O/T Politically will it be 1992 all over again?

[Tesco in Disguise]

What about people who rather than voting for a direct immediate advantage, would vote for something that may be detrimental or indifferent in the short term, but improves society in general and which will lead to a benefit for you in the long term? Is that sort of voting tactic "soft in the head"?

no. it's called altruism. bushy wouldn't have a clue.

 

[BLOCK F]

I absolutely care more about my family than society as a whole.

Spot on.Good old 'Tesco' assuming the moral high ground like these poor smug misguided lefties often do.
Sadly,I really do think that Tesco and others like him think that only those who share their views are capable of being 'good' citizens.

 

[beorhthelm]

the conservatives have been, and always will be, the party of the rich. to argue against this is nonsense. this is how they were born and underpins everything they stand for. they can claim that it is noble to believe in the rights of the individual, but what's in the interest of the best-off is not in the interests of all of us. the trickle-down effect has been proved wrong. people are rightfully ashamed of admitting they vote tory: it shows you care more about yourself (or, perhaps, your family/class) than you do about improving society as a whole.

its a shame you think " to argue against this is nonsense", as its kinda closes out debate. thats ok, some of us arent ever going to see the other side of the coin (i put myself in that bracket). but to dismiss the interests of the individual as selfish just means you havent applied any thought to the wider politics, as clearly a safe, healthy and productive country and society is in the interests of most individuals. as for the trickle-down effect being proved wrong, you'll have to enlighten me as it seems me and the rest of the economy missed that memo.

as far as the "party of the rich" tag is concerned, its only true if you redefine "rich" as anyone with a job and some aspirations to better themselves and their kin. funny, because its pretty much the same audience as Labour, just through different goals and means.

 

[User removed 4]

Erm... was that in response to me?

no mate, tesco in disguise.

 

[Tesco in Disguise]

to dismiss the interests of the individual as selfish just means you havent applied any thought to the wider politics, as clearly a safe, healthy and productive country and society is in the interests of most individuals. as for the trickle-down effect being proved wrong, you'll have to enlighten me as it seems me and the rest of the economy missed that memo.

safe, healthy, and productive. safe first:

the conservatives would probably claim that they are the party of law and order. to an extent, this is true: they make it clear that policing is a major policy objective of theirs. but if society was fairer, and foreign policy more diplomatic and less belligerent, increased spending in policing/defence would not be necessary.

health.

nhs.

productive.

the tories would argue here that the free market and low taxation provides incentive. again, up to a point. there is little incentive to work for less than minimum wage and the free market is self-defeating. once any agent aquires a position of power, it can use this to destroy competition and inflate prices. then there is no incentive for them to be productive.

trickle-down effect?

income inequality increases when markets are liberalised. i didn't think that point was contentious.

 

[Tesco in Disguise]

Anyone who does otherwise is a liar or a fool, which are you ?

can i have humanist?

 

[Questions]

So you'd be happy to vote tory when your dead , or in someone else's life time ?

I might meet her in hell........................ still wont vote for the bitch though.

 

[User removed 4]

I might meet her in hell........................ still wont vote for the bitch though.

Im disappointed that no one has vowed to 'dance on the bitch's grave' yet

 

[thejackal]

“I'll show you politics in [insert your country here]. Here it is, right here. 'I think the puppet on the right shares my beliefs.' 'I think the puppet on the left is more to my liking.' 'Hey, wait a minute, there's one guy holding out both puppets!'”

Bill Hicks. Amen.

 

[beorhthelm]

trickle-down effect?

income inequality increases when markets are liberalised. i didn't think that point was contentious.

income inequity isnt a stated aim of the tricke-down effect, so why join the two? it is arguably a side effect, though the inequlity of earning has always been there, even in communist systems. if the base income rises, does it matter much is inequity increases anyway? or would you rather a low but more uniform base?

 

[larus]

The Tories are for wealth creation.
Labour are for public spending, handouts, free services.

However, the thing which all left-wingers seem to choose to ignore, is that to provide all of these public services, you need to generate wealth, otherwise you end up in debt, but of course New Labour would never let that happen, as they're prudent now.

 

[Dandyman]

its a shame you think " to argue against this is nonsense", as its kinda closes out debate. thats ok, some of us arent ever going to see the other side of the coin (i put myself in that bracket). but to dismiss the interests of the individual as selfish just means you havent applied any thought to the wider politics, as clearly a safe, healthy and productive country and society is in the interests of most individuals. as for the trickle-down effect being proved wrong, you'll have to enlighten me as it seems me and the rest of the economy missed that memo.

as far as the "party of the rich" tag is concerned, its only true if you redefine "rich" as anyone with a job and some aspirations to better themselves and their kin. funny, because its pretty much the same audience as Labour, just through different goals and means.

