Ditto!!!!!!!!!!!
And far from self-interest if they said they wanted to put x% on income tax I'd accept it and trust them to spend it in the right places unlike the current spendthrift Labour.
Would you change your vote if Labour had a stronger leader?
- Thread starter Birchy
- Start date
Ditto!!!!!!!!!!!
And far from self-interest if they said they wanted to put x% on income tax I'd accept it and trust them to spend it in the right places unlike the current spendthrift Labour.
ColchesterFC
Journeyman Pro
Or maybe it wasn't shame. Maybe people didn't admit to voting Tory because they didn't want to be subjected to the usual "we're better than you" sanctimonious BS that comes their way from Labour voters.
Even SilH admits he had reservations about Milliband and the Labour campaign and he says he would never vote Tory. It's not a massive stretch of the imagination to think that undecided voters felt the same way and that's what swung the election.
SocketRocket
Ryder Cup Winner
I think left wing warriors which seem in abundance on this site have a poor grip on reality. Most of them have probably never been really hard up and speak from their elevated armchairs as if they are the only people with morals and consider anyone with a different view as stupid, greedy and selfish!
Socialism did have a part to play in the past and did a great deal of good for working conditions, medical care, wages etc. In more advanced society it has much less of a part to play as society has moved on and abject poverty along with it's poor living conditions are no longer a forced way of life for the masses. As a rider to that please dont suggest that people smoking a few hundred cigarettes a week, drinking a couple of packs of super strong a night, watching Sky and eating a takeaway are living in poverty. What Socialism does now is to suppress enterprise and promote hatred for people who have worked to create wealth by their own hard work and determination, it rounds up all wealth and job creators and brands them as fat cats and greedy people who have no social morals. It wants to tax them disproportionally for their enterprise to prop up those who dont have the stomach to create wealth and jobs for others. The politics of envy.
Socialism just doesn't work, it has always been a failed experiment, just look at the USSR where people had no desire or way to improve their lives as hard work and determination never gave any rewards unless you were a member of the political class. No one owes people a nice life, it's there for them to achieve if they are prepared to grasp the day.
Socialism did have a part to play in the past and did a great deal of good for working conditions, medical care, wages etc. In more advanced society it has much less of a part to play as society has moved on and abject poverty along with it's poor living conditions are no longer a forced way of life for the masses. As a rider to that please dont suggest that people smoking a few hundred cigarettes a week, drinking a couple of packs of super strong a night, watching Sky and eating a takeaway are living in poverty. What Socialism does now is to suppress enterprise and promote hatred for people who have worked to create wealth by their own hard work and determination, it rounds up all wealth and job creators and brands them as fat cats and greedy people who have no social morals. It wants to tax them disproportionally for their enterprise to prop up those who dont have the stomach to create wealth and jobs for others. The politics of envy.
Socialism just doesn't work, it has always been a failed experiment, just look at the USSR where people had no desire or way to improve their lives as hard work and determination never gave any rewards unless you were a member of the political class. No one owes people a nice life, it's there for them to achieve if they are prepared to grasp the day.
Last edited:
C
c1973
Guest
I don't think it would be embarrassment so much as they can't be arsed with the grief they would get from some quarters, a bit like NO voters in the referendum tbh.
I personally could never envisage a time or reason I would vote Tory, but if you did, then fair play to you, I'd more than likely disagree with your reasons....in fact I'd be bloody certain I would, but if that's your choice then it's one your entitled to make without fear of embarrassment (imo of course).
I personally could never envisage a time or reason I would vote Tory, but if you did, then fair play to you, I'd more than likely disagree with your reasons....in fact I'd be bloody certain I would, but if that's your choice then it's one your entitled to make without fear of embarrassment (imo of course).
And thank God we are different. It's disagreement that forces change and improvement. Labour, LibDems etc will up their game, which in turn will force the Tories to up their game and so on and so on.
I hope labour get their house in order and elect a strong leader along with firm policies. Every government needs a good opposition party to keep it on track and focused
My names Robin and I voted Conservative 
C
c1973
Guest
My names Robin and I voted Conservative
The first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem.
bluewolf
Money List Winner
That's Communism, not socialism. It's different. And just because Capitalism is the current basis for society, it doesn't mean that it works ad infinitum. What happens when the Worlds population reached a level where it can't be sustained? Capitalism requires a growing population to provide growth. What happens when population shrinks? Every system fails eventually because no system is fully self sustaining.
