To think that some left-wing supporters are just so NASTY

[cathf]

This is based on posts I have read on here and a couple of very vocal left-wing friends I have on facebook.
I have truly never read a Conservative supporter personally attacking Labour in the same way.
I find it astonishing and if I am honest, a bit childish.
Recent examples include a website pulling Teresa May's living room apart and costing out every single thing in it, to a chorus of comments along the lines of how can she sleep at night when children are hungry and she has a £25 candle.
Every time the subject is raised on here, there is a long thread of hysterical comments about how nasty the Tories are. Yes, Tory supporters state their case and answer back, but they seem to be able to do it in a more restrained, mature manner than outraged Labour screamers.
There seems to be a lot of personal bile aimed at Teresa May, which I am at a loss to understand - just what has she done that is so terrible?
She is pushing through Brexit, but that was what the country voted for. Is she supposed to go against the country's wishes?
All of Labour's policies look very lovely, but none have any substance at all. My friend recently stated on Facebook she was supporting Jeremy Corbyn because he wanted peace not war. And? How is he going to implement that then? It reminds me of the 1980s T-shirts stating War is Stupid. Lots of nice words, but to implementation strategies.
It amazes me that supposedly intelligent people seem to be so brainwashed by this nonsense and think that flinging mud is an appopriate way to behave.
Is it just me?

Only on MN is giving a damn about the worst off in society "virtue signalling."

The most vocal (ranty) politically on my Facebook feed are left supporters. Some of the stuff they have written is vile.

why don't you unsubscribe from vile people?

Agree with everything you've said OP

Choosing to vote for the Party that is intent on destroying the Welfare State but trying to make up for it by volunteering is not a great idea. More people volunteering just gives the Tories more reasons to say that private charity picks up when public "charity" drops so they can cut benefits more. Private charity will never be able to cover all needs, for instance as a pp said, the less popular charities won't get the volunteers or donations they need.

Not saying volunteering is wrong, volunteering is good and always needed, but you still need to vote for those that will support the vulnerable in society, not those that don't give a toss about them.

I only have one ranty political person on my fb , they are a relative , if people argue with them though , they enter into a resoned debate , so they can stay for now

Most of the people I have on fb though do not discuss politics on there , I wonder if this is because we are older and try to keep our fb pages 'clean' for want of a better word , from a work perspective ? We quite happily discuss them face to face though . I spend a lot of my working day being very non-commital when asked my opinion on political subjects by service users and tend to respond with a bit of nodding , frowning and the occasional 'you may be right ' ( which means I absolutely disagree with you but I am not getting into a discussion about it ) and that seems to placate the most vociferous of would be political ranters

Because politics aside, they are good people. They don't talk about political things when we meet and I don't offer it because I don't want an argument (I'm a committed Tory)

One of the advantages of wealth and power....solvency, is that you have the option of doing nothing.

Perhaps genteel manners are a reflection of this; there is no pressing need to be emotional or coarse.

I'm not precisely clear on the UK statistics, but in the USA something like 70% of private charity makes its way to the cause it is there to support. Government programs however absorb 70% in admin costs making it the least efficient means of tackling social problems.

In addition Republican voters tend to contribute more to charities than their Democrat equivilants. Yet this narrative of Republicans being nasty or uncaring still prevails. I don't think that's fair.

Now I have all the time in the world for my political friends on the left, and I have a lot of them who work in health, education or volunteer themselves. What I am getting a little sick and tired of is the chorus of people who don't actually do much except bash the right on social media, and besides a socialist vote every few years do very little else.

However I am ready and willing to vote left once they iron out a concept for a universal basic income policy that is feasible and workable. With the rise in automation and efficiency. We are likely going to need a policy like that by necessity sooner or later.

Foodbanks are a massively inefficient way of supporting people.

A whole new organisation of work, transportation, storage, money-handing and bureaucracy, all on top of the existing distribution system of shops, and on top of the existing admin systems for taxes and benefits.

So foodbanks duplicate existing systems (which have efficiencies of scale), while not being very good at providing what people need. Need sanitary protection? Sorry, have some noodles - they're what got donated.

I donate to foodbanks - but the country needing them is a sign we've gone wrong somewhere.

Mumsnet is very left wing/liberal to the extent it's like a different world. Hence the outrage when Vote Leave won.

Being far left is as bad as being far right, I would add. Add to that anyone who voices any concerns about immigration or indeed religion is some kind of cretinous bigot and it drives a lot of discussion, much needed, underground.

