Are Tories welcome at Glastonbury

[Blisterpack]

20 minutes ago, glastolover19 said:

74k stating wage,it's ruddy tempting

If people with core values that put their fellow citizens, particularly the most vulnerable, before their own interests do a good job of putting those values into practice through the enactment of policies then fair enough, they have earned it. And I believe a significant number of MPs do that. When Rees Mogg, osborne, Cameron, May, Johnson et al, all independently (or through spouses) wealthy join the commons you know it is not for those ideals. It is to maintain the gap. 

[Apone]

21 hours ago, Rose-Colored Boy said:

That’s a very oversimplified question to which there’s no simple answer so I won’t try and give you one. What I would say however is that the current jobseeking environment is so cold, uncomfortable and lacking in basic humanity that, far from encouraging people into work, it comes closer to doing the opposite a lot of the time. Instead of seeing people as either “fit to work” or “unfit to work” (good grief), and assuming that anybody who fits into the former category yet doesn’t have a job must just like being on JSA so much, we should be actually asking the question of why the motivation isn’t there for people to actively seek work. As we’ve established, the number of people avoiding employment for dishonest reasons is so small that it should never be the focus. Instead, get inside the heads of the people who would love a job but just can’t summon up the mental energy to get into it, identify the problems causing that epidemic, and make the necessary adjustments to society accordingly.

Tl;dr: instead of trying to ‘encourage’ people into work by punishing them, which has never worked and never will and often destroys even the people who do end up in jobs eventually, let’s try being nice.

Sorry but being out of work but otherwise fit, able and healthy should not be a comfortable or pleasant experience, and the process for finding work should place heavy emphasis on the finder, the Job Centre is not the sole source of work, just have a scan through Indeed and you will literally find 1000's of jobs of all skill levels. In my humble opinion, no fit, able and work ready person should get more on benefits than the lowest paid worker based on a 37 hours weekly on minimum wage, unless they are medically or circumstantially unable to work  

[HalfAnIdiot]

5 hours ago, DeanoL said:

 

Maybe I'm just dim but: 

There's free movement between A and B (because of the EU). There's free movement between B and C (because of the GF agreement). Therefore there is free movement between A and C. I don't see a way around that.

You can say "oh we will let people through but not goods" but as you say - smuggling. Or more to the point: people travel with stuff.

 

The end of free movement means that citizens of EU countries don't have an automatic right to travel and work in the UK and vice versa. It's not the introduction of a physical barrier to travel. People can travel legally according to any Visa requirements in place or ignore that and travel illegally risking whatever consequences exist. 

Yes a land boarder between NI and Eire provides a potential easier route to travel illegally than paddling across the channel in a rubber dinghy but it's no different in law.

Yes in theory hoards of illegal immigrants could travel to the UK via the Eire/UK boarder but they could do that as easily today as post Brexit. It helps that Eire is not part of the Schengen Agreement so there are passport checks at their sea and air boarders that protect from travel of non EU people to UK via this route. Post Brexit of course we could see mass illegal immigration from EU citizens via this route to take advantage of the magnificent economic golden age we will benefit from if you believe certain sections of the political landscape. Noting can be done about that without erecting a fence/wall which will not happen for very good historic reasons.

People carting small quantities of stuff across boarder is similar. 

The issue is about controling mass transportation of goods between UK and EU which, post Brexit, could be subject to tarrifs and a differences in standards (chlorinated chicken anyone?). Easy to manage mostly as we are an island nation,  except for the pesky NI/Eire boarder. Staying in the Customs Union fixes that problem but would stop us doing our own trade deals (which works for me BTW).

 

Edited October 17, 2018 by HalfAnIdiot

[glastolover19]

21 minutes ago, Apone said:

Sorry but being out of work but otherwise fit, able and healthy should not be a comfortable or pleasant experience, and the process for finding work should place heavy emphasis on the finder, the Job Centre is not the sole source of work, just have a scan through Indeed and you will literally find 1000's of jobs of all skill levels. In my humble opinion, no fit, able and work ready person should get more on benefits than the lowest paid worker based on a 37 hours weekly on minimum wage, unless they are medically or circumstantially unable to work  

Do you actually no anyone who could work but doesn't?

