Cycling UK Forum

djnotts wrote:"... I cannot think of any MP's who are motivated by conviction..."

Oh I can. Tories. The conviction that THEY are deserving of all the wealth, that the disabled, disadvantaged and poor deserve all they get - nothing.

+1
There's a historical thread through British life that "the poor" are poor through their own idleness, and so should be punished. This goes hand in hand with the idea that punishment causes people to change.
Both ideas don't stack up to scrutiny. But they still persist.

Trump has proved that all you need to do to get elected is use the new media outlets and treat the majority as idiots playing to their aspirations and fears.
It does not matter if you can deliver you just say in on twater what people want to hear.

It is all style and not substance. Other politicians have some catching up to do.

Interesting radio piece on r4 recently. The pundits basically discussed the election machines of Tories and Labour. Praise of the election database of the Tories and the social media machine too. Then they explained that Labour have a very effective communication machine too and their database isn't that far behind the Tories.

Basically anyone thinking one politician is more of a conviction politician than anyone else is deluded. Corbyn is a politician too. He's just got a different kind of cynicism.

Another news piece was discussing north Korea as the last communist regime. Until you look into stories from defectors. No private businesses? Yeah until you hear about the 22 year old lass who's parents had a car sales business and funded the several thousands of pounds to get smuggled out. There's a big black market. This market is generating a burgeoning middle class. That class is paying bribes which get fed up the chain. It's not actually a true communist regime anymore just like China hasn't been for decades.

So it's not that communism doesn't work it's just that we've never really had a communist society except small scale communes.

As far as hammer and sickle goes that plays more into the style of communism the British party is aligned with. Chinese or old Russian/Soviet variety. Increasingly there's a switch towards the Chinese variety in western politics. Might have something to do with capitalism? I mean communism just seems to put in a different kind of elite.

Whatever the politics of British communist parties they are not professional with their communications. No matter what your views on presentation within politics you do have to get your message across to voters outside of your core supporters otherwise you'll die out sooner or later.

My trouble with Labour communications is similar. I could well agree with a lot of Corbyn's policies but the tone of their communications reaching me are a huge turn off. It's purely aimed at the core of his support. The funny thing is they keep posting these leaflets to my partner who's obviously down as being a potential Labour voter. She is but the tone is still putting her off. In the end I'm reading more of those leaflets than she is. On the other hand I similarly get Tory leaflets posted in a plain envelope direct to me. She reads them more than the Labour ones and more than I do. I guess we're both put off by "our own side's" message.

TM
Which would you have a slightly off putting tone and sound policies,or a slick salesperson and a crap deal for all but the wealthy?

What is wealthy...
To the majority of the population of the Earth ... Wealthy is ..

The British family living on benefits in a council or housing association house,
With food in the freezer and a tv ....
Children in school .

Such wealth, such amazing wealth.

To strive for ......

landsurfer wrote:What is wealthy...
To the majority of the population of the Earth ... Wealthy is ..

The British family living on benefits in a council or housing association house,
With food in the freezer and a tv ....
Children in school .

Such wealth, such amazing wealth.

To strive for ......

That's true, but I think wealth and poverty can also be relative. If you can't pay the rent. or your child is the only one in class without x, y or z, then you'll certainly feel poor.

Many low income families could eat better and cheaper, and they may spend money on things that we'd consider luxuries... ...but considering these have been accusations made against the poor for generations, I suppose we should accept that poverty is partly a state of mind, and it isn't conducive to efficient home economics. Or the poor have only themselves to blame. Or the education system is failing them. Take your pick.

bovlomov wrote:Many low income families could eat better and cheaper, and they may spend money on things that we'd consider luxuries... ...but considering these have been accusations made against the poor for generations, I suppose we should accept that poverty is partly a state of mind, and it isn't conducive to efficient home economics. Or the poor have only themselves to blame. Or the education system is failing them. Take your pick.

It's expensive to be poor. The poor are less likely to be able to save money by buying bulk quantities, less likely to be able to afford to have a car to access out of town shopping centres or warehouse shops. They are more likely to have to shop at a local Co-op, Spar, or other shop where prices are higher. In addition, when someone is working long hours to make ends meet, it is difficult or impossible to cook healthy food from base materials. If they are working manual jobs, then it may be hard just to get the energy up to make a hot meal from prepared foods.

These articles about how to save money look ridiculous to someone who is buying a 4 pack of toilet paper, because if they buy one of the big packs to 'save' money, they can't afford milk next week. 'How to eat healthy on budget' more or less looks the same when you add up the cost of ingredients to make pasta sauce and compare it to the cost of a jar of store brand, and consider that on top of it, you don't want to make pasta sauce, after working, collecting the kids from the child minder...

Vorpal wrote:It's expensive to be poor. <snip>.

I agree. But I guess most of us know people who are scroungers or people who make terrible personal choices. It is the behaviour of those that is used as a pretext to make life harder for the poor in general. How should we respond? I would argue that many of those people making bad decisions have mental health issues that could be dealt with in other ways. Most people given decent housing and a reasonable environment will want to work and contribute to society. If they don't it is because society doesn't facilitate that behaviour, and often obstructs it.

