So much fun to be had with the lefty students...
Discussion
ukwill said:
A bit simplistic, but a slight amendment to that:
With nothing but a Tory style government for the last 500 years, Britain would probably be a lot wealthier than it is now.
With nothing but a Labour style government for the last 500 years, Britain would have ceased to exist about 450yrs ago.
500 years of Tory would probably have us wealthier, but in the way that India is wealthy. i.e. a few rich landowners and then 'the rest' left to squabble in a sea of degradation and squalour. Maybe that sounds good to you?With nothing but a Tory style government for the last 500 years, Britain would probably be a lot wealthier than it is now.
With nothing but a Labour style government for the last 500 years, Britain would have ceased to exist about 450yrs ago.
Shay HTFC said:
Its quite simple. Labour voters are idealists, Tory's are realists.
A realist will say that idealists are just dreamers that have no idea, and be glad they are not one of them.
An idealist will say that realists are just pessimists who don't have any hope for creating a better future, and also, be glad that they are not one of them.
With nothing but a Tory style government for the last 500 years, Britain would probably be s
t.
With nothing but a Labour style government for the last 500 years, Britain would also probably be st. Its all about the balance between moving forwards with new ideas, and being pragmatic in knowing what works.
Why do people get worked up about it? Accept that different people have different opinions and just get on with it. The only person that is intellectually inferior is the person that cannot grasp that concept and thinks that their own opinion is, for some miraculous reason, the absolute correct and truthful one.
For every well considered and thoughtful post...A realist will say that idealists are just dreamers that have no idea, and be glad they are not one of them.
An idealist will say that realists are just pessimists who don't have any hope for creating a better future, and also, be glad that they are not one of them.
With nothing but a Tory style government for the last 500 years, Britain would probably be s
t.With nothing but a Labour style government for the last 500 years, Britain would also probably be s
t. Its all about the balance between moving forwards with new ideas, and being pragmatic in knowing what works.Why do people get worked up about it? Accept that different people have different opinions and just get on with it. The only person that is intellectually inferior is the person that cannot grasp that concept and thinks that their own opinion is, for some miraculous reason, the absolute correct and truthful one.
ukwill said:
A bit simplistic, but a slight amendment to that:
With nothing but a Tory style government for the last 500 years, Britain would probably be a lot wealthier than it is now.
With nothing but a Labour style government for the last 500 years, Britain would have ceased to exist about 450yrs ago.
...there's a fanboy post. As I said in another thread, this site has a definate blue tinge to it- nothing wrong with that, but people denying it and then claiming that you're only intellegent if you agree with their views is pretty silly. Speaking as someone with no strongly held political views in either direction I find it puts me off agreeing with anything that side says. With nothing but a Tory style government for the last 500 years, Britain would probably be a lot wealthier than it is now.
With nothing but a Labour style government for the last 500 years, Britain would have ceased to exist about 450yrs ago.
Alfa numeric said:
Shay HTFC said:
Its quite simple. Labour voters are idealists, Tory's are realists.
A realist will say that idealists are just dreamers that have no idea, and be glad they are not one of them.
An idealist will say that realists are just pessimists who don't have any hope for creating a better future, and also, be glad that they are not one of them.
With nothing but a Tory style government for the last 500 years, Britain would probably be st.
With nothing but a Labour style government for the last 500 years, Britain would also probably be st. Its all about the balance between moving forwards with new ideas, and being pragmatic in knowing what works.
Why do people get worked up about it? Accept that different people have different opinions and just get on with it. The only person that is intellectually inferior is the person that cannot grasp that concept and thinks that their own opinion is, for some miraculous reason, the absolute correct and truthful one.
For every well considered and thoughtful post...A realist will say that idealists are just dreamers that have no idea, and be glad they are not one of them.
An idealist will say that realists are just pessimists who don't have any hope for creating a better future, and also, be glad that they are not one of them.
With nothing but a Tory style government for the last 500 years, Britain would probably be s
t.With nothing but a Labour style government for the last 500 years, Britain would also probably be s
t. Its all about the balance between moving forwards with new ideas, and being pragmatic in knowing what works.Why do people get worked up about it? Accept that different people have different opinions and just get on with it. The only person that is intellectually inferior is the person that cannot grasp that concept and thinks that their own opinion is, for some miraculous reason, the absolute correct and truthful one.
ukwill said:
A bit simplistic, but a slight amendment to that:
With nothing but a Tory style government for the last 500 years, Britain would probably be a lot wealthier than it is now.
With nothing but a Labour style government for the last 500 years, Britain would have ceased to exist about 450yrs ago.