[clarkete]

1 hour ago, glastolover19 said:

For 3 and half+ times my current wage I don't mind too much,chuck in all the extra holiday on top as well and I imagine it ain't too bad

But my point was that, even for someone as high profile as Michael standing for Labour, unless it's a safe seat or a massive political shift it's blooming hard to get elected.

The lib dems fought for decades in Wells, every time leafleting, canvassing and getting the vote out. They finally got the parliamentary seat in 2010 only to see it swing back to the tories at the next election. 

And plenty of those MPs for the two main parties are currently having to support policies they don't agree with at all.

Don't get me wrong, some have huge majorities and can say or do what they like almost with impunity and indeed some of those had huge expenses gaffs, even in the cabinet after the scandal (eg hunt). 

[uscore]

46 minutes ago, Apone said:

In my humble opinion, no fit, able and work ready person should get more on benefits than the lowest paid worker based on a 37 hours weekly on minimum wage, unless they are medically or circumstantially unable to work  

I'd only agree to this if the solution involves massively increasing the minimum wage.

Edited October 17, 2018 by uscore

[Scott129]

I don't think the primary issue is mps base wage, it's the extra money they get lobbying for business interests. Like the mps who have spoken for and voted for fracking because they have paid connections with the fracking industry. Or mps who get paid to advise foreign dictatorships. I'd say keep their wage as it is (maybe even raise it slightly) but ban them from taking other salaries that affect their ability to serve their constituents 

[glastolover19]

37 minutes ago, clarkete said:

But my point was that, even for someone as high profile as Michael standing for Labour, unless it's a safe seat or a massive political shift it's blooming hard to get elected.

The lib dems fought for decades in Wells, every time leafleting, canvassing and getting the vote out. They finally got the parliamentary seat in 2010 only to see it swing back to the tories at the next election. 

And plenty of those MPs for the two main parties are currently having to support policies they don't agree with at all.

Don't get me wrong, some have huge majorities and can say or do what they like almost with impunity and indeed some of those had huge expenses gaffs, even in the cabinet after the scandal (eg hunt). 

I understand getting to the finishing line and actually getting in is not easy but you look at a lot of them and yes they start off with all best intentions but after awhile it does fall away and they all in someway become a little bit corrupt. I think maybe the country needs a real alternative to the main 2/3 parties that we have become so fixated on. Why don't some of us put our money where our mouths are and try and do something? I think we all at least agree the country has gone to shite one way or another so why don't we do something about it more meaningful and hopefully lasting then just writhing on a forum.

[Blisterpack]

1 hour ago, Apone said:

In my humble opinion, no fit, able and work ready person should get more on benefits than the lowest paid worker based on a 37 hours weekly on minimum wage, unless they are medically or circumstantially unable to work  

They don’t. People in work get more than people on benefits. In all but very rare instances. People in work also get benefits you know? The working poor is the fastest growing group in terms of child poverty. Very very few people don’t want to work; making the system so appallingly humiliating for everyone to make sure you punish that small number is a political decision taken by people who despise the working class.

[clarkete]

23 minutes ago, glastolover19 said:

I understand getting to the finishing line and actually getting in is not easy but you look at a lot of them and yes they start off with all best intentions but after awhile it does fall away and they all in someway become a little bit corrupt. I think maybe the country needs a real alternative to the main 2/3 parties that we have become so fixated on. Why don't some of us put our money where our mouths are and try and do something? I think we all at least agree the country has gone to shite one way or another so why don't we do something about it more meaningful and hopefully lasting then just writhing on a forum.

He he, pretty sure they've all started with noble intentions ?

They really aren't all the same, the majority of us just find the one at a given time which most sings our tune. If you end up with a representative (at whatever level) that does carry out policies you approve of it's a great feeling, much as we're all so familiar with the opposite from time to time. 

I obviously have much stronger feelings about the use of a vote than you, I haven't skipped one yet for 32 years. I'm a big fan of the postal vote to make it really easy. 

[glastolover19]

17 minutes ago, clarkete said:

He he, pretty sure they've all started with noble intentions ?

They really aren't all the same, the majority of us just find the one at a given time which most sings our tune. If you end up with a representative (at whatever level) that does carry out policies you approve of it's a great feeling, much as we're all so familiar with the opposite from time to time. 