Surely a difference between how a party markets itself and what interests it actually represents? If party X says we are for all hard working citizens but it's record shows it enriching a small percentage of the population while slashing provision and/or increasing the cost of living for the bulk of the population by for example cutting the top rate of tax but doubling indirect taxation then TID's point of view seems self-evident.

 

[User removed 4]

Surely a difference between how a party markets itself and what interests it actually represents? If party X says we are for all hard working citizens but it's record shows it enriching a small percentage of the population while slashing provision and/or increasing the cost of living for the bulk of the population by for example cutting the top rate of tax but doubling indirect taxation then TID's point of view seems self-evident.

For party x, you obviously allude to the tories, i would contend that the tories under thatcher enabled more than a small percentage of the population to 'enrich' themselves as you so disdainfully put it,we cant all be part of the client state, also , i'm pretty sure that studies show that the gap between rich and poor has widened significantly under new labour.

 

[Tesco in Disguise]

income inequity isnt a stated aim of the tricke-down effect, so why join the two? it is arguably a side effect, though the inequlity of earning has always been there, even in communist systems. if the base income rises, does it matter much is inequity increases anyway? or would you rather a low but more uniform base?

the trickle down effect is the argument that if the richest among us make money, we are all better off. to a point, this is true: income averages are on the rise. but it is important to remember that wealth is relative. by allowing the richest among us to increase their wealth at a greater rate than the poorest, we are only increasing the number of 'poor' and the number of those with a smaller and smaller stake in society.

read klein for countless examples of how market liberalisation has a direct effect on poverty and ill health.

 

[Questions]

Im disappointed that no one has vowed to 'dance on the bitch's grave' yet

what happens if they cremate the C UNT.

 

[ROSM]

The Tories are for wealth creation.
Labour are for public spending, handouts, free services.

However, the thing which all left-wingers seem to choose to ignore, is that to provide all of these public services, you need to generate wealth, otherwise you end up in debt, but of course New Labour would never let that happen, as they're prudent now.

i love your opening line

If I were to right 'the tories are for a 90% wealth expansion of the top 10% and 5% reduction of the remaining 90% but still therefore a net gain.

labour are for protecting the worse off in society by spending on public services and offering free health care and education that is of a world class standard'

then that would be only as equally myopic as your line.


by definition, all parties are for wealth creation. It depends how you determine wealth as to which side you look at.

 

[User removed 4]

what happens if they cremate the C UNT.

Perhaps you could steal her ashes and use them in home made christmas cards to create a 'snowy scene' effect ?

 

[beorhthelm]

Surely a difference between how a party markets itself and what interests it actually represents? If party X says we are for all hard working citizens but it's record shows it enriching a small percentage of the population while slashing provision and/or increasing the cost of living for the bulk of the population by for example cutting the top rate of tax but doubling indirect taxation then TID's point of view seems self-evident.

see there you go, with "enriching a small percentage" rubbish when in reality a massive % where enriched along the whole nation as a whole. did they cut spending? yep. did they go too far? yep. but whats wrong with the underlying principle to reduce costs, allow people spend their own money as they see fit rather than telling them how and where to spend it? but keep puting an "evil" spin on it if makes you feel better, despite the fact you will cut costs in your own live where ever you can.

small government. individual freedom. thats the corner stone of conservatism, not "making the rich richer". not some old notions tied to the 18th century land owners. its seems that its the left wing that wishes to perpetuate the notion of a two nations, while the conservatives, albeit probably failing, at least try to promote the one nation ideal.

 

[beorhthelm]

but it is important to remember that wealth is relative. by allowing the richest among us to increase their wealth at a greater rate than the poorest, we are only increasing the number of 'poor' and the number of those with a smaller and smaller stake in society.

you said yourself, its relative. so the "poor" are redefined despite increasing real terms wealth. it does also expose those that are workshy and slackers, i've lived in the inner city where chavs stay at home all day while immigrants go to work for £6/hr at 5am in the morning. this is a problem neither side seems to face or offer a solution to.

 

[Tesco in Disguise]

but whats wrong with the underlying principle to reduce costs, allow people spend their own money as they see fit rather than telling them how and where to spend it?

sadly, a whole lot. humans are generally incapable or unwilling to think in the long term, or indeed in their own interests. you only have to look at the opposition to obama's health care reform, coming mainly from the people who stand to gain from it the most.

the cost of this is state intervention, but i doubt the state interferes in your life to an insufferable degree. after all, we are not living in a totalitarian state (despite what the mail tells you).

on the costs front, efficiency is good, but it should not be to the detriment of provision.