76 people made 41% of donations to political parties

[ancientmariner]

Of course voting makes a difference, don't vote for either of the two parties that seemed to receive the vast bulk of those donations (Conservative and SNP).

Voting makes NO difference whatsoever. None. Change the system, not the people.

 

[Glaucus]

Voting makes NO difference whatsoever. None. Change the system, not the people.

It quite clearly does make a difference, although they are both central they do have different policies.

The system isn't going to change any time soon. Maybe in 30 years when the older generation die out there will be a better chance. But older generation are heavy voters and from a different time with different thoughts and values.

 

[ancientmariner]

It makes no difference. Different people/parties will stir the elements, tweaking here and there of course, however fundamental change is what I am referring to. When the pot of candidates is made up of privileged rich kids serving the interest of corporations who fund their campaigns, whoever gets in makes not a jot of difference.

 

[Lartyconshayo]

The Greens don't take corporate donations as far as I'm aware

 

[helpimcrap]

There is nothing tinfoil about it, that really is how it works.
And people think voting actually makes a difference.....

It does but the company backing decides which policies become 'more important' to shout about.

 

[dowie]

It makes no difference. Different people/parties will stir the elements, tweaking here and there of course, however fundamental change is what I am referring to. When the pot of candidates is made up of privileged rich kids serving the interest of corporations who fund their campaigns, whoever gets in makes not a jot of difference.

well most parties with anything radically different from the status quo don't tend to have much credibility

mainstream parties will only make minor changes along ideological lines as they appeal to a broad range of voters, radical changes will alienate large numbers of their current voters, make them less popular and they wouldn't then be mainstream parties....

 

[ancientmariner]

Perhaps, however with a growing awareness within the population realizing that the system supports the wealthy and penalizes the poor, things will only change when the divide finally grows too wide and we are on our way to that point now. The financial "crash" in 2008 should teach you everything you need to know regarding the system as it currently stands.

 

[regulus]

There is nothing tinfoil about it, that really is how it works.
And people think voting actually makes a difference.....

Yet they still feel some droopy-eyed patriotism to vote for the least offense.

 

[scorza]

Voting makes NO difference whatsoever. None. Change the system, not the people.

Really, so the last 5 years would have been exactly the same if Gordon Brown had remained Prime Minister instead of changing to David Cameron? Of course it makes a difference, people just have to be realistic about what their single vote can achieve. Not everyone wants radical change (and who can blame them?)

 

[ancientmariner]

Please explain the difference? What significantly changed when Cameron the millionaire took over from Brown the millionaire?

Correct, not everyone wants radical change. Those who oppose change either benefit from the system or are too stupid to see how it truly works and assume that it has to be this way.

It doesn't.

 

[scorza]

Please explain the difference? What significantly changed when Cameron the millionaire took over from Brown the millionaire?

Off the top of my head:

VAT raised to 20%
Bedroom Tax
50p rate of income tax reduced to 45p
Health and Social Care Act 2012 i.e. death of NHS

I don't think any of the above would have happened had Labour won the 2010 general election.

 

[arknor]

Please explain the difference? What significantly changed when Cameron the millionaire took over from Brown the millionaire?

Didn't you hear David Cameron saved the planet.

He single handedly ended the recession in most western countries around the world.

He must have since he keeps getting all the praise for things that happen when recession are coming to an end like higher employment.

He also single handedly reduced the price of food items, heating bills etc thanks David Cameron lowering the global oil price.


he just happens to be in power at a time when the world is recovering and takes credit for it all because people are stupid


Iceland jailed their bankers and recovered faster than anyone else
http://www.forbes.com/sites/traceyg...ilized-economy-is-a-surprising-success-story/

Faced with the possibility of financial failure, Iceland had to think on its feet. Instead of bailing out banks USA-style, the country forgave mortgage debt for the population – and completely started over from square one.