I obviously have much stronger feelings about the use of a vote than you, I haven't skipped one yet for 32 years. I'm a big fan of the postal vote to make it really easy. 

I agree that you find a party at a certain time that suits you,it does worry me that some people become so familiar with 1 party that they vote for them almost out of habit and refuse to even explore other options. Ideally it should be something everyone re assess regular(me included) but a lot of people are only exposed to the 2 main ones. But then on to the other hand there is no real 3 party anyone and I think that's where the independents and even some of the good folks from here should get together and attempt to create a real alternative.

I still vote in some general elections truth be told it's nearly always an independent,was usually lib dem till Nick came along. It was only the brexit vote I purposely sat out of,a decision I stick too as it was the right at that time for me however I don't deny if it was held now I would vote but that's hindsight.

[David756]

3 hours ago, glastolover19 said:

Do you actually no anyone who could work but doesn't?

I can hand on heart say I did, when labour were in power and it was easier.

I know a friend of mine has said if it wasn’t for the conservatives she would still be on benefits because it was easier. She’s now a social worker because in her own words “I realised I had to make something of myself and get a better income”

Both ways have benefits, but if you’re able to work and on benefits then you should get enough to live, encourage you to get work. 

[glastolover19]

18 minutes ago, David756 said:

I can hand on heart say I did, when labour were in power and it was easier.

I know a friend of mine has said if it wasn’t for the conservatives she would still be on benefits because it was easier. She’s now a social worker because in her own words “I realised I had to make something of myself and get a better income”

Both ways have benefits, but if you’re able to work and on benefits then you should get enough to live, encourage you to get work. 

The only reason I asked this was because it did kinda feel like I'm the only one who knew people like that lol

[Blisterpack]

30 minutes ago, glastolover19 said:

The only reason I asked this was because it did kinda feel like I'm the only one who knew people like that lol

Most people know/have known workshy layabouts. They are few and far between, very rarely well off by any normal standards and should never represent the bar when it comes to designing a productive approach to managing worklessness (which for 95% of people is a temporary state) and sickness and disability benefits. Unfortunately under the Tories it is. 

[clarkete]

2 hours ago, glastolover19 said:

I agree that you find a party at a certain time that suits you,it does worry me that some people become so familiar with 1 party that they vote for them almost out of habit and refuse to even explore other options. Ideally it should be something everyone re assess regular(me included) but a lot of people are only exposed to the 2 main ones. But then on to the other hand there is no real 3 party anyone and I think that's where the independents and even some of the good folks from here should get together and attempt to create a real alternative.

That's an easy choice for me and it's back on topic, wherever I live I vote for whoever can beat the tories. 

I have personal experience of seeing folks involved in the SDP and then the Lib Dems. With the first past the post system I find it hard to envisage any third party getting far, that took so many years to get even a handful of MPs. 

After the last botched electoral reform vote I can't see another one in my lifetime as the two main parties have nothing to gain. 

[glastolover19]

1 minute ago, clarkete said:

That's an easy choice for me and it's back on topic, wherever I live I vote for whoever can beat the tories. 

I have personal experience of seeing folks involved in the SDP and then the Lib Dems. With the first past the post system I find it hard to envisage any third party getting far, that took so many years to get even a handful of MPs. 

After the last botched electoral reform vote I can't see another one in my lifetime as the two main parties have nothing to gain. 

I appreciate it's not an overnight solution and would certainly take many years to yeild any meaningful results but I think it is a shame it's now only a 2 horse race. I think a variable 3rd option is needed and I hope that it will happen in my lifetime and I hope its a collaboration of different views but combined together to make something that benefits everyone. I understand that's a totally dreamy view of things(my hippy side) but I hate this idea of us vs them it should be us and them

[Blisterpack]

22 minutes ago, glastolover19 said:

 I hate this idea of us vs them it should be us and them

The Labour Party is, in political terms, still a baby. People like you with a sense of challenge and questioning allied with strong personal values are what shapes it. You are probably more socialist than you would admit. The first labour MP campaigned st the turn of the 20th century for trade union rights obviously, but also votes and equality for women, self rule for India and an end to apartheid in South Africa. Never underestimate how these things happened: it was down to people we now label ‘lefties’ simply articulating what decent people knew was right.

