end of the contract at that point.

Edit: We just hired someone. Wooo!

 

[QuicheFontaine]

Edit: Also, the free market doesn't have too much to do with benefits. The free market is about consenting adults being able to agree to trades if they want to, whether that trade is between two products, a trade of money for ones labour etc. The freedom to do this without external constraints. You can support a significant benefits system as well as a free market, up until the point where benefits are actively competing with wages.

But I thought they were? Isn't that a major problem getting people off benefits: that low-paying jobs pay less than the benefits they're on? And those are generally the type of jobs you'd have zero-hour contracts for.

 

[CyclopsRock]

But I thought they were? Isn't that a major problem getting people off benefits: that low-paying jobs pay less than the benefits they're on? And those are generally the type of jobs you'd have zero-hour contracts for.

Yes, kinda - I think the bigger problem is the manner in which they're removed (ie at a pretty random rate which is different for every different benefit and allowance) which basically means that you face an enormous effective tax rate when taking up a low-paying job in many cases. This means that the actual benefit to working, unless a) you've got a decent paying job straight away or b) you are, for whatever reason, ineligible for most benefits, shimmers down to basically nothing - certainly not a worthy recompense for 40 hours a week, compared with what you were getting before and 0 hours a week.

I think the key to stopping benefits being in competition with wages without just lowering benefits is to slow down the rate at which they are removed, allowing time for the employee to either go higher up the payment ladder, gain enough experience that they can move elsewhere with better wages or otherwise find something within the job (like future earnings potential) that makes that marginal benefit of working 40 hours worth it. This would actually cost more money (in the short term, at least) but I think it'd be worth it to a) boost the labour market, b) offer UK citizens a leveller playing field vs immigrants so as to bring down our long-term unemployment over time and c) "save lives" - namely, if it helps families with generations of long-term unemployed to live a life slightly less barren of enrichment, that's a goal worth attempting, imo.

You can call me IDS.

 

[Bony Manifesto]

Fair enough! The last hourly-wage contract I had was in 2004 at McDonalds! I actually can't for the life of me remember whether it was 0-hours. Certainly, given I could count to ten without using my fingers, I never found myself in a situation where I was lacking for shifts.

Yeah, McDonalds in the UK have always had all their hourly-wage employees on zero-hours contracts. That's what I mean - it's just a standard disclaimer that gets lost in the rest of the legalese. Back in the day, when there was enough work to go around, it was probably a de facto full-time job if you wanted it to be, and it's only now that people are realising it's not as innocuous as it once seemed.

I don't think any company fires someone on a whim. They fire someone because keeping them at the business will do more harm than having no one in that role. That's not a sustainable position to ask a business to take on, I think.

As for an example, I mentioned my brother, earlier - he took on more shifts when he wanted more money, and went down to none when he had exams and stuff to revise for.

At the end of the day, no amount of legislative jiggery pokery will create more work or greater numbers of hours to be worked. We're really just squiggling about with who they go to. If you find that you're covering maternity leave and, upon the person's return, find your hours slashed to 0, you're always allowed to leave, just like if you'd had a finite end of the contract at that point.

Edit: We just hired someone. Wooo!

Your brother clearly had an understanding boss, but in my experience (and that of people who I've talked with), with the vast majority of zero-hours jobs, turning down a shift when it's offered is going to negatively impact how much you're offered in the future. And I can sympathise with the manager there - do you spread the work around evenly, or do you try to give regular work to those who are most reliable? When faced with that decision, I think it should be clear how lucky your brother was (or how understaffed the warehouse was).

And I can assure you there's a world of difference between knowing up-front that you're going to get so many hours for so many months, and thinking that this is going to be your first foot on the ladder and if you impress the right people, you'll be able to move up in the company. Figuring out for yourself that you're actually covering for someone's maternity leave and then trying to subtly ask around to try to find out when she's coming back, so you know when to start applying for other jobs is just crushing! It might be the same amount of work in the end, but there's just some common human decency to tell someone upfront about these things.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

You can call me IDS.