A country with a small population of roughly 320,000 citizens, Iceland‘s entire banking structure “systemically failed” in the early days of the 2008 recession. Despite the fact that Iceland is still on the road to recovery, the country ranks high as a politically and economically stable nation. Their success over the last few years has been largely under-reported, and the story behind it is quite fascinating.

ofcourse you can't jail the bankers that solves nothing , no wonder it went largely under-reported

Instead of allowing the criminals responsible for bank fraud to run free as the years passed by, Iceland thought it might be wise to actually indict bankers who committed serious financial crimes that contributed to the collapse. By paying off loans for consumers, forgiving homeowner debt (up to 110% of the property value), and throwing the offenders in prison, Iceland was able to bounce back. Now, its economy is “recovered” and is growing faster than both the US and European economies.

Instead of bailing out the banks they bailed out the citizens

 

[ancientmariner]

Off the top of my head:

VAT raised to 20%
Bedroom Tax
50p rate of income tax reduced to 45p
Health and Social Care Act 2012 i.e. death of NHS

I don't think any of the above would have happened had Labour won the 2010 general election.

Yup, new people with the same ethos..milk the poor and support the wealthy. I was referring to change of the system and not the stirring of the elements. Labour may not have made the exact same changes as above, but you can bet the end result would have been the same. Voting makes no difference.

 

[Glaucus]

But small countries can do odd things. It's unlikely to work for large countries with a lavk of natural resources unlike Iceland.

 

[Wink]

Yup, new people with the same ethos..milk the poor and support the wealthy. I was referring to change of the system and not the stirring of the elements. Labour may not have made the exact same changes as above, but you can bet the end result would have been the same. Voting makes no difference.

I can usually just ignore it when people talk about paradigm shift changes and such like but I can't help myself this time.

Please explain what you'd like to see and would vote for.

 

[mmj_uk]

Modern democracy is pretty much...

Any parties that offer something truly different are branded 'radical', smeared and sidelined by the establishment/media.

 

[ancientmariner]

I can usually just ignore it when people talk about paradigm shift changes and such like but I can't help myself this time.

Please explain what you'd like to see and would vote for.

Sure. I will throw this out as an example.

I would vote for a party/system that supports the most vulnerable. A party that puts people and jobs ahead of banks and corporations...for example a party that doesn't give rbs 46 billion pounds of tax payers money then continue to allow them to carry on unregulated with no requirement to pay it back. A party who would then not cut vital services from the poorest in society to prop up the deficit created by serving the rich banking industy.

1 small example.

 

[scorza]

Sure. I will throw this out as an example.

I would vote for a party/system that supports the most vulnerable. A party that puts people and jobs ahead of banks and corporations...for example a party that doesn't give rbs 46 billion pounds of tax payers money then continue to allow them to carry on unregulated with no requirement to pay it back. A party who would then not cut vital services from the poorest in society to prop up the deficit created by serving the rich banking industy.

1 small example.

I think you might be interested in the Green Party.

 

[arknor]

I think you might be interested in the Green Party.

• Double child benefit

LOL

Like mothers on benefits don't get enough for popping out kids.

sounds like a country full of expensive/subsidised wind turbines as well, bet they would also scrap trident since they don't like nuclear power.

 

[dowie]

Perhaps, however with a growing awareness within the population realizing that the system supports the wealthy and penalizes the poor, things will only change when the divide finally grows too wide and we are on our way to that point now. The financial "crash" in 2008 should teach you everything you need to know regarding the system as it currently stands.

dunno about that - tis more a matter of perception... the current govt has reduced unemployment, created jobs etc... objectively austerity has worked as intended

maybe some people with extra bedrooms in council houses they don't need feel penalised, maybe other people are less bothered about that

if you wanted a party with a much more left wing approach then it would likely alienate a lot of voters and wouldn't get in... the Green Party might cater to some of your views, they're not very popular for good reason. A Left wing Labour party wouldn't be very electable at the moment either. And even then supposing some left wingers get in and the gap between the rich and the poor is reduced you might well find that that gap is reduced at the expense of the economy taking a hit and everyone becoming poorer... relative poverty decreased immediately after the financial crisis for example. I don't think there is any pressing need to address a relative gap between the rich and poor... reducing absolute poverty, sure. Investing in education, cracking down on tax evasion etc.. fine. But rich people being rich isn't necessarily a problem in itself.