How close are you to the political centre ?

[somerset]

I don't think anyone in their right mind - left or right - would disagree with that.

But the dilemma isn't just about protecting the most vulnerable in society - it's about ensuring the wellbeing of all of us, including the middle classes.

We can spend our lives working extremely hard with very little to show for it, if we're unlucky - and for low wage workers this is more or less guaranteed. The right-wing attitude seems to be "hard luck, old chum" or "I'm alright Jack, pull the ladder up" and I don't think this is a useful attitude when there is enough wealth, technology and resources for every person to live a comfortable life - while at the same time rewarding the most talented and hard working people. The problem is that the wealth is currently skewed, the richest people in society usually don't work the hardest - and this is something that left wing politics looks to address, things should be fairer - "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"

Two points:

1) You don't have to be right wing to think the way I do, my political compass result proves that.

2) I am wondering why it appears you feel there is room in society for those deemed "unlucky", but somehow you casually reject the notion that there is any validity in the section of society that has found itself in the "lucky" category, both often through no fault of their own.

 

[BadFish]

I think the revolution that you want so desperately to occur could quite possibly be the dullest non event in history especially now i learn you now want the middle classes to be a part of it.

What contribution are you expecting.........give up washing the Mondeo for a week,?shop at the Co Op instead of sainsbury? perhaps buy organic mustard instead of Colemans.

When the revolution starts take a selfie and put it on my facebook page as a reminder........i wouldnt want to miss it.

Not sure if I would call it a revolution but something has got to change or else we are all ****ed. Neo Conservativism is only working for a a few powerful people. the rest of us....middle classes included...... are getting right royally ****ed (IMHO obviously)

 

[somerset]

But there are simply not enough rewarding jobs to go around. So it is surely moot if some goes on the dole 'out of choice' or not.

Maybe as a society we should be working out ways to encourage and offer pathways so everybody can contribute. If there are so many people in our culture who decide that the best they can do if live of benefits then I am going to suggest that somewhere down the way our society has somewhat failed.

There are two not too insignificant infrastructures that point the way to a healthy and prosperous future, 1) parenting 2) education...... both provided free of charge, both without discrimination.

 

[golddene]

You scored 8 out of 25

A score of 5 is the furthest left and 25 is the furthest right.
Your answers would place you a long way from the political centre in any year but you would have been closest to the centre of political opinion in 1995 and 1996.

I must be a right Tory !!! scored 9

 

[somerset]

..... economically speaking, there could be no bad luck or good luck, people would be rewarded based on their contributions and abilities.

Then we are in agreement.

 

[pastafarian]

Not sure if I would call it a revolution but something has got to change or else we are all ****ed. Neo Conservativism is only working for a a few powerful people. the rest of us....middle classes included...... are getting right royally ****ed (IMHO obviously)

no,
we are not all fracked at all.
This horrible thing called capitalism and consumerism has lifted 100`s of millions out of poverty in the last few decades.The anti capitalists will refuse to tell you this.Its slow,cumbersome and not without its flaws.But no one has of yet has come up with a working replacement model that can achieve the same results.Some people have increased their wealth off the back of it,but so what.I refuse to be jealous about that while the system is slowly raising people out of poverty

 

[BadFish]

There are two not too insignificant infrastructures that point the way to a healthy and prosperous future, 1) parenting 2) education...... both provided free of charge, both without discrimination.

true enough although the evidence would suggest that they are not working well enough or that we need more. I can't help but wonder if people would be more interested in work if they had a career path to follow and the security to know that they could continue working from apprenticeship to retirement. As our Neo Con system continues to chip away at job security, apprenticeships, unions and opportunitites to work for life then i don't find it that surprising that people would rather choose not to get involved. I felt much the same when i left school as i looked around to weigh up my options i saw very little in terms of the thing i have just mentioned.

As we move into less security, 0 hours contracts, no apprenticeships and the continuing demonising and dismantling of unions and siphoning the power (and money) to the top of the corporate pyramid it is my belief that things are going to get worse not better.

Parenting and education can only do so much against such forces.

 

[Hampster Gull]

18

Very simplistic questions and really needs to be more nuanced

 

[BadFish]

no,
we are not all fracked at all.
This horrible thing called capitalism and consumerism has lifted 100`s of millions out of poverty in the last few decades.The anti capitalists will refuse to tell you this.Its slow,cumbersome and not without its flaws.But no one has of yet has come up with a working replacement model that can achieve the same results.Some people have increased their wealth off the back of it,but so what.I refuse to be jealous about that while the system is slowly raising people out of poverty

Capitalism is the replacement model we need as what we have now is not capitalism. It has been *******ised, manipulated and morphed to suit those who control it.