Y'know, it's been a while since I've heard anyone mention Iain Dunkin' Donuts. Is he spending all his time on Gaf? :-O

 

[Jezbollah]

On Sky News's ticker

"UKIP has suspended party member Andre Lampitt who appeared in its latest election broadcast over what party calls "repellent" racists tweets"

Oh dear.

 

[WayneMorse]

Hmm the party that runs on racially charged rhetoric is filled with a bunch of racists? Shocking.

 

[Nicktendo86]

On Sky News's ticker

"UKIP has suspended party member Andre Lampitt who appeared in its latest election broadcast over what party calls "repellent" racists tweets"

Oh dear.

That's the problem with getting popular, more scrutiny which leads to more examples of your party being a load of racists.

 

[JonathanEx]

According to Newsnight, Millibland's announcing zero-hours plans tomorrow.

"Labour to promise workers on zero hours contracts right to demand fixed hrs contract after 6 months + automatically get fixed hrs after 1 yr"

There's an opt-out of course. And some protections in there too, will find those. I think one was that employers would be banned from assuming people are always available, stopping people from working for others and last-minute cancellations without pay etc. Will confirm if I can find.

But obviously there's work arounds, but is this a something that's better than nothing?

 

[phisheep]

According to Newsnight, Millibland's announcing zero-hours plans tomorrow.

"Labour to promise workers on zero hours contracts right to demand fixed hrs contract after 6 months + automatically get fixed hrs after 1 yr"

There's an opt-out of course. And some protections in there too, will find those. I think one was that employers would be banned from assuming people are always available, stopping people from working for others and last-minute cancellations without pay etc. Will confirm if I can find.

But obviously there's work arounds, but is this a something that's better than nothing?

I think it rather misses the point.

It is great for those on zero-hours contracts with big corporations - who should be able to manage their workload better. It is yet another burden for small businesses. If I would (see above posts for why I wouldn't) take someone on on a zero-hours contract, then being forced by legislation onto a fixed-hours contract would be a killer - because trade is seasonal here, so instead I'm going to find another way around it.

Essentially Ed is slating McDonalds but not noticing the difference between big and small businesses. He's in a difficult place on that, but so is everyone else.

It still grates for example that my corporation tax for last year is £238, on one tiny shop, which is more than Starbucks (with 700 shops) paid for the last 13 years or so.

 

[JonathanEx]

I think it rather misses the point.

It is great for those on zero-hours contracts with big corporations - who should be able to manage their workload better. It is yet another burden for small businesses. If I would (see above posts for why I wouldn't) take someone on on a zero-hours contract, then being forded by legislation onto a fixed-hours contract would be a killer - because trade is seasonal here, so instead I'm going to find another way around it.

I wonder how likely it is to affect people like you because of the caveat that it's regular hours needed for forcing on to a fixed hours thing from my understanding of the Newsnight piece, but as ever the devil is in the detail of what regular means. Which I can provide zero insight on. Or of every employer will just use the opt out.

But detail never goes wrong hey!

 

[phisheep]

I wonder how likely it is to affect people like you because of the caveat that it's regular hours needed for forcing on to a fixed hours thing from my understanding of the Newsnight piece, but as ever the devil is in the detail of what regular means. Which I can provide zero insight on.

As always it depends what the legislation says. If it is based on regular hours and those start after Easter (when the trade picks up) and an employee can then demand summer seaside hours for the whole winter you will kill the entire seaside trade. All of Blackpool, all of Torquay, all of Margate, all of Great Yarmouth, all of Llandudno and so on. That'll do down really well.

There's not many people exempt from the minimum wage legislation, but one of them is small business owners. It is at least arguably unjust to uphold the rights of employees against people who are earning less than they are.

 

[CyclopsRock]

I think Ed's been reading this thread.

 

[Nicktendo86]

I think Ed's been reading this thread.