...there's a fanboy post. As I said in another thread, this site has a definate blue tinge to it- nothing wrong with that, but people denying it and then claiming that you're only intellegent if you agree with their views is pretty silly. Speaking as someone with no strongly held political views in either direction I find it puts me off agreeing with anything that side says. With nothing but a Tory style government for the last 500 years, Britain would probably be a lot wealthier than it is now.
With nothing but a Labour style government for the last 500 years, Britain would have ceased to exist about 450yrs ago.
Shay HTFC said:
500 years of Tory would probably have us wealthier, but in the way that India is wealthy. i.e. a few rich landowners and then 'the rest' left to squabble in a sea of degradation and squalour. Maybe that sounds good to you?
There's a difference between Whigs and Tories!The Tories have to get voted in by ordinary people and even women, for goodness' sake!
This coalition will probably continue with a host of largely centrist policies because they've got to. They aren't delivering cuts in Government spending because it's a laugh or even because they think it's poltically correct it's only because they have to.
Governments like to do things. People like to ask them to do things. They only don't do things because there's no money and the poor old public can't be squeezed for any more...
Tsippy said:
pilchardthecat said:
Tsippy said:
fairness
oh god, don't get me started on that one!
For something to qualify as "progressive" (oh god there is another one) it basically has to involve stealing something from someone who works for a living and giving it to someone who didn't pay attention at school.
pilchardthecat said:
Tsippy said:
pilchardthecat said:
Tsippy said:
fairness
oh god, don't get me started on that one!For something to qualify as "progressive" (oh god there is another one) it basically has to involve stealing something from someone who works for a living and giving it to someone who didn't pay attention at school.
Sadly they cannot get it into their heads that money does not grow on a plantation, and that to achieve in life you have to work. It's impossible to try and reason with them, they are indoctrinated by years of lefty education and not open-minded anymore and instead prefer to repeat parrot-fashion what they are told is right with no-understanding of how or why.
Alfa numeric said:
...claiming that you're only intellegent if you agree with their views is pretty silly. Speaking as someone with no strongly held political views in either direction I find it puts me off agreeing with anything that side says
fesuvious said:
You can't please everyone all of the time, so voting liberal is out.
Every Labour Government has left the country in a massive financial mess
No Conservative Government has ever left a financial mess
Simples!
Not sure I see the same posts in the same way as you (Alfa numeric) do, but what level of intelligence is required to see that at the end of the last two periods of Labour 'government' the country has been brought to its knees? What level of intelligence is needed to see that, and then not vote the way your family or workplace colleagues have always voted? Not because the Conservatives are perfect but because they are the least worst choice. When does intelligence win out over blind allegiance, or is it something else that's needed to avoid the mistake of another Labour government? To see that what fesuvious says isn't fanboyism just eyes open?Every Labour Government has left the country in a massive financial mess
No Conservative Government has ever left a financial mess
Simples!
Edited by turbobloke on Wednesday 13th October 21:41
Magog said:
fesuvious said:
There's a reason less people voted in the 97 election than solely voted Conservative in 92..........
Thats not true...Or do you mean that it's not true because 'less people' should have been written as 'fewer people'? In which case I think you may be being a little pedantic.
Or are you trying to claim that more people voted in 1997 than voted Conservative in 1992? In which case I think you are probably quite right:
In 1992 the Tories got 51.2% of the vote on a 77.7% turnout
In 2010 the turnout was 71.3%
So for the proposition to be true we must have experienced a massive population increase in that 6-year period - which I don't believe to be the case.
Tsippy said:
pilchardthecat said:
Tsippy said:
pilchardthecat said:
Tsippy said:
fairness
oh god, don't get me started on that one!For something to qualify as "progressive" (oh god there is another one) it basically has to involve stealing something from someone who works for a living and giving it to someone who didn't pay attention at school.
Sadly they cannot get it into their heads that money does not grow on a plantation, and that to achieve in life you have to work. It's impossible to try and reason with them, they are indoctrinated by years of lefty education and not open-minded anymore and instead prefer to repeat parrot-fashion what they are told is right with no-understanding of how or why.
Did you ever stop to think that maybe those people who are at the bottom of the pyramid scheme (capitalism) might vote for a party that promises to better them off?