Universal basic income is going to be needed in the future for sure. They're trialling it in Finland now but the level they've set it at is too low, not enough for even essential basics so not sure how its going to go.

I think people need jobs not to be paid to do nothing, that's not good for society or peoples mental health.

I think people need jobs not to be paid to do nothing, that's not good for society or peoples mental health.

I think with the rise of automation basic income is going to become essential, there will soon be cost efficiency where it will be cheaper to fully automate certain industries rather than employ staff.

Its the logistics of introducing one that is going to be an initial headache because it obvious things such as immigration will have to be be included in that debate and that subject has become toxic.

Universal basic income is going to be needed in the future for sure. They're trialling it in Finland now but the level they've set it at is too low, not enough for even essential basics so not sure how its going to go.

It's not really a true Basic Income experiment though as its only for those that are already unemployed, all this "experiment" is doing is that the recipients will not have to prove that they can not find a job.

There was a referendum in Switzerland about universal basic income and it was heavily rejected. As Justanotherlurker says, the immigration question has to be looked in the face squarely because it will be a draw.

I read an article in The New Yorker about ubi, extolling its virtues. I'm sure it does have many virtues, and I agree that many, many jobs will become obsolete in the near future - white collar ones particularly. But... the article I read waxed lyrical about people having the time to devote to artistic endeavours and not to be forced into unattractive jobs. What immediately jumped out at me was the fact that someone is going to have to do those jobs - and the jobs in question are in care. Believe me, with a ubi I'd not be choosing to work in a care home - or still worse do home care and I'm sure most people would feel the same.

www.schoolcuts.org.uk/#/

Here you go, so you can see how the tory party are going to help education

UBI. It's got to happen at some point over the next couple of decades. Jobs that can't be automated ( like Care as you mention Mousey) should become very well paid).
As automation happens I think socialism will be very important. Otherwise the people who own the robots will be the only ones raking in the money with a massive income gap. We have to make sure that as the jobs disappear the fruits are shared equally.

Dervel.
Do you think the right have a policy on what to do about A intelligence then?

Other than just making sure they do a power grab for them and their buddies.
It's something all political parties need to address because that sort of technological change happens very quickly. Saw an article where at some convention or other the boffins had predicted that SKYNET could go live by 2040.

I dont think automation will bring about a socialist utopia with everyone only working 3 days a week, while not everyone will be able to become programmers, automation will bring about a new set of jobs along with it.

It wont magically make Careers etc become well paid jobs either, the premise of UBI is that everyone gets the income and then you work on top, this is where all headaches begin because it needs to be funded, so its around obviously taxing businesses and equivalent of NI via a robot tax etc, plus automation is predicted to hit pretty much everything from Careers to White Collar workers, it's still a way of happening yet.

Who will be having absolutely the last laugh are handy people: builders, carpenters, electricians... and, I read, hairdressers, as so far no robot has been able to do a passable haircut!

I think true AI is a long way off, we still don't know how are own brains produce consciousness. I don't think any mainstream political ideology has a policy on it.

Ethically I would counsel an approach to creating AI more akin to parent/child and not owner/property. Once we replicate consciousness artificially the same ethics would apply to them as us, so if we shackle and enslave true AI right out the gate we can expect trouble down the line.

The technological issue of ethics of our day concerns information, privacy and the nature of truth. How we plug into the information streams of the internet, construct our own narratives that reinforce our own world views and who is most successful directing that information and why?

It's not really a true Basic Income experiment though as its only for those that are already unemployed, all this "experiment" is doing is that the recipients will not have to prove that they can not find a job

Yeah its not a proper trial but I think the aim of it is to see if they are more likely to find some level of unemployment when they don't risk losing their benefits - I guess the idea is that people would work more part time jobs, supplemented by the basic income, and because the jobs are only part time there would be more of them available so more people would be employed.

@Natsku

Yeah I agree, I think to ridicule the idea that it would automatically make people lazy it would have been better to increase the amount and not just remove the signing on etc.

That way it would give the recipients the ability to go to interviews, get interview clothes etc and not have to budget as much, if you see what i mean.

Once we replicate consciousness artificially the same ethics would apply to them as us, so if we shackle and enslave true AI right out the gate we can expect trouble down the line.

I wonder how long before AI would begin to see humans as inferior - given our tendencies. AI would have a tremendous advantage in memory and computational speed. We would seem slow-witted and destructive/inefficient to it. They may begin to view us as we look at our pets.