Are You People Mad In Britain Electing Corbyn?

[Sparked_26]

This to me is how I view a British parliament in microcosm in my minds eye.

An old fella with some justification calling someone else a twat and then being sneered at by loads of other Hooray-Henry bellends.

I love how Skinner didn't withdraw shit, lol. Was well worth getting thrown out.

[JimRaynor]

depends where you work too though I'd say.

If you work in public sector than you could live for a million years and never vote conservative. I am assuming it is the same over there.

I know you don't have a national health health service free at the point of use.

But who do your police and school teachers vote for?

Over here what this comedian says is essentially how the much of the working class feel about Tories. There is a feeling that it makes you somewhat of a cunt by definition.

It is no surprise that people vote for whoever butters their bread. I'd say in general, public positions do vote more in favor of Democrats, but not everywhere. In America there is still a strong sense of morality in many states, therefore if you are in Kentucky and the local democrat pushes tranny's as a normal part of society and advocates them using whichever bathroom they want, then the public sector in that state will most definitely side with conservatives over liberals.

The second part is the fact that America's wealth and innovation isn't built in the public sector, its overwhelmingly due to the private sectors. Small businesses and various corporations are the driving force of America's economy and working class. Many of our businesses provide comprehensive health insurance and retirement packages for their employees.

Voting conservative here does not mean that you are heartless and stingy with your money, despite how hard liberals try and convince the public to think that way. What it means is that an individual should have the freedom to spend his own money the way he sees fit, and not the way the government sees fit.

[JimRaynor]

I understand the philosophy, man...

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

Hell, I could even make a strong case for it myself if I had to, however I see the long term problems being stored up by the increasing concentration of wealth in a few hands as outweighing the benefits. Economic growth is slowing, inequality is growing and we live in a world of finite resources. Use your imagination, man. Project these trends. What do you see?

Quite aside from which I ain't one of the 10% or economically even the top 50%, I get to see the effects of Conservative capitalism every day, and yeah, I am an idealist. The policies you're advocating did work up to a point. The whole of society did benefit, even if the rich benefited most. But that time is past.

Why do people view income inequality as an automatically evil thing? Wealth is concentrated in the top 1% for good reason. Did Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, or the Walmart family somehow kill or harm people to attain their wealth? The top 1% created world revolutionary products and businesses that society uses every single day to make their life easier. In addition they created millions of jobs and job opportunities for the same folk. How many people does Google, Apple, Microsoft, Walmart, or Intel employ? How many people are complaining about the 1% use computers, iphones, cars, and every single other product on this planet?

Since the 1980's Americas poverty as well as global poverty has been slashed in half. Today you are far more likely and capable to own a car, smartphone, TV, and every other basic luxury than you ever could before. Just because the rich are getting richer does not somehow automatically hamper your ability to earn and make money. Complaining about the 1% is a poor excuse on behalf of people who think there is always an outside force preventing them from achieving greatness, when in reality the problem lies within the individual.

[Sparked_26]

It is no surprise that people vote for whoever butters their bread. I'd say in general, public positions do vote more in favor of Democrats, but not everywhere. In America there is still a strong sense of morality in many states, therefore if you are in Kentucky and the local democrat pushes tranny's as a normal part of society and advocates them using whichever bathroom they want, then the public sector in that state will most definitely side with conservatives over liberals.

The second part is the fact that America's wealth and innovation isn't built in the public sector, its overwhelmingly due to the private sectors. Small businesses and various corporations are the driving force of America's economy and working class. Many of our businesses provide comprehensive health insurance and retirement packages for their employees.

Voting conservative here does not mean that you are heartless and stingy with your money, despite how hard liberals try and convince the public to think that way. What it means is that an individual should have the freedom to spend his own money the way he sees fit, and not the way the government sees fit.

Good post. Learned a lot.

I knew our political climates were likely different.

Historically the Tories have an actual working representation consisting of posh people who were expensively educated and haven't done a day's work in their lives. That is the reputation they have and to be fair there are you fair share of similar types on labours side but essentially they are a party who have socialist roots and were responsible for the birth of the NHS. They have moved to the middle in the last 20 years but this last election was a throw back to what they should be.

If you're gonna have a two-party system both parties have to be different.

[Citizen Koba]

Why do people view income inequality as an automatically evil thing? Wealth is concentrated in the top 1% for good reason. Did Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, or the Walmart family somehow kill or harm people to attain their wealth? The top 1% created world revolutionary products and businesses that society uses every single day to make their life easier. In addition they created millions of jobs and job opportunities for the same folk. How many people does Google, Apple, Microsoft, Walmart, or Intel employ? How many people are complaining about the 1% use computers, iphones, cars, and every single other product on this planet?

