Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 ) | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Many are in the closet but let the mask slip from time-to-time (which all sounds perfect for a kink site )"You may think that but I've been called everything from 'far left' to 'far right'on this site. Just because someone may support the Tories in certain subjects, that doesn't make them a Tory. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't identify myself with a political party. Maybe with political ideologies, but even that keeps changing all the time. I was travelling during the last election. If I were here, I would have voted Tory. But planning to vote labour next election. " Plenty of people voted Tory last time out, I wouldn't automatically call them Tories. I definitely won't be voting Tory this time round. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't identify myself with a political party. Maybe with political ideologies, but even that keeps changing all the time. I was travelling during the last election. If I were here, I would have voted Tory. But planning to vote labour next election. Plenty of people voted Tory last time out, I wouldn't automatically call them Tories. I definitely won't be voting Tory this time round. " If everyone who voted Tories last time is a Tory, that's basically 43% of the population 
I hope we don't build a society where people will always vote for a party no matter what. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't identify myself with a political party. Maybe with political ideologies, but even that keeps changing all the time. I was travelling during the last election. If I were here, I would have voted Tory. But planning to vote labour next election. Plenty of people voted Tory last time out, I wouldn't automatically call them Tories. I definitely won't be voting Tory this time round. If everyone who voted Tories last time is a Tory, that's basically 43% of the population
I hope we don't build a society where people will always vote for a party no matter what."If you’re a leftist, there’s really no choice (except in a seat where there’s a strong green presence) | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't identify myself with a political party. Maybe with political ideologies, but even that keeps changing all the time. I was travelling during the last election. If I were here, I would have voted Tory. But planning to vote labour next election. Plenty of people voted Tory last time out, I wouldn't automatically call them Tories. I definitely won't be voting Tory this time round. If everyone who voted Tories last time is a Tory, that's basically 43% of the population
I hope we don't build a society where people will always vote for a party no matter what.
If you’re a leftist, there’s really no choice (except in a seat where there’s a strong green presence)"But Labour isn't really a leftist party anymore. And people do change their political ideologies over a period of time. I was a hardcore liberal leftist myself in my late teens and early twenties. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't identify myself with a political party. Maybe with political ideologies, but even that keeps changing all the time. I was travelling during the last election. If I were here, I would have voted Tory. But planning to vote labour next election. Plenty of people voted Tory last time out, I wouldn't automatically call them Tories. I definitely won't be voting Tory this time round. If everyone who voted Tories last time is a Tory, that's basically 43% of the population
I hope we don't build a society where people will always vote for a party no matter what.
If you’re a leftist, there’s really no choice (except in a seat where there’s a strong green presence)
But Labour isn't really a leftist party anymore. And people do change their political ideologies over a period of time. I was a hardcore liberal leftist myself in my late teens and early twenties."There's a strong corellation between getting older and no longer believing in rainbows and unicorns. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't identify myself with a political party. Maybe with political ideologies, but even that keeps changing all the time. I was travelling during the last election. If I were here, I would have voted Tory. But planning to vote labour next election. Plenty of people voted Tory last time out, I wouldn't automatically call them Tories. I definitely won't be voting Tory this time round. If everyone who voted Tories last time is a Tory, that's basically 43% of the population
I hope we don't build a society where people will always vote for a party no matter what.
If you’re a leftist, there’s really no choice (except in a seat where there’s a strong green presence)
But Labour isn't really a leftist party anymore. And people do change their political ideologies over a period of time. I was a hardcore liberal leftist myself in my late teens and early twenties."There is no viable alternative to labour for anyone in the left | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't identify myself with a political party. Maybe with political ideologies, but even that keeps changing all the time. I was travelling during the last election. If I were here, I would have voted Tory. But planning to vote labour next election. Plenty of people voted Tory last time out, I wouldn't automatically call them Tories. I definitely won't be voting Tory this time round. If everyone who voted Tories last time is a Tory, that's basically 43% of the population
I hope we don't build a society where people will always vote for a party no matter what.
If you’re a leftist, there’s really no choice (except in a seat where there’s a strong green presence)
But Labour isn't really a leftist party anymore. And people do change their political ideologies over a period of time. I was a hardcore liberal leftist myself in my late teens and early twenties.
There's a strong corellation between getting older and no longer believing in rainbows and unicorns. "I prefer to call it ‘empathy’ and having a ‘social conscience’, myself | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't identify myself with a political party. Maybe with political ideologies, but even that keeps changing all the time. I was travelling during the last election. If I were here, I would have voted Tory. But planning to vote labour next election. Plenty of people voted Tory last time out, I wouldn't automatically call them Tories. I definitely won't be voting Tory this time round. If everyone who voted Tories last time is a Tory, that's basically 43% of the population
I hope we don't build a society where people will always vote for a party no matter what.