Reads GAF for policy? Will announce shenmue 3 next.

Spoiler

I wish

 

[sohois]

Social responsibility towards the older worker?



I feel like left wing UK PoliGAF is seriously underrepresented.

You should have been here during the last election threads, Gaf has always had far more left wingers and the UK was no exception, with Lib Dems being by far the most popular party. It seemed like myself and 2-3 others were the only ones voting conservative, plus a few trolls.

Once the next election rolls around and there's a thread in OT proper you'll see far more left wing posters coming in.

 

[anonymous_abc]

You should have been here during the last election threads, Gaf has always had far more left wingers and the UK was no exception, with Lib Dems being by far the most popular party. It seemed like myself and 2-3 others were the only ones voting conservative, plus a few trolls.

Once the next election rolls around and there's a thread in OT proper you'll see far more left wing posters coming in.

I think British politics as a whole is farther right than that in Germany, therefore my view will be skewed anyway.

 

[Jezbollah]

Speaking of an Election OT - anyone have any ideas when it may surface?

 

[anonymous_abc]

Speaking of an Election OT - anyone have any ideas when it may surface?

1-2 months prior would be my guess. Has anyone called dibs yet?

 

[Volotaire]

Speaking of an Election OT - anyone have any ideas when it may surface?

1-2 months prior would be my guess. Has anyone called dibs yet?

Yes , I will be creating it 1 month before 7 May 2015 (provisional date), so about April 2015. If you want it earlier tell me.

On another note, can't wait for the EU elections next month, First time voting!

 

[Jezbollah]

Top man Volotaire

 

[CyclopsRock]

There was a time when this thread was far more left wing than it is now. It has shifted, certainly. I don't think either the left or right cabals here are too vehemently partisan, though; Generally speaking, I think partisanship is a lot lower in the UK than, say, the US anyway, outside of politics itself.

 

[Volotaire]

There was a time when this thread was far more left wing than it is now. It has shifted, certainly. I don't think either the left or right cabals here are too vehemently partisan, though; Generally speaking, I think partisanship is a lot lower in the UK than, say, the US anyway, outside of politics itself.

I've just realised this thread has being going on since the last general election!

 

[CyclopsRock]

I've just realised this thread has being going on since the last general election!

You have a year or so to come up with a witty pun title.

 

[Volotaire]

Andrew Neil really needs to be promoted past the Daily Politics Show. He's an under-utilised asset with the BBC, who preforms better than most/if not all of the substitute presenters for the BBC's main political shows.

 

[Nicktendo86]

Andrew Neil really needs to be promoted past the Daily Politics Show. He's an under-utilised asset with the BBC, who preforms better than most/if not all of the substitute presenters for the BBC's main political shows.

Can come across as smarmy but otherwise I really like him.

 

[defel]

Andrew Neil has better exposure and rapport with the political class than any other journo at the BBC. I dont think there is a better place for him at the BBC than the Daily/Sunday Politics shows. Newsnight/BBC News/Question Time would actually be a step down for him imo.

 

[anonymous_abc]

 

[Volotaire]

Andrew Neil has better exposure and rapport with the political class than any other journo at the BBC. I dont think there is a better place for him at the BBC than the Daily/Sunday Politics shows. Newsnight/BBC News/Question Time would actually be a step down for him imo.

I actually agree with you here, although I think Newsnight could be a good fit, given that it isn't only his good rapport with politicians that is an asset, but also his 'hard style' journalism into other social issues with non political guests and evidenced by his investigative journalism in the past.

Do you have a link to the survey? Also, I wonder how many of these young people are identifying by definition that they live in the EU, or are saying that they identify themselves as an EU citizen as opposed to a UK citizen in social terms. Notwithstanding the amount of people surveyed and the survey conduction, I agree with the sentiment of the second figure.

 

[anonymous_abc]

I actually agree with you here, although I think Newsnight could be a good fit, given that's it isn't only his good rapport that is an asset, but also his 'hard style' journalism into other social issues with non political guests.