Since the 1980's Americas poverty as well as global poverty has been slashed in half. Today you are far more likely and capable to own a car, smartphone, TV, and every other basic luxury than you ever could before. Just because the rich are getting richer does not somehow automatically hamper your ability to earn and make money. Complaining about the 1% is a poor excuse on behalf of people who think there is always an outside force preventing them from achieving greatness, when in reality the problem lies within the individual.

It ain't so much the rich getting richer that's the problem, more that the rest of us ain't - in fact many of us are actually getting poorer and that's a trend that only looks likely to continue. And that ain't just the unemployed or low income workers, but increasingly the middle classes. If that wealth actually was 'trickling down' then I doubt there would be so many complaints, but increasingly it ain't. Not only that but working hours, job insecurity and other factors are actually getting worse in many cases. Why would you expect people to be satisfied with that? You think maybe we should just put up and shut up?

http://www.epi.org/publication/chart...ge-stagnation/

https://www.theguardian.com/business...iod-ons-record

[Theodore]

Corbyn? I want Sadiq Khan as Prime Minister. Now that would be awesome for the UK.

[JimRaynor]

It ain't so much the rich getting richer that's the problem, more that the rest of us ain't - in fact many of us are actually getting poorer and that's a trend that only looks likely to continue. And that ain't just the unemployed or low income workers, but increasingly the middle classes. If that wealth actually was 'trickling down' then I doubt there would be so many complaints, but increasingly it ain't. Not only that but working hours, job insecurity and other factors are actually getting worse in many cases. Why would you expect people to be satisfied with that? You think maybe we should just put up and shut up?

http://www.epi.org/publication/chart...ge-stagnation/

https://www.theguardian.com/business...iod-ons-record

I am not sure how things are in Britain, but I'd say there are similarities to the USA. There have always been complaints about folks saying their standard of life, or their income is crap. Picture living in the USA, under Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter, waiting in line for gas, and having the economy in the complete gutter.

The truth is that the landscape of well paying jobs that are available have changed considerably. It isn't that there aren't enough jobs, the problem is that there aren't enough low skilled jobs with proper pay to accommodate the low skilled worker. There are plenty of jobs if you want to go into the tech, medicinal/pharmaceutical field, along with various sales positions.

IMO the biggest problem facing America today is the astronomical student loan debt, which was created by the government interfering in the free market, where it had no business in being in the first place.

[Hype job]

You get described as a communist because benefiting the poorer members of society almost always comes at the expense of the middle class and up.

Under his plans 95% of people would see no rise in income tax, so no, you're wrong.

What's going to happen is England will enact more and more socialist policies that will cripple the economy and standard of life, then the people will complain that they need a better life and England will double down on more socialist policies that originally tanked the economy. It's a common formula practiced virtually in all majority Democrat American cities that are holes today, like Detroit, Baltimore, Camden, etc... Chicago is next, the producers are moving out and the takers are moving in.

Nonsense, straight out of the Fox news propaganda machine.

Socialism never tanked the economy, that was laissez faire capitalism.

Socialism brought a lot to the developed world, arguably more than 'capitalism'.

[Hype job]

I understand the philosophy, man...

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

Hell, I could even make a strong case for it myself if I had to, however I see the long term problems being stored up by the increasing concentration of wealth in a few hands as outweighing the benefits. Economic growth is slowing, inequality is growing and we live in a world of finite resources. Use your imagination, man. Project these trends. What do you see?

Quite aside from which I ain't one of the 10% or economically even the top 50%, I get to see the effects of Conservative capitalism every day, and yeah, I am an idealist. The policies you're advocating did work up to a point. The whole of society did benefit, even if the rich benefited most. But that time is past.

These people are brainwashed to vote against their own interests, it's dystopian.

Economic growth was better during the 40s-70s, where the richest paid a lot more in tax, strong investments in public services, no offshoring etc, wages were rising faster than any other period.

What gave rise to the internet, touchscreen technology, the interstate highway system etc. Public investments aka socialistic policies, they all emanated from the public sector.

[Hype job]

It ain't so much the rich getting richer that's the problem, more that the rest of us ain't - in fact many of us are actually getting poorer and that's a trend that only looks likely to continue. And that ain't just the unemployed or low income workers, but increasingly the middle classes. If that wealth actually was 'trickling down' then I doubt there would be so many complaints, but increasingly it ain't. Not only that but working hours, job insecurity and other factors are actually getting worse in many cases. Why would you expect people to be satisfied with that? You think maybe we should just put up and shut up?

http://www.epi.org/publication/chart...ge-stagnation/

https://www.theguardian.com/business...iod-ons-record

All started under Reaganism and Thatcherism aka neoliberalism.