If you’re a leftist, there’s really no choice (except in a seat where there’s a strong green presence)
But Labour isn't really a leftist party anymore. And people do change their political ideologies over a period of time. I was a hardcore liberal leftist myself in my late teens and early twenties.
There's a strong corellation between getting older and no longer believing in rainbows and unicorns. "Ha ha, I agree and see the reason why there is a trend of people moving away from the left as they get older. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't identify myself with a political party. Maybe with political ideologies, but even that keeps changing all the time. I was travelling during the last election. If I were here, I would have voted Tory. But planning to vote labour next election. Plenty of people voted Tory last time out, I wouldn't automatically call them Tories. I definitely won't be voting Tory this time round. If everyone who voted Tories last time is a Tory, that's basically 43% of the population
I hope we don't build a society where people will always vote for a party no matter what.
If you’re a leftist, there’s really no choice (except in a seat where there’s a strong green presence)
But Labour isn't really a leftist party anymore. And people do change their political ideologies over a period of time. I was a hardcore liberal leftist myself in my late teens and early twenties.
There's a strong corellation between getting older and no longer believing in rainbows and unicorns.
Ha ha, I agree and see the reason why there is a trend of people moving away from the left as they get older. "Empirical evidence actually suggests that attitudes are remarkably stable as people age, and that this is something of an urban myth - however those who do ‘change’ are more likely to be left to right rather than the reverse. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" There is no viable alternative to labour for anyone in the left" That statement makes itself true. If enough people on the left rejected that statement, it would no longer be true... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't identify myself with a political party. Maybe with political ideologies, but even that keeps changing all the time. I was travelling during the last election. If I were here, I would have voted Tory. But planning to vote labour next election. Plenty of people voted Tory last time out, I wouldn't automatically call them Tories. I definitely won't be voting Tory this time round. If everyone who voted Tories last time is a Tory, that's basically 43% of the population
I hope we don't build a society where people will always vote for a party no matter what.
If you’re a leftist, there’s really no choice (except in a seat where there’s a strong green presence)
But Labour isn't really a leftist party anymore. And people do change their political ideologies over a period of time. I was a hardcore liberal leftist myself in my late teens and early twenties.
There's a strong corellation between getting older and no longer believing in rainbows and unicorns.
Ha ha, I agree and see the reason why there is a trend of people moving away from the left as they get older. "Most people want more socialism when it involves taking more from categories they dont fall into. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't identify myself with a political party. Maybe with political ideologies, but even that keeps changing all the time. I was travelling during the last election. If I were here, I would have voted Tory. But planning to vote labour next election. Plenty of people voted Tory last time out, I wouldn't automatically call them Tories. I definitely won't be voting Tory this time round. If everyone who voted Tories last time is a Tory, that's basically 43% of the population
I hope we don't build a society where people will always vote for a party no matter what.
If you’re a leftist, there’s really no choice (except in a seat where there’s a strong green presence)
But Labour isn't really a leftist party anymore. And people do change their political ideologies over a period of time. I was a hardcore liberal leftist myself in my late teens and early twenties."I agree with this. I mean, no comment about your political journey. But that labour aren't really a leftist party anymore, and aren't offering and meaningful alternative. But I think that's down to the system of parliamentary democracy we have. The party with the most money conducts a slicker election campaign. And in order to get the donations the party has to represent the interests of those who can donate the most (ie not ordinary people). | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We've done political compass before but seeing as this place is awash with Tories... Come on, make yourself known. Rog & Pat need not bother, we already know "How do you define "a Tory"? Someone who is a party member? Someone who consistently votes for them? Someone who swings, but voted for them the past 2-3 elections? People who identify as right wing? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't identify myself with a political party. Maybe with political ideologies, but even that keeps changing all the time. I was travelling during the last election. If I were here, I would have voted Tory. But planning to vote labour next election. Plenty of people voted Tory last time out, I wouldn't automatically call them Tories. I definitely won't be voting Tory this time round. If everyone who voted Tories last time is a Tory, that's basically 43% of the population
I hope we don't build a society where people will always vote for a party no matter what.
If you’re a leftist, there’s really no choice (except in a seat where there’s a strong green presence)
But Labour isn't really a leftist party anymore. And people do change their political ideologies over a period of time. I was a hardcore liberal leftist myself in my late teens and early twenties.
There's a strong corellation between getting older and no longer believing in rainbows and unicorns.
Ha ha, I agree and see the reason why there is a trend of people moving away from the left as they get older.
Empirical evidence actually suggests that attitudes are remarkably stable as people age, and that this is something of an urban myth - however those who do ‘change’ are more likely to be left to right rather than the reverse.
"Why is every country's voter base heavily skewed towards the right with increasing age? Countries have had democracies for multiple generations now. We know that majority of the youngsters in universities are usually on the left. If they just retained their views to the end, we would be having a Corbyn government now. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't identify myself with a political party. Maybe with political ideologies, but even that keeps changing all the time. I was travelling during the last election. If I were here, I would have voted Tory. But planning to vote labour next election. Plenty of people voted Tory last time out, I wouldn't automatically call them Tories. I definitely won't be voting Tory this time round. If everyone who voted Tories last time is a Tory, that's basically 43% of the population
I hope we don't build a society where people will always vote for a party no matter what.
If you’re a leftist, there’s really no choice (except in a seat where there’s a strong green presence)
But Labour isn't really a leftist party anymore. And people do change their political ideologies over a period of time. I was a hardcore liberal leftist myself in my late teens and early twenties.
There's a strong corellation between getting older and no longer believing in rainbows and unicorns.
Ha ha, I agree and see the reason why there is a trend of people moving away from the left as they get older.
Most people want more socialism when it involves taking more from categories they dont fall into."That's definitely one of the many reasons. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We've done political compass before but seeing as this place is awash with Tories... Come on, make yourself known. Rog & Pat need not bother, we already know
How do you define "a Tory"?
Someone who is a party member? Someone who consistently votes for them? Someone who swings, but voted for them the past 2-3 elections? People who identify as right wing?"The question was aimed at self identification. I wasn't aiming to define them. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't identify myself with a political party. Maybe with political ideologies, but even that keeps changing all the time. I was travelling during the last election. If I were here, I would have voted Tory. But planning to vote labour next election. Plenty of people voted Tory last time out, I wouldn't automatically call them Tories. I definitely won't be voting Tory this time round. If everyone who voted Tories last time is a Tory, that's basically 43% of the population
I hope we don't build a society where people will always vote for a party no matter what.
If you’re a leftist, there’s really no choice (except in a seat where there’s a strong green presence)
But Labour isn't really a leftist party anymore. And people do change their political ideologies over a period of time. I was a hardcore liberal leftist myself in my late teens and early twenties.
I agree with this. I mean, no comment about your political journey. But that labour aren't really a leftist party anymore, and aren't offering and meaningful alternative.
But I think that's down to the system of parliamentary democracy we have. The party with the most money conducts a slicker election campaign. And in order to get the donations the party has to represent the interests of those who can donate the most (ie not ordinary people)."How did Corbyn get to lead Labour for multiple elections then? Politicians/parties are chameleons who change their colours based on what brings them the votes. If they find a political vacuum, they jump right into it. That's exactly what Starmer did. He knew that the failure of Tories would leave the moderates(majority of voters) in limbo. So he moved to the centre to grab their votes. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" There is no viable alternative to labour for anyone in the left That statement makes itself true. If enough people on the left rejected that statement, it would no longer be true..." But the problem is that initially as the left reorganise, it grants a long Tory rule by default. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't identify myself with a political party. Maybe with political ideologies, but even that keeps changing all the time. I was travelling during the last election. If I were here, I would have voted Tory. But planning to vote labour next election. Plenty of people voted Tory last time out, I wouldn't automatically call them Tories. I definitely won't be voting Tory this time round. If everyone who voted Tories last time is a Tory, that's basically 43% of the population
I hope we don't build a society where people will always vote for a party no matter what.
If you’re a leftist, there’s really no choice (except in a seat where there’s a strong green presence)
But Labour isn't really a leftist party anymore. And people do change their political ideologies over a period of time. I was a hardcore liberal leftist myself in my late teens and early twenties.
I agree with this. I mean, no comment about your political journey. But that labour aren't really a leftist party anymore, and aren't offering and meaningful alternative.
But I think that's down to the system of parliamentary democracy we have. The party with the most money conducts a slicker election campaign. And in order to get the donations the party has to represent the interests of those who can donate the most (ie not ordinary people).
How did Corbyn get to lead Labour for multiple elections then? Politicians/parties are chameleons who change their colours based on what brings them the votes. If they find a political vacuum, they jump right into it. That's exactly what Starmer did. He knew that the failure of Tories would leave the moderates(majority of voters) in limbo. So he moved to the centre to grab their votes."And in turn has alienated the actual left, as well as the Muslim vote over his Gaza stance. The problem here is you cannot ever please everyone, Keir should've stayed in the left lane and he would've romped home this time. He'll still win but it seems to be getting thinner by the day. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 . | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Many are in the closet but let the mask slip from time-to-time (which all sounds perfect for a kink site )
You may think that but I've been called everything from 'far left' to 'far right'on this site.