Do you have a link to the survey? Also, I wonder how many of these young people are identifying by definition that they live in the EU, or are saying that they identify themselves as an EU citizen as opposed to a UK citizen in social terms. Notwithstanding the amount of people surveyed and the survey conduction, I tend to agree with the sentiment of the second figure.

sadly not but I found this
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/eb/eb80/eb80_citizen_en.pdf
pages 29++ cover similar questions about all of EU from last year.

So if that number reflects the entire population it seems reasonable to assume the proportion to be significantly higher amongst 'young people' whatever young might mean.

Also this figure really puts UK scepticism into perspective... :-/


lots of fascinating stuff in that report

I think I shall make an OT about that report, very interesting and not only for UKpoliGAF

 

[WayneMorse]

Have I Got News For You was very funny last night, much better than last week's episode.

 

[Sir_Crocodile]

Have I Got News For You was very funny last night, much better than last week's episode.

The "alternative Easter message from Satan" line from Hislop killed me.

 

[WayneMorse]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...ose-all-MEPs-in-Euro-elections-bloodbath.html

Holy crap, the Lib Dems could seriously lose all 11 of their MEPs!

 

[anonymous_abc]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...ose-all-MEPs-in-Euro-elections-bloodbath.html

Holy crap, the Lib Dems could seriously lose all 11 of their MEPs!

That's ridiculous.
Due to the proportional representation and the UK having 79 seats in the EP, the LibDems would need less than 1.27% (pretty much worst case scenario, as it only accounts for all parties actually getting in and all votes being valid) of the vote to get no one in.
Nationally the LibDems have been polling at +-10% for months, even if they take a significant hit on that, there is no reason believe they might actually drop bellow 1.27%....



[edit]

This morning’s YouGov poll for the Sun also had their latest European election voting intention figures. The topline figures continue to show Labour and UKIP battling it out for first place, with the Conservatives off in third – CON 22%, LAB 30%, LDEM 10%, UKIP 27%, GREEN 6%.
By my reckoning on a uniform swing this would translate into 15 seats for the Conservatives (down 11), 25 seats for Labour (up 12), 5 seats for the Lib Dems (down 6), 21 seats for UKIP (up 8), 1 seat for the Greens (down one) – the BNP look almost certain to lose their two seats.

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/8755

What the hell is the Telegraph thinking reporting it that way... ?
Literally makes zero sense!

[edit2]
The comments on Telegraph, oh my... I weep for humanity...

 

[CyclopsRock]

What the hell is the Telegraph thinking reporting it that way... ?
Literally makes zero sense!

To be fair, they're reporting on something that actually happened - a meeting of Lib Dems where they were warned that it could happen. What it doesn't say is who the source of that warning is.

 

[anonymous_abc]

To be fair, they're reporting on something that actually happened - a meeting of Lib Dems where they were warned that it could happen. What it doesn't say is who the source of that warning is.

I'm not complaining about that they report it, but how they report it.
The heading is clickbait³.


On a related note also from UKpollingreport

The strong UKIP showing at the European elections does NOT mean people support leaving the EU. Asked how they’d vote in a referendum on EU membership 40% say they would vote to stay, 37% say they would vote to leave. While the lead is only three points, YouGov’s regular tracker is now consistently showing a lead for staying in. In the event David Cameron managed to renegotiate Britain’s membership people would be almost 2-to-1 in favour of remaining within the EU. This raises the question of what counts as a successful renegotiation – the thing people would most like to see is, by some distance, a limit on EU immigration, picked by 56% of respondents. Presented with Cameron’s actual renegotiating priorities 42% say they don’t go far enough, 15% that they go too far, 25% that they are about right.
[...]
Turning to UKIP, most people do tend to see UKIP as a protest party (57%) rather than a serious party (20%) – but amongst UKIP voters themselves 71% think they are a serious party with workable policies. Only 25% of people say the UKIP posters this week are racist – 66% do not. Asked about Nigel Farage personally 27% think he is racist, 50% do not. Judging by this and the European election voting intention figures the fuss over the UKIP posters is more likely to have helped their support than damaged it.