Thstcher of course was still wining and dining the fascist dictator Pinochet during the 90’s whilst insisting in the Commons that Mandela was a terrorist....

Edited October 17, 2018 by Blisterpack

[eFestivals]

8 hours ago, Blisterpack said:

Thstcher of course was still wining and dining the fascist dictator Pinochet during the 90’s whilst insisting in the Commons that Mandela was a terrorist....

Fake news. Thatcher was many things, but that never happened. 

[clarkete]

45 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Fake news. Thatcher was many things, but that never happened. 

It's not quite as clear cut as you paint it.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/dec/06/conservative-party-uncomfortable-nelson-mandela 
 

[eFestivals]

5 minutes ago, clarkete said:

It's not quite as clear cut as you paint it.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/dec/06/conservative-party-uncomfortable-nelson-mandela 
 

It's 100% clear cut. It didn't happen in the way blisterpack said.

PS: if you want to insist on all the correct nuances, throw your comment in the direction it's needed, and not at me.  

Edited October 18, 2018 by eFestivals

[clarkete]

34 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

It's 100% clear cut. It didn't happen in the way blisterpack said.

PS: if you want to insist on all the correct nuances, throw your comment in the direction it's needed, and not at me.  

She used that expression about the organisation, he was president of one of their branches, so doesn't quite fit the term you used,

 

[eFestivals]

25 minutes ago, clarkete said:

She used that expression about the organisation, he was president of one of their branches, so doesn't quite fit the term you used,

I didn't use any term, I pointed out a factual error. Nothing happened as blisterpack said it did. 

As for the rest, it's far from unreasonable for someone to think planting bombs for a political purpose is a terrorist act, even when agreeing with the ultimate political aim of that violent campaign.

PS: i know exactly what happened with Thatcher and South Africa during the 80s and I strongly disagreed with her at the time ... but that still doesn't make Thatcher (and by implication the tories) an apartheid-supporting racist.

It's probably worth noting that this is the same Thatcher who went thru a process to remove the Iain Smith apartheid regime in Rhodesia to install the 'terrorist' Mugabe as president.  

As you said, it's not quite as clear cut as some people like to paint it.

PPS: can't believe I'm sticking up for Thatcher, but bollocks is always bollocks and too many people right now think that talking wrong bollocks about politics is smart.

Edited October 18, 2018 by eFestivals

[Mr.Tease]

15 hours ago, Apone said:

Sorry but being out of work but otherwise fit, able and healthy should not be a comfortable or pleasant experience, and the process for finding work should place heavy emphasis on the finder, the Job Centre is not the sole source of work, just have a scan through Indeed and you will literally find 1000's of jobs of all skill levels. In my humble opinion, no fit, able and work ready person should get more on benefits than the lowest paid worker based on a 37 hours weekly on minimum wage, unless they are medically or circumstantially unable to work  

Being out of work but otherwise fit, able and healthy isn't a comfortable or pleasant experience-, even without the job centre putting you through the ringer. It's lonely, it feels like limbo, you feel like you have no direction or control over your life and it's hard to maintain your self esteem and self worth. Each day saps your confidence, to the point where you start getting anxious about your ability to cope with a job. Sure, a few people try to put on a spin of bravado, but it's pretty hollow.

The job centre helps exasperate this- you couldn't devise a worse system. Rather than focus on applying for a few jobs that you have a good shot at, they mandate you to apply/approach 10 or 20 a week- it's ridiculous, there's no way you can give the time and focus needed for a good application if you're filling in that many. The staff treat you like shit, they try to sanction you at the drop of a hat, and if you do get sanctioned, it makes it even harder to get a job because your focus is then on eating/survival, etc, plus the stress batters peoples mental health further.

You don't get how shit it is until you've been in it. I'm a counsellor/psychotherapist, and a few years ago I go made redundant due to austerity cuts. When I went to sign on they said rather than just focus on counselling jobs, I'd have to apply for bar work etc. When I said, wouldn't it make more sense if I actually focused on finding a job that I'm qualified for, spent years training for and have just done and will actually keep, they said if I wanted to just focus on those types of jobs I'd have to apply for- I'm not joking here, 100 per month (I doubt there are that many a year!). They then mandated that I attend a course teaching me how to switch on a computer and use it to search for jobs (I've got an MSc, a PgDip and a BSc) or I'd be sanctioned. On that course we all learnt how to switch on a computer, and then were told we had to log on (using the most ridiculously cumbersome log on system) to the governments absolutely shite job search site EVERY day, even on the days it's not even updated (this is a huge problem for people who don't have internet because they have a very low income because they are unemployed). Two weeks later when I went to sign on, I asked if they wanted my business email address or personal, they took my personal. Two weeks later they tried sanctioning me because they said my email address wasn't professional enough (because it was my personal one, which is the one they specified!).

