Turn on thread page Beta

Martin Freeman appeals to people to vote Labour watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Actor Martin Freeman, who played Dr Watson in Sherlock and Tim in The Office, has made a video appealing to the electorate to vote Labour.

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    After the travesty of The Hobbit films he should keep his mouth shut, he can't even do his day job properly, nevermind politics
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I've always maintained that celebrities should keep out of politics. They have no more legitimacy than the man on the street on political matters, but by virtue of their fame they have a platform which they can use to influence voters. He should keep his mouth shut and let people make their own assessments.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    'Tim from the Office' is ironically one of the more important demographics that both political parties are trying to target this election. Young, semi-skilled workers in the South East who are being priced out of the property market, struggle with the cost of housing, transport and utilities and are feeling the pinch from stagnating wages.


    I enjoyed the video, and think he got the message across quite well.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Bizarre. Didn't know he was such an expert :rolleyes:
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    So?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I still love him as Tim Canterbury.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I'm not sure how he feels this is going to boost labour's chances of getting voted for
    his arguments weren't really based on facts but rather his own personal perspectives
    for example, he said the conservatives were going to be bad for the youth - I'm a youth, working class, and I'm fine under the current coalition
    and he said the conservatives were going to cut taxes for millionaires - firstly, why is that bad? secondly, where in their manifesto does it say this?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    He makes some good points and, if celebrities can make good points and inform politically apathetic people about the policies and the values of the parties, then I'm fine with it.

    (Original post by zippity.doodah)
    for example, he said the conservatives were going to be bad for the youth - I'm a youth, working class, and I'm fine under the current coalition
    Fallacious argument from personal experience.

    (Original post by zippity.doodah)
    and he said the conservatives were going to cut taxes for millionaires - firstly, why is that bad? secondly, where in their manifesto does it say this?
    It increases inequality and, since the Conservatives keep going on about how we need to cut the deficit, higher, not lower, taxes on the rich are a fair way to do this.

    How is it fair that some people are having to rely on food banks to adequately feed themselves and live subsistence lifestyles in general, whilst others have millions to spare, largely due to exploitation of their workers through the wage labour system?

    If you think that this is perfectly fair, then that's fine, Freeman isn't addressing his plea to you; he's addressing it to the majority of Britons who generally don't believe that the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer is a moral or fair state of affairs.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)
    Fallacious argument from personal experience.
    okay then, fine, my own personal insight is 100% useless - my father being a postman and my mother being unemployed, yet my ability to pay off my debts eventually (based on the current policy) is literally worthless and I might as well be a millionaire commenting about the 45% tax rate and its effects on like-people.

    It increases inequality and, since the Conservatives keep going on about how we need to cut the deficit, higher, not lower, taxes on the rich are a fair way to do this.
    no they're not - surely *everybody* ought to be in this together and not just flinging **** and richer people to do it for the poorer?

    How is it fair that some people are having to rely on food banks to adequately feed themselves and live subsistence lifestyles in general, whilst others have millions to spare, largely due to exploitation of their workers through the wage labour system?
    life isn't fair - some are poor, some are rich. some are able. some are less able. there's no stopping this, even in a completely socialist society. the government isn't forcing anybody to be rich or poor - if everybody has a right to education, then it's not the government's fault so the government shouldn't do anything, except perhaps tax less to stop making people actively poorer from their own interventions...the fact that rich people exist doesn't mean that *they* are the reason there are poor people; if I didn't work as hard as others, then the fact that others work harder isn't holding me back. sure, some are lucky, luckier than others, but that's generally not the rule of capitalism - if you tried to get by based on luck, eventually you'd become homeless.

    If you think that this is perfectly fair, then that's fine, Freeman isn't addressing his plea to you; he's addressing it to the majority of Britons who generally don't believe that the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer is a moral or fair state of affairs.
    I think *capitalism* as an aim is a justified one. we don't have a totally free society, but more liberty (probably something the conservatives will be more in line with, at least hopefully) is better than less - the principles of personal responsibility, personal risk-tasking/rationality and human dignity (as opposed to government making decisions for you, as if you as a citizen cannot think for yourself) are better than the principles of the labour party - "collective" (non-existent) responsibility, nanny statism and a government telling you how to spend money (e.g. taxing you to spend it on public acts as opposed to allowing you to keep it for your own private acts)
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Amazing that anyone feels that the Tory public school boys care about them.
    Unless you have money, they don't care.
    Labour on it's very worst day is 1000 times better than the Conservatives on its very best.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tengentoppa)
    I've always maintained that celebrities should keep out of politics. They have no more legitimacy than the man on the street on political matters, but by virtue of their fame they have a platform which they can use to influence voters. He should keep his mouth shut and let people make their own assessments.
    so their right to free speech and canvass for their favoured party - like every other man - should be blocked? shut up
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by dolan m)
    so their right to free speech and canvass for their favoured party - like every other man - should be blocked? shut up
    Well said.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Only if he leads the party.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I don't see why celebrities can't show their support for a political party, they have as much of a right as the rest of us. Those people who are easily influenced by the opinions of celebrities probably also get easily manipulated by smears and propaganda.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zippity.doodah)
    no they're not - surely *everybody* ought to be in this together and not just flinging **** and richer people to do it for the poorer?
    Indeed, everybody ought to be in this together. Except, since the global financial crisis, austerity has allowed even more wealth to be distributed to the rich. Everybody is taxed, but a 45% tax rate barely hurts millionaires.

    By contrast, the cutting of public services and the fall in living standards that has come as a result of austerity definitely hurts the poor, hence the rise in food poverty, for example.

    If a party, such as the Labour Party, is going to make spending cuts, it is only fair, therefore, that it increases taxation on the rich. Which is why Freeman advocates it.

    (Original post by zippity.doodah)
    life isn't fair - some are poor, some are rich. some are able. some are less able. there's no stopping this, even in a completely socialist society.
    Life can certainly be fairer - see Denmark, which has the lowest rates of inequality in the world and is the happiest society in the world. It has a top rate of tax of 61%. In fact, look at Scandinavia in general - it has large public spending, a large public sector, high taxation and very high trade union membership. It has some of the lowest rates of inequality in the world.

    Freeman is advocating similar things in this video. Again, if you don't agree with him that low rates of inequality are good, then he's not addressing you, but rather the majority of Britons.

    (Original post by zippity.doodah)
    the fact that rich people exist doesn't mean that *they* are the reason there are poor people; if I didn't work as hard as others, then the fact that others work harder isn't holding me back. sure, some are lucky, luckier than others, but that's generally not the rule of capitalism - if you tried to get by based on luck, eventually you'd become homeless.
    It's not the case that people are richer because they are more hard-working than others. That's a pernicious myth. The poorest in society often work extremely hard in the most stressful and dangerous jobs.

    Often, people are born into wealthy families and inherit large amounts of money. That's luck. They didn't have to work hard for that.

    And, the rule of capitalism is often 'luck'. People are not rational agents. The decisions people make in the so-called "free market" are often no better than luck. Read up on cognitive science and behavioural economics - I'd suggest the Nobel Laureate Daniel Kahneman's work, for instance.

    (Original post by zippity.doodah)
    I think *capitalism* as an aim is a justified one. we don't have a totally free society, but more liberty (probably something the conservatives will be more in line with, at least hopefully) is better than less - the principles of personal responsibility, personal risk-tasking/rationality and human dignity (as opposed to government making decisions for you, as if you as a citizen cannot think for yourself) are better than the principles of the labour party - "collective" (non-existent) responsibility, nanny statism and a government telling you how to spend money (e.g. taxing you to spend it on public acts as opposed to allowing you to keep it for your own private acts)
    Again, humans are not rational agents, so that's the second point addressed. No one's saying that people shouldn't be responsible either.

    Human dignity isn't respected in a capitalist system in which the poorest people in developed nations have to rely on food banks to feed themselves. Human dignity isn't respected in a capitalist world in which 17,000 children each day die of extreme-poverty related diseases. These are preventable - changes can be made to the strucutre of our economy, but the rich and powerful won't allow these changes to occur. Yes, that includes the Conservative Party, which Martin Freeman rightly dismisses. In our current system, extreme poverty won't be eradicated unless these changes are made.

    Indeed, to be for liberty is to be for a system without hierarchical structures. Embedded in capitalism, however, is the very idea of hierarchy. Hence, no serious libertarian is in favour of capitalism; the classical libertarians - Kropotkin, Rocker, Bakunin, Goldman, and many more - all called for the abolition of capitalism.

    So, we can spin the 'human dignity' line both ways. But, I'd say that reducing inequality and poverty instead of accepting them as 'the natural way of things', thereby abandoning millions of human beings, brings far more dignity to countless human beings.

    Which is why Freeman was right. It's not just about policies, but about principles. We can either vote for Labour, which recognises that our economy is built on the hard work of ordinary people, or the Conservatives, whose definition of hard-working is 'wealthy'.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)
    Indeed, to be for liberty is to be for a system without hierarchical structures. Embedded in capitalism, however, is the very idea of hierarchy. Hence, no serious libertarian is in favour of capitalism; the classical libertarians - Kropotkin, Rocker, Bakunin, Goldman, and many more - all called for the abolition of capitalism.
    Bastiat, Smith, Cobden?

    Your argument is an appeal to authority btw.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Mighty_Bush)
    Bastiat, Smith, Cobden?

    Your argument is an appeal to authority btw.
    That capitalism is inherently hierarchical, and that hierarchies must be abolished in a libertarian society, is not an appeal to authority. Capitalism has no objection to tyranny as long as it is private tyranny.

    As Adam Smith himself said (not that I am saying that his view is necessarily correct, just that it expressed my own thoughts):

    "All for ourselves and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind."

    In a capitalist system, and certainly embedded in capitalist-libertarian publications, is this precise idea. It is assumed that everybody is a rational agent and, in turn, will act in their own self-interest and that this in turn will somehow create a lovely society.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)
    That capitalism is inherently hierarchical, and that hierarchies must be abolished in a libertarian society, is not an appeal to authority. Capitalism has no objection to tyranny as long as it is private tyranny.
    No, it's not inherently hierarchical as mutual groups, co-ops, worker owned companies etc. are all permitted.

    (Original post by viddy9)
    As Adam Smith himself said (not that I am saying that his view is necessarily correct, just that it expressed my own thoughts):

    "All for ourselves and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind."

    In a capitalist system, and certainly embedded in capitalist-libertarian publications, is this precise idea. It is assumed that everybody is a rational agent and, in turn, will act in their own self-interest and that this in turn will somehow create a lovely society.
    So if the masters of mankind are selfish why do you think that we need a big state?

    Those in government will have a lot of power over other people and there are also many vested interests in government.
 
 
 
Poll
Who do you think it's more helpful to talk about mental health with?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.