I can honestly see happening, that when push comes to shove and people actually get to vote in a referendum more people will think twice about leaving. It's easy to call for it now and complain, but as so often walking the walk is much harder than talking the talk.

 

[CyclopsRock]

I'm not complaining about that they report it, but how they report it.
The heading is clickbait³.

Well, it has the word "bloodbath" in it, but it does start with "Libdems told...". I don't think it's too mental, really.

On a related note also from UKpollingreport

I can honestly see happening, that when push comes to shove and people actually get to vote in a referendum more people will think twice about leaving. It's easy to call for it now and complain, but as so often walking the walk is much harder than talking the talk.

I think that's definitely the case. It's why UKIP always do so much better in the elections that don't matter. In fact, it's slightly ironic that the anti-EU party does best in the elections for a parliament that has no ability to actual alter our relationship with it.

 

[WayneMorse]

I think a lot of people are voting UKIP not because they agree much with the party's platform but see it as more of a protest vote against the three big parties.

 

[anonymous_abc]

I think a lot of people are voting UKIP not because they agree much with the party's platform but see it as more of a protest vote against the three big parties.

Vote green girls and boys.

 

[8bit]

Vote green girls and boys.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDsV8YumePk

 

[Volotaire]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDsV8YumePk

That Nigel Farage impression..... brilliant!

 

[QuicheFontaine]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDsV8YumePk

"They're the only ones standing up to the secret trade deals being written so US corporations can privatise the NHS"? What is she on about?

I liked the Farage impersonation though. "Compulsory Esperanto at A-level!"

 

[Empty]

I think that's definitely the case. It's why UKIP always do so much better in the elections that don't matter. In fact, it's slightly ironic that the anti-EU party does best in the elections for a parliament that has no ability to actual alter our relationship with it.

it actually really annoys me that people do this, as opposed to voting in the general election for ukip representatives who can use their position to lobby for being more independent of europe. ukip mep's have relatively little interest in engaging in the european parliament, especially when it comes to amending legislation, and soon they're going to be our biggest group of representatives, which seems like a total waste.

i mean i guess ultimately it speaks to people not feeling their voice is being heard and using any opportunity as a public statement, as well as the eu doing a very poor job of making people feel like european elections are meaningful instead of an opportunity to register protest (unlike uk general elections), but still a mis-use of resources and represents a frustrating mis-understanding of how our democracy functions (this is of course endemic in uk politics, especially with the presidential approach to talking about politics vs first past the post and importance of local representatives)

 

[phisheep]

I think a lot of people are voting UKIP not because they agree much with the party's platform but see it as more of a protest vote against the three big parties.

... which kind of gives the lie to UKIP's main policy. I mean, if the EU is the all-powerful overruling evil overlord that UKIP says it is then nobody would vote UKIP into it.

 

[Jezbollah]

ONS reporting GDP up by 0.8% in the first three months of 2014.

 

[Walshicus]

Think I might be voting Lib Dem in the locals. Labour haven't got a chance here in Chichester and I'm still an anyone-but-the-Tories voter.

Undecided on the Euros; on the one hand I don't want to see UKIP come first so Labour make some sense... on the other hand the Libs are a bit closer to me ideologically. Tough call.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Think I might be voting Lib Dem in the locals. Labour haven't got a chance here in Chichester and I'm still an anyone-but-the-Tories voter.

Undecided on the Euros; on the one hand I don't want to see UKIP come first so Labour make some sense... on the other hand the Libs are a bit closer to me ideologically. Tough call.

At least with the Euros your vote will still count. "Winning" is a bit less of a big deal in the Euro elections, since there's no FPTP. If I were you, I'd vote for who you actually want to represent you.

I have literally no idea who I'll vote for. The Tories I guess, but I honestly don't care.