About the few that are exploitative.. ..I think society can take that hit.

Sorry, must go. I need to go now, to drink a bottle of gin and beat the children.

reohn2 wrote:TM
Which would you have a slightly off putting tone and sound policies,or a slick salesperson and a crap deal for all but the wealthy?

The best of both. If they're selling something worthwhile then I expect slick presentation or people won't listen. Alienating those who might listen to your message because of your presentation or catering for the already convinced but not attracting others isn't a good way to succeed. If you think good presentation and policies are mutually exclusive then it's a bad indictment of political debate IMHO.

bovlomov wrote:

Vorpal wrote:It's expensive to be poor. <snip>.

I agree. But I guess most of us know people who are scroungers or people who make terrible personal choices. It is the behaviour of those that is used as a pretext to make life harder for the poor in general. How should we respond? I would argue that many of those people making bad decisions have mental health issues that could be dealt with in other ways. Most people given decent housing and a reasonable environment will want to work and contribute to society. If they don't it is because society doesn't facilitate that behaviour, and often obstructs it.

About the few that are exploitative.. ..I think society can take that hit.

I agree. Out of all the thousands(?) of people I know and have known, only one or two were really scroungers. At the same time, I knew many people who struggled to get a child diagnosed with a serious illness, lost a job because they missed too much work for being ill, or mentally ill, struggled or failed to meet basic needs because they made too much money to receive benefits, and too little to dig themselves out of a financial hole. Honestly? I'm happy to pay taxes to feed a couple of scroungers if it also means life is a bit easier and happier for the folks who really need the help.

Tangled Metal wrote:

reohn2 wrote:TM
Which would you have a slightly off putting tone and sound policies,or a slick salesperson and a crap deal for all but the wealthy?

The best of both. If they're selling something worthwhile then I expect slick presentation or people won't listen. Alienating those who might listen to your message because of your presentation or catering for the already convinced but not attracting others isn't a good way to succeed. If you think good presentation and policies are mutually exclusive then it's a bad indictment of political debate IMHO.

You can't have your cake and eat it.
I'll take the good policies every time over froth slick sales talk and lies.

bovlomov wrote:....... I guess most of us know people who are scroungers or people who make terrible personal choices. It is the behaviour of those that is used as a pretext to make life harder for the poor in general. How should we respond? I would argue that many of those people making bad decisions have mental health issues that could be dealt with in other ways. Most people given decent housing and a reasonable environment will want to work and contribute to society. If they don't it is because society doesn't facilitate that behaviour, and often obstructs it.

I agree.
There are many clever people in society,unfortunately clever doesn't always equal wise,or the ability to put themselves in the shoes of others.

About the few that are exploitative.. ..I think society can take that hit.....

Agreed again,some people paint or more like tar,with a wide brush.....

reohn2 wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

reohn2 wrote:TM
Which would you have a slightly off putting tone and sound policies,or a slick salesperson and a crap deal for all but the wealthy?

The best of both. If they're selling something worthwhile then I expect slick presentation or people won't listen. Alienating those who might listen to your message because of your presentation or catering for the already convinced but not attracting others isn't a good way to succeed. If you think good presentation and policies are mutually exclusive then it's a bad indictment of political debate IMHO.

You can't have your cake and eat it.
I'll take the good policies every time over froth slick sales talk and lies.

Why can't you have policies and good presentation? Am I really missing something here? They don't seem as though they're mutually exclusive to me. In my opinion I'd go for a third option, good policies/ideas and good communication of those policies/idea.

Tangled Metal wrote:Why can't you have policies and good presentation? Am I really missing something here? They don't seem as though they're mutually exclusive to me. In my opinion I'd go for a third option, good policies/ideas and good communication of those policies/idea.

Your confusing communication with sales talk,so yes you are missing something.
Though whilst I agree it's nice to not have listen intently to the delivery of the message,I'd much prefer it if the message is worth listening to.

If the choice is hitting those in need to prevent scroungers or helping those in need but accepting the small percentage of scroungers I'd agree. Shame there's no third way of hitting scroungers but not those in need.

BTW it could be something to do with the kind of people I know through work but there's relatives of my colleagues who have never had any.inclination to work. One has never worked in 40 years! His wife did all the work, as many hours of work as she could get. Kind of balances that family out perhaps. The only trouble is the next generation are workers just working as little as they can get away with. A third generation is just as lazy. Other former colleagues got bored of working and wanted to avoid work like their mates. I don't know what they did but they ended up out of a job on benefits very shortly after expressing those views. There's been more examples from among former colleagues or my colleagues relatives.

As a result of this I really resent scroungers. If not stopping them I'd prefer if they got off their butts and contributed to society. When I was on.benefits a couple of times I volunteered. Conservation work but it was mostly about creating or maintaining access to the natural environment around the town for all. I wanted to feel useful. Others don't think that way but as much as I think it's worthwhile to get them to contribute I feel that is problematic to force them.