One of my previous jobs was advocacy/benefits rights work with young people- very few people are 'just lazy', most people who struggle to find work have issues or difficulties, be it anxiety, depression, abuse, low self esteem - treating them like shit and maximising their stress is completely counter productive. Sure there's a few people who game the system- there'll game any system, but I don't think people get how hard it is to game the system, and that even if you do it's not the bed of roses you think.

There may appear to be '1000s' of job vacancies, but if you actually look closer, you'll find most of hem require experience or a qualification. Those that don't get inundated with CV's. The more more times you apply for a job and hear nothing back, the more it batters your self esteem- people are only human, and rejection is difficult.

[glastolover19]

8 minutes ago, Mr.Tease said:

Being out of work but otherwise fit, able and healthy isn't a comfortable or pleasant experience-, even without the job centre putting you through the ringer. It's lonely, it feels like limbo, you feel like you have no direction or control over your life and it's hard to maintain your self esteem and self worth. Each day saps your confidence, to the point where you start getting anxious about your ability to cope with a job. Sure, a few people try to put on a spin of bravado, but it's pretty hollow.

The job centre helps exasperate this- you couldn't devise a worse system. Rather than focus on applying for a few jobs that you have a good shot at, they mandate you to apply/approach 10 or 20 a week- it's ridiculous, there's no way you can give the time and focus needed for a good application if you're filling in that many. The staff treat you like shit, they try to sanction you at the drop of a hat, and if you do get sanctioned, it makes it even harder to get a job because your focus is then on eating/survival, etc, plus the stress batters peoples mental health further.

You don't get how shit it is until you've been in it. I'm a counsellor/psychotherapist, and a few years ago I go made redundant due to austerity cuts. When I went to sign on they said rather than just focus on counselling jobs, I'd have to apply for bar work etc. When I said, wouldn't it make more sense if I actually focused on finding a job that I'm qualified for, spent years training for and have just done and will actually keep, they said if I wanted to just focus on those types of jobs I'd have to apply for- I'm not joking here, 100 per month (I doubt there are that many a year!). They then mandated that I attend a course teaching me how to switch on a computer and use it to search for jobs (I've got an MSc, a PgDip and a BSc) or I'd be sanctioned. On that course we all learnt how to switch on a computer, and then were told we had to log on (using the most ridiculously cumbersome log on system) to the governments absolutely shite job search site EVERY day, even on the days it's not even updated (this is a huge problem for people who don't have internet because they have a very low income because they are unemployed). Two weeks later when I went to sign on, I asked if they wanted my business email address or personal, they took my personal. Two weeks later they tried sanctioning me because they said my email address wasn't professional enough (because it was my personal one, which is the one they specified!).

One of my previous jobs was advocacy/benefits rights work with young people- very few people are 'just lazy', most people who struggle to find work have issues or difficulties, be it anxiety, depression, abuse, low self esteem - treating them like shit and maximising their stress is completely counter productive. Sure there's a few people who game the system- there'll game any system, but I don't think people get how hard it is to game the system, and that even if you do it's not the bed of roses you think.

There may appear to be '1000s' of job vacancies, but if you actually look closer, you'll find most of hem require experience or a qualification. Those that don't get inundated with CV's. The more more times you apply for a job and hear nothing back, the more it batters your self esteem- people are only human, and rejection is difficult.

Can I ask why you didn't want to do bar work?

[Mr.Tease]

3 minutes ago, glastolover19 said:

Can I ask why you didn't want to do bar work?

Because I don't drink and have no idea what half the drinks are or how to make them.

Plus I think if you get made redundant, it's not unreasonable to focus the first few months of your efforts on finding a similar job to the one you've just done and will stick with, rather than just apply for everything.

Edited October 18, 2018 by Mr.Tease