"indoctrinated by years of lefty education"
This isn't Soviet Russia. I will agree that Tory voters are generally well educated (apart from those who complain about 'labour through and through' voters while being 'tory through and through' voters themselves), but going by the gist of this website, they are only well educated in economic matters; when it comes to anything more 'arty' and idealist (get ready for the 'art is just bullst' posters) this place is a bit simple.Did you ever stop to think that maybe not everyone votes for the party based on simply who will be best for the economy? Maybe they vote on who will move the country closest to what they think of as being a decent country (i.e. free healthcare [at point of use], a decent education for the majority, not just the rich, a generally more equal lifestyle for the country [i.e. not India, China et al and their embarrassingly poor wealth distribution]).
I know its a lot for the good people of PH to take in, but for many, the government isn't there to solely serve a good economy, but to serve a decent society.
And please don't reply with "where do you think the money comes from?" comment. The most efficient economy isn't necessarily the most fair and social benefiting economy (see the Victorian age with the majority of the population living in squalor while a few people made good money)- that's why people don't always vote Tories.
Shay HTFC said:
The most efficient economy isn't necessarily the most fair and social benefiting economy (see the Victorian age with the majority of the population living in squalor while a few people made good money)- that's why people don't always vote Tories.
Fact: Social mobility has decreased AND the wealth gap has increased during New Labour.Edited by fido on Thursday 14th October 17:11
Gaspode said:
Magog said:
fesuvious said:
There's a reason less people voted in the 97 election than solely voted Conservative in 92..........
Thats not true...Or do you mean that it's not true because 'less people' should have been written as 'fewer people'? In which case I think you may be being a little pedantic.
Or are you trying to claim that more people voted in 1997 than voted Conservative in 1992? In which case I think you are probably quite right:
In 1992 the Tories got 51.2% of the vote on a 77.7% turnout
In 2010 the turnout was 71.3%
So for the proposition to be true we must have experienced a massive population increase in that 6-year period - which I don't believe to be the case.
Shay HTFC said:
Tsippy said:
pilchardthecat said:
Tsippy said:
pilchardthecat said:
Tsippy said:
fairness
oh god, don't get me started on that one!For something to qualify as "progressive" (oh god there is another one) it basically has to involve stealing something from someone who works for a living and giving it to someone who didn't pay attention at school.
Sadly they cannot get it into their heads that money does not grow on a plantation, and that to achieve in life you have to work. It's impossible to try and reason with them, they are indoctrinated by years of lefty education and not open-minded anymore and instead prefer to repeat parrot-fashion what they are told is right with no-understanding of how or why.
Did you ever stop to think that maybe those people who are at the bottom of the pyramid scheme (capitalism) might vote for a party that promises to better them off?
"indoctrinated by years of lefty education"
This isn't Soviet Russia. I will agree that Tory voters are generally well educated (apart from those who complain about 'labour through and through' voters while being 'tory through and through' voters themselves), but going by the gist of this website, they are only well educated in economic matters; when it comes to anything more 'arty' and idealist (get ready for the 'art is just bullst' posters) this place is a bit simple.Did you ever stop to think that maybe not everyone votes for the party based on simply who will be best for the economy? Maybe they vote on who will move the country closest to what they think of as being a decent country (i.e. free healthcare [at point of use], a decent education for the majority, not just the rich, a generally more equal lifestyle for the country [i.e. not India, China et al and their embarrassingly poor wealth distribution]).
I know its a lot for the good people of PH to take in, but for many, the government isn't there to solely serve a good economy, but to serve a decent society.
And please don't reply with "where do you think the money comes from?" comment. The most efficient economy isn't necessarily the most fair and social benefiting economy (see the Victorian age with the majority of the population living in squalor while a few people made good money)- that's why people don't always vote Tories.
And the "rich" these days seems to be anyone earning more than the average wage. Decent society my arse (unless you define that by the ultimate socialist goal of there being a national fixed standard wage for everyone.... except a few political elites of course)
pilchardthecat said:
Shay HTFC said:
Tsippy said:
pilchardthecat said:
Tsippy said:
pilchardthecat said:
Tsippy said:
fairness
oh god, don't get me started on that one!For something to qualify as "progressive" (oh god there is another one) it basically has to involve stealing something from someone who works for a living and giving it to someone who didn't pay attention at school.
Sadly they cannot get it into their heads that money does not grow on a plantation, and that to achieve in life you have to work. It's impossible to try and reason with them, they are indoctrinated by years of lefty education and not open-minded anymore and instead prefer to repeat parrot-fashion what they are told is right with no-understanding of how or why.
Did you ever stop to think that maybe those people who are at the bottom of the pyramid scheme (capitalism) might vote for a party that promises to better them off?
