Tories whose dads are well off.

[elmarko]

Anyone who votes for the same party every election on the basis of partisan tribalism rather than an analysis of the manifestos and situation at the time is an idiot.

Unfortunately, that seems to be 90% of the country. I look forward to the day when people treat political parties more like brands you can choose depending on how you feel at the time rather than football teams which require slavish devotion.

So true.

But as that's not going to happen any-time soon I see it as a pretty major problem with democracy - that & the fact that so many people don't even vote - of those that do only a small minority are informed either way, then you have to remove the people who vote based on personal interest only (which pretty much leaves about 17 people of the entire electorate).

 

[krooton]

My parents are comfortable, but worked hard to get there (I grew up in SA, no benefits bro).

I'm equally liberal as I am conservative depending on the topic, but voted Lib-Dem last time after comparing manifestos.

 

[stockhausen]

Substitute "obscenely wealthy" for "well off" and you have the bulk of the current Tory cabinet who want to make sure that they maximise the differential between the rich and the poor.

"In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is King."​

/thread

 

[Hatter The Mad]

Substitute "obscenely wealthy" for "well off" and you have the bulk of the current Tory cabinet who want to make sure that they maximise the differential between the rich and the poor.

"In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is King."​

/thread

Why are you so against rich people in government? At least they'll have fewer distractions.

There is a reason why Labour scandals always involved money and Tory scandals always involvd sex

 

[Castiel]

My parents are comfortable, but worked hard to get there (I grew up in SA, no benefits bro).

I'm equally liberal as I am conservative depending on the topic, but voted Lib-Dem last time after comparing manifestos.

Are they white South Africans?

 

[shoes]

why has said charv with 10 kids and no job in that situation?

because obviously the system hasnt worked and your bad attitude and lack of understanding doesnt help..

i dont claim to understand why thats happened, but i also dont agree with tory logic..

i dont agree with people like your dad hording his money and not really helping towards the country or stupid opinions like yours about only charv kids bringing down the country when in fact your dad is doing more harm than the charv..

dont get me wrong, i hate charvs.. but they dont run the country, torys do.

Please tell me that is a troll post....

Believe me, the left wing approach to society is more harmful than stupid left wingers could ever possibly imagine. Promoting stupidity, ignorance, laziness, and general ****less behaviour is no way to progress.

I don't particularly have much time for poor people as is well known on this forum, as I've said before they are a blight on society, providing nothing more than a parasitical drain on resources for no good reason. And Labour love it, because it makes them wealthy.

 

[shoes]

Substitute "obscenely wealthy" for "well off" and you have the bulk of the current Tory cabinet who want to make sure that they maximise the differential between the rich and the poor.

"In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is King."​

/thread

Go on then stockhausen, I need cheering up this morning, how are they going about that?

 

[shoes]

I'm not a Tory and my dad is also dead. I'm quite sure he was not a Tory and was comfortable financially.
I voted Lib dem to "prove a point" I still have sleepless nights.

People like you should have their vote taken away from them, this is the pinnacle of what is wrong with democracy.

 

[MrMoonX]

tories sponging of daddies money since 1912

 

[elmarko]

People like you should have their vote taken away from them, this is the pinnacle of what is wrong with democracy.

As are the reactionary daily mail headline style opinions of the small minded.

 

[estebanrey]

Substitute "obscenely wealthy" for "well off" and you have the bulk of the current Tory cabinet who want to make sure that they maximise the differential between the rich and the poor.

"In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is King."​

/thread

The rich poor/gap is often quoted but seems to be the wrong thing to look at.

Take communist Russia as an extreme example, the rich poor gap was virtually zero but then everyone was poor.

Surely the only figure that counts is the wealth of the poor, if they are well paid and have a decent standard of living after that it doesn't matter what the richest earn does it?

What would you rather have?

Poorest earning £15k pa with richest earning £1m pa
Poorest earning £5k pa with richest earning £100k pa

The rich/poor gap is much bigger in the first example but then in that everyone is richer.

 

[Vespasian777]

Please tell me that is a troll post....

Believe me, the left wing approach to society is more harmful than stupid left wingers could ever possibly imagine. Promoting stupidity, ignorance, laziness, and general ****less behaviour is no way to progress.

I don't particularly have much time for poor people as is well known on this forum, as I've said before they are a blight on society, providing nothing more than a parasitical drain on resources for no good reason. And Labour love it, because it makes them wealthy.

"poor people are a blight on society". Wow. Do you vote tory, and are your parents well off? You answered earlier. It's a shame your parents aren't rich. They could have bought you a small banana republic. You've all the makings of a first rate dictator.

 

[Vespasian777]

why has said charv with 10 kids and no job in that situation?

because obviously the system hasnt worked and your bad attitude and lack of understanding doesnt help..

i dont claim to understand why thats happened, but i also dont agree with tory logic..

i dont agree with people like your dad hording his money and not really helping towards the country or stupid opinions like yours about only charv kids bringing down the country when in fact your dad is doing more harm than the charv..

dont get me wrong, i hate charvs.. but they dont run the country, torys do.

Good point Mickie.

 

[estebanrey]

Please tell me that is a troll post....

Believe me, the left wing approach to society is more harmful than stupid left wingers could ever possibly imagine. Promoting stupidity, ignorance, laziness, and general ****less behaviour is no way to progress.

I don't particularly have much time for poor people as is well known on this forum, as I've said before they are a blight on society, providing nothing more than a parasitical drain on resources for no good reason. And Labour love it, because it makes them wealthy.

This is a stupid opinion. Unless your dad has invented alchemy, or you are part of the aritocrisy and your wealth is based on the luck of inheritance and is tied up in assets, then rich people rely on poor people to fund their wealth by being part of the society that keeps their businesses going.

 

[elmarko]

The rich poor/gap is often quoted but seems to be the wrong thing to look at.

Take communist Russia as an extreme example, the rich poor gap was virtually zero but then everyone was poor.

No, quite a few people in soviet Russia enjoyed quite lavish wealth (at the expense of others).

Surely the only figure that counts is the wealth of the poor, if they are well paid and have a decent standard of living after that it doesn't matter what the richest earn does it?

What would you rather have?

Poorest earning £15k pa with richest earning £1m pa
Poorest earning £5k pa with richest earning £100k pa

The rich/poor gap is much bigger in the first example but then in that everyone is richer.

You seem to be confusing absolute poverty with relative poverty.

Living on the breadline whilst being surrounded by people living in opulence is very damaging to the human psyche & I'd imagine it's one of the key proponents in a vast amount of the negative behaviour in western society.

It also matters as the majority of the nation are poor, meaning the less the spending power of the public, the lower the demand for goods & services, the less jobs exist (I'm sure you can see how this spirals out of control).

Capitalism has & is being undone by it's own success, the greed of the top is strangling the spending power of the people & will result in a collapse of cyclic consumption.

There is no way of avoiding this without a significant restructure of the system or by changing to a different one.

 

[Vespasian777]

No, quite a few people in soviet Russia enjoyed quite lavish wealth (at the expense of others).

You seem to be confusing absolute poverty with relative poverty.

Living on the breadline whilst being surrounded by people living in opulence is very damaging to the human psyche & I'd imagine it's one of the key proponents in a vast amount of the negative behaviour in western society.

It also matters as the majority of the nation are poor, meaning the less the spending power of the public, the lower the demand for goods & services, the less jobs exist (I'm sure you can see how this spirals out of control).

Capitalism has & is being undone by it's own success, the greed of the top is strangling the spending power of the people & will result in a collapse of cyclic consumption.

There is no way of avoiding this without a significant restructure of the system or by changing to a different one.

That's a fantastic post.

 

[King Damager]

I'm a Tory and my dad is dead.

This post is so blunt. I kind of have to congratulate you on it.

Personally, a couple of years ago I was Lib Dem. Now I switch more so, but I think that's come about through me being older. I'm still young enough, that realistically I'm looking around and seeing what's going on, etc... Whilst I know a lot of the political histories, I want to see what it's like when leaders from the parties actually are in charge. If I like the guy in charge I'll keep voting for him. Otherwise I'll switch to someone else who I like.

I should clarify, that like means I agree with their policies, rather than necessarily like the person... Although that said, what 90% of politicians say is rubbish anyway...

I'm probably more likely to move over to Conservatism at the moment. If life goes the way I want it to, their policies will be most beneficial to me... Simples.

As for rich/poor gap yadayada.. I haven't read too much of the thread, but...

However in a nutshell, seeing as I'm doing an exam on it this afternoon...
Easterlin Paradox - Whilst we've seen GDP steadily increase over the past 50 years, general happiness levels, and stayed consistent. There's a few theories as to why, the most common being the concept of a rat race, or the hedonic treadmill. Ultimately though, national wealth has no impact upon your happiness.

Relative happiness however does matter. Studies show that if you gave someone the choice between giving them £100,000 and everyone else £200,000 or giving them £50,000 and everyone else £25,000 they'd pick the second choice. You compare your wealth to your peers, and that has an impact on your happiness.

There are however plenty more important factors that may impact upon ones happiness. Health, Relationships, and Employment status, all have a greater impact on ones level of happiness compared to a relative change in wealth.

kd

 

[estebanrey]

No, quite a few people in soviet Russia enjoyed quite lavish wealth (at the expense of others).

Which wasn't the point I was making. By general point was that communism eliminates the rich/poor gap but most people (excpet communists) agree that under that system everyone becomes poor.

You seem to be confusing absolute poverty with relative poverty.

No, I'm just repeating the argument Thatcher made to Simon Hughes when he started banging on about the rich/poor gap...

 

[elmarko]

Which wasn't the point I was making. By general point was that communism eliminates the rich/poor gap but most people (excpet communists) agree that under that system everyone becomes poor.

Well, in real communism nobody would be poor or rich, money would no longer part of the equation.

Communism is not synonymous with "reducing standard of living", just that historically it's never been implemented correctly & during the time of it's conception automation was not at the level required for it to function.

It was a nice idea but at the time, but it was foolhardy to try to make it into reality (with the constraints of the era).

 

[krooton]

Relative happiness however does matter. Studies show that if you gave someone the choice between giving them £100,000 and everyone else £200,000 or giving them £50,000 and everyone else £25,000 they'd pick the second choice. You compare your wealth to your peers, and that has an impact on your happiness.

Ignorance truly is bliss in that example, some people are stupid.