Oh, and your generalisations about benefits claimants are beneath you.
SocketRocket
Ryder Cup Winner
Communism is the ultimate form of Socialism.
When a population shrinks demand shrinks with it and the equilibrium is maintained.
You know I wasn't referring to all benefit claimants and as such are proving my initial point.
bluewolf
Money List Winner
Bearing in mind that Socialism is an economic doctrine, and Communism is a Political doctrine, then I'd have to disagree with your first point.
Secondly, there would have to be some fairly severe regulation in place to maintain even the most fragile equilibrium within the global economy. Regulation that would be fought against vehemently by the financial institutions as it would place severe restrictions on their ability to make profits. Especially in the futures markets.
Thirdly, I'm not sure how disputing your point proves it, but it's bee a long day culminating in a well deserved 0.1 back.
wait, I think I get it now. It was the point regarding left wingers being judgemental people who think that anyone who isn't left wing has no morals yadda yadda yadda. Oh come now, I support everyone's right to a political opinion. I don't judge your ethics and morals based on your vote. That's stereotyping the Left in the same way your accusing the Left of stereotyping the Right.
Last edited:
FairwayDodger
Money List Winner
Don't misunderstand me, I'm merely speculating about why the opinion polls were so wrong. I'm sure the majority of Tory voters feel no shame whatsoever.
bluewolf
Money List Winner
Nor should they. Everyone has a belief system. If you follow economics then you'll know that Milt Friedman believed that the best way to empower the working classes was to restrict the welfare state to a bare minimum, thereby shocking the population into work, in turn growing the economy. Keynes believed that the welfare state should provide help to those on their knees, helping them back into work. Thereby growing the economy. The vast majority of countries have followed Keynesian economics, with some notable exceptions.
SocketRocket
Ryder Cup Winner
I'm not clear what you are getting at here. Have you been drinking?
if the population falls demand for goods and services fall with it, it's the way that market forces work, it's self regulating. It's only when the Nanny State wants to control our lives and the market that regulation becomes complicated.
bluewolf
Money List Winner
Lol. That would be true if the population shrunk equally across every demographic. Unfortunately, that's not how population contraction happens is it? Usually it happens because of a shrinking birth rate, which leads to an imbalance between the people paying tax and the people claiming a State Pension. This usually results in massive Austerity cuts, possible stagnation and/or recession. Large scale lay offs, increased welfare spending. Vicious circle after vicious circle. Sound familiar?I'm not clear what you are getting at here. Have you been drinking?
SocketRocket
Ryder Cup Winner
Surely that only creates a temporary problem and would normally be the effect of previous baby booms or large numbers of immigrants. Population shrinkage would soon level out unless no babies were born which is unlikely, lets say that the average family had 2 children and this trend continued without any large scale immigration, people are not going to start living much older than now(actually with the number of obese and diabetics these days many will not reach pension age)
bluewolf
Money List Winner
But your talking about population stagnation if your using a birth rate of 2 as an example. The European birth rate is below 2 (1.84 I think). Couple this with an increased life expectancy means that the issue gets progressively worse for several generations, and possibly for as long as the birth rate is below 2 (plus a generation). The only way to combat this would be to regulate either the amount of people claiming ALL state benefits, or to limit the cash available, therefore reducing EVERYONES state benefits. Neither of those would've a viable option. Can you imagine the first Politician to suggest Logan's Run as a policy!!!!
sorry, forgot to add, immigration is actually a short term solution to a long term issue. Unfortunately, this then exacerbates the problem later in the life cycle.
SocketRocket
Ryder Cup Winner
bluewolf
Money List Winner
I think you may be agreeing with me
Only on the point of uncontrolled immigration not helping in the long term. It doesn't cause the problem though, merely worsens it slightly in the longer term. It's a symptom, not a cause.
on an unrelated note, how many people do you think have bothered reading this discussion
SocketRocket
Ryder Cup Winner
Only on the point of uncontrolled immigration not helping in the long term. It doesn't cause the problem though, merely worsens it slightly in the longer term. It's a symptom, not a cause.
on an unrelated note, how many people do you think have bothered reading this discussion
Quite a few probably started then thought ' It's those two again, no point in reading any more'