I have no problem with people being rewarded and increasing their wealth, that is a wonderful thing but i would say that their should be a limit to the gap between rich and poor. Do you believe that a CEO should be earning 200 0r 300 times the amount of his average employee? There is plenty of evidence our their that this state of affairs has happened by those very same CEO's manipulating the market to allow them to pay themselves such astronomical amounts.

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/harvard-study-ceo-worker-pay-ratio-2014-9

As for raising people out of poverty, I just don't see this. Vast swathes of Africa and Asia have millions and millions living in poverty and i can't see that changing. Well not for the better anyway.

 

[beorhthelm]

Why should luck play a part at all when it comes to wealth? With a great political system, things would be fair - economically speaking, there could be no bad luck or good luck, people would be rewarded based on their contributions and abilities.

they already are gnerally. you just dont accept that those with wealth or earning high incomes are working hard. i dont know why or where you get this idea from, presumably some misguided sterotype. and what you are really saying is you want those who dont contribute as much to be given a chunk of the wealth/income of others anyway, because of your view of "fair" and "equality".

 

[BadFish]

they already are gnerally. you just dont accept that those with wealth or earning high incomes are working hard. i dont know why or where you get this idea from, presumably some misguided sterotype. and what you are really saying is you want those who dont contribute as much to be given a chunk of the wealth/income of others anyway, because of your view of "fair" and "equality".

Does a CEO work 200 times harder than his average employee?

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/harvard-study-ceo-worker-pay-ratio-2014-9

Is that your idea of 'fair' and 'equality'?

 

[Tarpon]

I think you need to accept that some people believe that your rewards in life are, and should directly correlate with your personal efforts and achievements,....... .

No inherited wealth then?

 

[BadFish]

No inherited wealth then?

Or the opportunities that inherited wealth affords you.

 

[pastafarian]

As for raising people out of poverty, I just don't see this.

There is not alot i can say about this,if you dont believe people have been raised out of poverty then you are seeing things through a different lens to me.There is hardly any point in me trying to persuade you its true.

 

[BadFish]

There is not alot i can say about this,if you dont believe people have been raised out of poverty then you are seeing things through a different lens to me.There is hardly any point in me trying to persuade you its true.

After doing a bit of research here I will concede this point as it shows that globally poverty rates are falling. However I am still convinced that they are not falling half as quickly as the bank accounts of the super rich are climbing.

I also wonder how those poverty rates would look if they took into account the debt that most of the world lives with.

 

[somerset]

No inherited wealth then?

As I expect and wish to hand over the fruits of my labours to my two offspring when my time comes, then why should I begrudge anybody else doing the same just because I may hand over an estate of say £400k.... and another may hand over millions.......I have spent my life cutting my cloth and my expectations to fit my circumstances.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

I would love to hear how right-wing minded people can justify their views.

You have made no secret of your contempt of foreign people, but when it comes to economic fairness - what is it about equality that you oppose? Even if it is for selfish reasons - don't you agree that the better off the rest of society is, the better off you and those you care about are too?

Oh give it a f**king rest with the anti-right wing clap trap will you. The world isn't that black and white. On some topics I would be considered to be left wing on others right wing - that doesn't make me any less caring for people less fortunate than myself. You seem to be taking a particularly crap poll seriously - many of those questions I couldn't answer properly with just a bullet next to 5 options - it was utterly ridiculous.

 

[BadFish]

As I expect and wish to hand over the fruits of my labours to my two offspring when my time comes, then why should I begrudge anybody else doing the same just because I may hand over an estate of say £400k.... and another may hand over millions.......I have spent my life cutting my cloth and my expectations to fit my circumstances.

So "our rewards in life are, and should directly correlate with your personal efforts and achievements,....... ." is not really correct. ones rewards in life are not directly correlated to personal effort and achievement alone but they are also linked to opportunity and circumstance.

 

[Wellesley]

...but the vast majority of the poor aren't lazy ****s, they're just unfortunate.

Your children, or your childrens' children might be unfortunate and poor one day too.

If we cared about strangers as much as we do our loved ones, the world would be an infinitely better place.

You're beautiful.

 

[pastafarian]

The richest 1% of people in Britain have as much wealth as the poorest 55%.
The richest 1,000 people in Britain increased their personal wealth by £260bn in five years, while average income falls by 6%.
The top 0.1% of earners in Britain now earn £2.7m a year - meanwhile people on low pay is up from 3.4m to 5.2m, 20% of the population.

sources please for these facts?