"indoctrinated by years of lefty education"
This isn't Soviet Russia. I will agree that Tory voters are generally well educated (apart from those who complain about 'labour through and through' voters while being 'tory through and through' voters themselves), but going by the gist of this website, they are only well educated in economic matters; when it comes to anything more 'arty' and idealist (get ready for the 'art is just bullst' posters) this place is a bit simple.Did you ever stop to think that maybe not everyone votes for the party based on simply who will be best for the economy? Maybe they vote on who will move the country closest to what they think of as being a decent country (i.e. free healthcare [at point of use], a decent education for the majority, not just the rich, a generally more equal lifestyle for the country [i.e. not India, China et al and their embarrassingly poor wealth distribution]).
I know its a lot for the good people of PH to take in, but for many, the government isn't there to solely serve a good economy, but to serve a decent society.
And please don't reply with "where do you think the money comes from?" comment. The most efficient economy isn't necessarily the most fair and social benefiting economy (see the Victorian age with the majority of the population living in squalor while a few people made good money)- that's why people don't always vote Tories.
And the "rich" these days seems to be anyone earning more than the average wage. Decent society my arse (unless you define that by the ultimate socialist goal of there being a national fixed standard wage for everyone.... except a few political elites of course)
pilchardthecat said:
Oh stop it. 99.9% of people vote out of pure self interest. Successful people vote to keep more of what they've worked for, and Labour voters vote to take more from them and share it amongst themselves.
And the "rich" these days seems to be anyone earning more than the average wage. Decent society my arse (unless you define that by the ultimate socialist goal of there being a national fixed standard wage for everyone.... except a few political elites of course)
Which is pretty much my point.And the "rich" these days seems to be anyone earning more than the average wage. Decent society my arse (unless you define that by the ultimate socialist goal of there being a national fixed standard wage for everyone.... except a few political elites of course)
Everyone here who votes Tories with an air of superiority no doubt doesn't live in a council estate on some sink estate having been educated in some s
tty comprehensive.Yes, someone will reply explaining how they were brought up bathing in the toilet bowl and eating breakfast out of their mum's worn out panty liners, but they still managed to make it, but the odds of that happening are similar to that of someone who is born into a wealthy family not ending up with a decent life position simply because of who they happened to be born to.
Mr. Chav who was born to 2 alcoholic parents in a sink estate in Dewsbury is hardly going to vote Tory because they create the most efficient economy.
Shay HTFC said:
Mr. Chav who was born to 2 alcoholic parents in a sink estate in Dewsbury is hardly going to vote Tory because they create the most efficient economy.
That may be so, and if so it's part of a wider problem for the country and voting Labour isn't the solution. Their only hope, even if they want to choose a cushy benefits lifestyle which Labour were prepared to give them but the Tories aren't, is that the Labour government has proved on both of two successive spells in office that the political left don't have a money machine and depend on the private sector and a healthy economy to generate the taxes that pay for the handouts. So if Mr. Chav is incapable of understanding this, what's the point in them having a vote - they and others like them stuff the country for everybody else and still won't get their generous benefits for life when the country is nearly bankrupted each time their beloved incompetent moneywasters get elected. Shay HTFC said:
pilchardthecat said:
Oh stop it. 99.9% of people vote out of pure self interest. Successful people vote to keep more of what they've worked for, and Labour voters vote to take more from them and share it amongst themselves.
And the "rich" these days seems to be anyone earning more than the average wage. Decent society my arse (unless you define that by the ultimate socialist goal of there being a national fixed standard wage for everyone.... except a few political elites of course)
Which is pretty much my point.And the "rich" these days seems to be anyone earning more than the average wage. Decent society my arse (unless you define that by the ultimate socialist goal of there being a national fixed standard wage for everyone.... except a few political elites of course)
Everyone here who votes Tories with an air of superiority no doubt doesn't live in a council estate on some sink estate having been educated in some s
tty comprehensive.Yes, someone will reply explaining how they were brought up bathing in the toilet bowl and eating breakfast out of their mum's worn out panty liners, but they still managed to make it, but the odds of that happening are similar to that of someone who is born into a wealthy family not ending up with a decent life position simply because of who they happened to be born to.
Mr. Chav who was born to 2 alcoholic parents in a sink estate in Dewsbury is hardly going to vote Tory because they create the most efficient economy.
I now live in a council flat in Harlow.
I vote Tory because I have worked hard since leaving school with no qualifications and have bettered my lot. I don't want my future children to grow up as I did (about as poor as you can get). I belive that anyone no matter where they come from should be able to work their way to any position possible. Wealth is not a negative thing. As far as I can see the Torys are the only party that encourage hard work and honest endevour.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff