Tories whose dads are well off.

[Vespasian777]

Parents - One ill parent (one looking after the other full-time) so poor.

Myself - top 5%/10% for my age bracket, so pretty well off.

Parents - Labour

Myself - Pro technocracy, I don't believe in democracy due to fact that the public having a say on matters they have no experience or understanding is counter-productive (no political party fit's my preference).

Hate the Tory's for two significant reasons - firstly they are anti-change - without change things will never get better for the majority, our social evolution will stagnate without it.

Secondly the entire ideology of conservatism is based on a flawed & unscientific view of reality, people are biological predictable machines - responding to external stimuli, blaming people for being the product of a bad environment is not only pointless but exasperates the problems.

Conservative dogma is entrenched with religious concepts of self determination & right/wrong/work ethic etc - when the reality of complex social issues is not so simple - it suits people who wish to take credit for things which objectively they had no control over - as only a truly deluded narcissist would believe themselves to be "self made" knowing what we know now about human development.

Labour is guilty of something quite different, mainly into fooling the working class that they have a champion (when they don't).

Both main party's are far more authoritarian than I'd like, neither have any long term solutions to social problems & both have resided over the gap between the richest & poorest expanding in the UK.

I have to say elmarko1234, I'm very impressed with some of your articulations. There aren't any twisted untruths in them. Can you not start up a new political party, and sort out the shower we are stuck with?

 

[Dave M]

Out of curiosity, did you grow up in poverty?, or have you ever lived in poverty?.

As you sound very much like somebody who has never experienced what you are talking about.

The stress related to poverty has a real impact of the quality of the upbringing of the child, the fact the child is aware they are "very poor" is already damaging to the individuals self esteem.

I know not directed at me but as someone who didn't wear anything new until I was well into my teens and didn't have hot running water until I was 15 I feel qualified to answer.

Being poor doesn't make you stupid, damaged, broken or any of the other things you would like to attribute to it. Being poor and living within your means isn't too stressful either, trying to keep up with others and getting into debt will do that. Benefits *are* enough to live on, or they certainly were in the 80s and 90s.

All it does is increase the chance of that child to grow up making the same poor decisions, regardless as to how many people want to admit it, growing in poverty is one of the strongest indicators as to how somebody will turn out - self esteem being one of the key factors related to it (or lack of).

Well considering I came from a work-less benefits fed family in the conservative era my parents managed out of 5 kids to get 4 graduates and one musician. Self esteem isn't the key factor, the key factor is your father belting you black and blue if you don't do your school work.

Parents that don't care are the problem, it may be a learned trait but it has nothing to do with money even if it may correlate.

 

[bhavv]

Yeah because the 70s under Labour were great (Winter of Discontent) and it's not like the Tories improved country and made everyone richer, leaving Blair with one of the strongest economies we've ever had is it?

There are more parties that just Labour and Tories ya know.

 

[The Halk]

There are more parties that just Labour and Tories ya know.

He's talking about performance in government. There's not been a Liberal government for a very long time, and the current coalition is mainly Tory.

 

[estebanrey]

There are more parties that just Labour and Tories ya know.

Fair point.

 

[Vespasian777]

I know not directed at me but as someone who didn't wear anything new until I was well into my teens and didn't have hot running water until I was 15 I feel qualified to answer.

Being poor doesn't make you stupid, damaged, broken or any of the other things you would like to attribute to it. Being poor and living within your means isn't too stressful either, trying to keep up with others and getting into debt will do that. Benefits *are* enough to live on, or they certainly were in the 80s and 90s.



Well considering I came from a work-less benefits fed family in the conservative era my parents managed out of 5 kids to get 4 graduates and one musician. Self esteem isn't the key factor, the key factor is your father belting you black and blue if you don't do your school work.

Parents that don't care are the problem, it may be a learned trait but it has nothing to do with money even if it may correlate.

Parents that don't care are the problem? Ok, but money has got to do with everything mate. If we can manipulate money in ANY way, to assist us in eradicating parents that don't care, let's do it. Cos guess what, the more children we have with parents who don't care, the more of a slum our country becomes for the next generation. The fact that you are you, and you've done all right jack, is not an endorsement of tory policies. The fact that you are you, is in fact nothing to do with any tory policies or any of the problems this country faces. You haven't got a problem have you. That's the point. You're all right jack.

 

[Narj]

I am (at least for national elections) a Conservative voter. My dad was a gravedigger and my mum was a factory worker.

It annoys me when people vote for a party "because my parents did". There are probably not many other amazingly accurate indicators for lack of autonomous thought besides this one.

 

[Dave M]

Parents that don't care are the problem?

Absolutely

but money has got to do with everything mate. If we can manipulate money in ANY way, to assist us in eradicating parents that don't care, let's do it.

Enough money is crucial for many things in our society but benefits (never mind un-skilled work) is clearly enough to bring up a family and it also appears abundantly clear that money has nothing at all to do with a great many things.

You haven't got a problem have you. That's the point. You're all right jack.

It's dave not jack, and no, the point is why I am alright. Why get angry when presented with a demonstration that money isn't the determining factor in scripting your direction in life.

If you have one parent who cares that you do well, you will probably do well - surely that's a ringing endorsement for this country?

 

[estebanrey]

It's dave not jack, and no, the point is why I am alright.

No, it's not, unless you are making a satirical reference to David Cameron

 

[Biohazard]

It's dave not jack, and no, the point is why I am alright. Why get angry when presented with a demonstration that money isn't the determining factor in scripting your direction in life.

It's looking at the symptom [lack of money or opportunity], not the cause. I'm sure my left political persuasion is well known, yet taking it to a personal level and ignoring any cognative dissonance in even persons like myself, I firmly believe personal focus is the problem in many of these occurances. Hard to say on the internets definitively mind you. I do not discount personal circumstance at all, in fact I argue for it demographically quite strongly. But people can buck trends, you just have to try - individualistically speaking.

 

[Biohazard]

No, it's not, unless you are making a satirical reference to David Cameron

I think he's maybe giving reference to his own name there but...

 

[Vespasian777]

Absolutely



Enough money is crucial for many things in our society but benefits (never mind un-skilled work) is clearly enough to bring up a family and it also appears abundantly clear that money has nothing at all to do with a great many things.



It's dave not jack, and no, the point is why I am alright. Why get angry when presented with a demonstration that money isn't the determining factor in scripting your direction in life.

If you have one parent who cares that you do well, you will probably do well - surely that's a ringing endorsement for this country?

What if you haven't got a parent who wants you to do well? Will you probably do well or not? And would that be a ringing endorsement for this country? Or not? It shouldn't be that because it's enough to bring up a family ( Don't start on holidays and all that again ), that we just close off the debate about social and economic equality, as tories are prone to do, as they are invariably, all right jack. Explain why you're alright then, if that's the point. And please explain the "why get angry...." sentence, because I haven't got a clue what you're on about.

 

[Biohazard]

What if you haven't got a parent who wants you to do well? Will you probably do well or not? And would that be a ringing endorsement for this country? Or not? It shouldn't be that because it's enough to bring up a family ( Don't start on holidays and all that again ), that we just close off the debate about social and economic equality, as tories are prone to do, as they are invariably, all right jack. Explain why you're alright then, if that's the point. And please explain the "why get angry...." sentence, because I haven't got a clue what you're on about.

You do it for yourself.

The outcome of your success is largely in your own hands for the majority of people, the ability to suceed more easily than others is determined by the opportunity and birth afforded to you in some instances on varying levels.

It is very hard to quantify for an individual let alone society as a whole and none of it is really universal, this is the problem and this is why for us there is no easy answer to these problems.

I don't think getting everyone to explain their own motives and lives will achieve anything, and I don't think there is much correlation as infered in the OP. It is there, no doubt, but it isn't universal. Nor does it cover anything like changes on the political spectrum or floating voters, the disenfranchised and so forth.

Debate the topic, and while anecdotally interesting I can't see this discussion achieving much. Having said that I'm not convinced they ever do so..

I would add that I am as 'dirty left' and socialist as they come in comparison to others around here - yet you can't discount personal drive choice and determination anymore than you can luck fortune and chance.

 

[Bear]

Secondly the entire ideology of conservatism is based on a flawed & unscientific view of reality, people are biological predictable machines - responding to external stimuli, blaming people for being the product of a bad environment is not only pointless but exasperates the problems.

Conservative dogma is entrenched with religious concepts of self determination & right/wrong/work ethic etc - when the reality of complex social issues is not so simple - it suits people who wish to take credit for things which objectively they had no control over - as only a truly deluded narcissist would believe themselves to be "self made" knowing what we know now about human development.

But that is exactly what you do, you blame the people for being the product of a bad environment because that environment is being poor and hence you want to reduce income inequality to get rid of that environment.

I also disagree with you about right and wrong work ethic. When animals dont hunt for food, they dont eat, they dont eat they starve. Therefore it is never acceptable for an animal to choose to do nothing.

It is fantastic that society have evolved that it cares for those that fall on hard times or those that cant fend for themselves but a personal choice to do nothing at all is not acceptable. To think that people have no control over their own lives is as mich of a crock as saying that all poor people deserve to be poor.

 

[elmarko]

But that is exactly what you do, you blame the people for being the product of a bad environment because that environment is being poor and hence you want to reduce income inequality to get rid of that environment.

Not quite sure if you missed out a few words here.

I'm simply stating people are the product of a combination of environment & genetics, neither of which a person has any control over.

What's wrong with recognising the reality that if you want to change the next generation you have to change the environment.

I'm not saying that it will solve everything, parental ability is still a big factor - but I'm talking about thinks with are within the boundaries which the government HAS control over.

I fail to see the point in writing pages about things which the government has no control over.

I also disagree with you about right and wrong work ethic. When animals dont hunt for food, they dont eat, they dont eat they starve. Therefore it is never acceptable for an animal to choose to do nothing.

Working for a purpose is fine (real productivity), pointless work to keep the cogs of our capitalist ideology chugging isn't.

Firstly, comparing us to the other members of the animal kingdom is a waste of time - they don't have the ability to automate a significant amount of the labour.

Secondly, even if it wasn't pointless - animals do nothing all the time, watch a cat for a day & you will see that one (animals expend energy when it's required & only for a good reason - or for personal enjoyment).

I'll give you an example, once technology has made every single call centre operative in the UK redundant (which it will given time) - almost all of our data entry clerks & most retail goes on-line, how do you solve the problem of our population being much greater than the amount of jobs?.

Or another example, if somebody invented a machine that was capable of a process similar to star treks replicators, it would actually break capitalism (material objects lose almost all value & 90% of the work force is out of a job) - how absurd of a system that we live in that progress & advancement would break it?.

Technology is meant to free mankind for the burden of labour - that's it's purpose, something which we seem to forget.

It is fantastic that society have evolved that it cares for those that fall on hard times or those that cant fend for themselves but a personal choice to do nothing at all is not acceptable. To think that people have no control over their own lives is as mich of a crock as saying that all poor people deserve to be poor.

While I agree somebody choosing to do nothing isn't great - perhaps establishing why it is they are like that would be more productive than putting them (and by extension the children) into poverty.

Regarding those saying, being poor does not = a bad upbringing.

I'm talking about averages here, I'm not saying I can determine for a 100% fact how somebody will turn out based on social-economic class, but what I can do is predict with a much greater degree of accuracy than picking at random.

Averages don't apply to all cases, if they did I'd say "All children who grow up in poverty turn out bad" - which I didn't.

We do all know what averages are don't we?.

 

[elmarko]

I have to say elmarko1234, I'm very impressed with some of your articulations. There aren't any twisted untruths in them. Can you not start up a new political party, and sort out the shower we are stuck with?

Thanks,

But as part of the whole Technocracy style approach I'd be in favour of - I'm not qualified to run it (& neither should I or anybody else unqualified be allowed to) - I can make observations of the flaws in society but the skill-set required to enact them is at another level.

I'd vote in the scientific method of problem solving (as opposed to individuals) - with full peer review deciding who's theory's/concepts have the most merit based on evidence & logic.

 

[estebanrey]

I'll give you an example, once technology has made every single call centre operative in the UK redundant (which it will given time) - almost all of our data entry clerks & most retail goes on-line, how do you solve the problem of our population being much greater than the amount of jobs?.

Even if answering machines are taking the calls you'll still need people do deal with the queries at some point. You'd also create new businesses (and therefore jobs) in the sector that makes these machines and you'll also need people to maintain and update them.

Most of the car building process is now automated but you still need people to watch the machines, fix them and keep them going. You also need big companies to produce these robots which didn't exist before.

Or another example, if somebody invented a machine that was capable of a process similar to star treks replicators, it would actually break capitalism (material objects lose almost all value & 90% of the work force is out of a job) - how absurd of a system that we live in that progress & advancement would break it?.

So comparing humans to animals is silly, but citing the possibility that technology from science FICTION could become reality isn't?

 

[Narj]

Technology is meant to free mankind from the burden of labour - that's it's purpose, something which we seem to forget.

This is an excellent point. Well said.

You'd hope that eventually humanity would be able to live a life (mostly) of leisure thanks to technology, but I can't see it ever happening.

 

[elmarko]

Even if answering machines are taking the calls you'll still need people do deal with the queries at some point. You'd also create new businesses (and therefore jobs) in the sector that makes these machines and you'll also need people to maintain and update them.

Most of the car building process is now automated but you still need people to watch the machines, fix them and keep them going. You also need big companies to produce these robots which didn't exist before.

Did I say you won't need anybody to oversee it?.

Does the car building process take more or less people to build a car after automation? - I'll let you figure that one out.

The point is, you need less or no people to do the same jobs as technology progresses - we have already exhausted the primary & secondary sectors - we have become a service based economy.

Once the service sector is gone, what will everybody do? - this is the point I was making about "worthwhile work" VS "working for the sake of working".

So comparing humans to animals is silly, but citing the possibility that technology from science FICTION could become reality isn't?

I'm giving an example to show that certain technological leaps undermine the concept of "the work ethic".

If you look at the advancements of 3d printing we have already (manufacturing objects from base material in the fashion it's being done) then manufacturing will change, the intended function is what I was referencing - not the actual technology of the program.

Also you seem to have a blind spot for certain words, such as "example", "if" & "Similar".

 

[Dave M]

What if you haven't got a parent who wants you to do well? Will you probably do well or not? And would that be a ringing endorsement for this country? Or not?

It shows social mobility is real in the UK and just an idea. You don't need to be a special super-human guy to succeed just have a supportive environment at home. Rich parents is correlation, not causation, do you see?

It shouldn't be that because it's enough to bring up a family ( Don't start on holidays and all that again ), that we just close off the debate about social and economic equality

So it's not about being fed and happy, it's about collecting stuff? We have to re-adjust our global economic model so everyone can have a 50" tv and a bmw? How is every person on the planet going to have this standard of living? Shouldn't we focus on needs and not wants?

, as tories are prone to do, as they are invariably, all right jack. Explain why you're alright then, if that's the point. And please explain the "why get angry...." sentence, because I haven't got a clue what you're on about.

"A comment that indicates a selfish attitude. Not worried about any problems your friends and neighbours might have. Often associated with strikes and other trade union industrial actions."

You're right, anger is a wrong, bitter is more like it.