Just because someone may support the Tories in certain subjects, that doesn't make them a Tory. "Agreed. And the same if someone agrees with some of the Labour policies it doesn’t make them a “leftie” | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm not a Tory. I may look like one on paper, and tax bracket, but haven't even come close to voting right. I've also never voted labour I don't think. Nor irrc voted the same way in consecutive elections (other than spoiling) I've also never been accused of being far left (or right) despite feeling I'm probably one of the more lefties here. I must be doing something wrong . "I wouldn't put you in the leftie bracket, I'd put you in the measured, thoughtful bracket. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The whole reason that Labour lost the Red Wall is because their pro-worker stance was eclipsed by pro-LGBTQ+ and anti-West/White (in the eyes of the voters). While not problematic in and of itself, the sentiments of blue collar workers were being ignored in favour of "liberal elites". Case in point was the woman whom Gordon Brown called a bigot (on a hot mic) when she asked about immigration. It's been hard for Labour to recover trust from traditional Labour since then. Especially since their membership opened up and they absorbed various Lib Dems and Green/misc social activists." The ‘red wall’ was once Scotland. Us OG’s know that
The red wall were promised a Brexit panacea by some very very wealthy individuals who had no interest in the poorest and neediest in society. This was confounded by Johnson’s govt urging people not to let Labour stop their Brexit dreams.
The new ‘blue wall’ is made of tissue paper, and it’s raining. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Many are in the closet but let the mask slip from time-to-time (which all sounds perfect for a kink site )
You may think that but I've been called everything from 'far left' to 'far right'on this site.
Just because someone may support the Tories in certain subjects, that doesn't make them a Tory.
Agreed. And the same if someone agrees with some of the Labour policies it doesn’t make them a “leftie” "Good, because I agree with at least one of Corbyns policies | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I’ve always been a Conservative, the problem is that the Conservative Party hasn’t been for a very long time. As Reagan said about his transition from Democrat to Republican, “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left me”. All of the four main parties need a rebrand: The Conservatives aren’t Conservative Labour represents people who aren’t in the labouring classes. The Lib Dem’s are neither liberal nor democratic. The Scottish Nationalists have got no chance of making Scotland an independent nation so have no point. " Hell just froze over! Rog I agree with your last five sentences! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't identify myself with a political party. Maybe with political ideologies, but even that keeps changing all the time. I was travelling during the last election. If I were here, I would have voted Tory. But planning to vote labour next election. Plenty of people voted Tory last time out, I wouldn't automatically call them Tories. I definitely won't be voting Tory this time round. If everyone who voted Tories last time is a Tory, that's basically 43% of the population
I hope we don't build a society where people will always vote for a party no matter what.
If you’re a leftist, there’s really no choice (except in a seat where there’s a strong green presence)
But Labour isn't really a leftist party anymore. And people do change their political ideologies over a period of time. I was a hardcore liberal leftist myself in my late teens and early twenties.
I agree with this. I mean, no comment about your political journey. But that labour aren't really a leftist party anymore, and aren't offering and meaningful alternative.
But I think that's down to the system of parliamentary democracy we have. The party with the most money conducts a slicker election campaign. And in order to get the donations the party has to represent the interests of those who can donate the most (ie not ordinary people).
How did Corbyn get to lead Labour for multiple elections then? Politicians/parties are chameleons who change their colours based on what brings them the votes. If they find a political vacuum, they jump right into it. That's exactly what Starmer did. He knew that the failure of Tories would leave the moderates(majority of voters) in limbo. So he moved to the centre to grab their votes.
And in turn has alienated the actual left, as well as the Muslim vote over his Gaza stance.
The problem here is you cannot ever please everyone, Keir should've stayed in the left lane and he would've romped home this time. He'll still win but it seems to be getting thinner by the day. "I thinks what Keir did was right. You are correct that you can't please everyone. But Muslims votes aren't that big compared to the moderates votes. If he had stayed with Corbyn's policies, only part of the moderates would have moved to Labour. Another fun story on Labour trying to please all minorities - Majority of Indians used to vote Labour in the past. About a year before last election, they made a statement in favour of a referendum in Kashmir to appease Muslim votes. This pissed off the Indians and the majority started supporting Tories. Just before the election, they made an official statement changing their Kashmir stance to "The countries should try to reach a peaceful agreement". This pissed off some loud Kashmir separatist groups in UK and they started a campaign to vote against Labour. Not to mention the Islam vs LGBT battle they have in their backyards. I think Starmer realised that it doesn't make sense to appease Muslims at the cost of losing other groups. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't identify myself with a political party. Maybe with political ideologies, but even that keeps changing all the time. I was travelling during the last election. If I were here, I would have voted Tory. But planning to vote labour next election. Plenty of people voted Tory last time out, I wouldn't automatically call them Tories. I definitely won't be voting Tory this time round. If everyone who voted Tories last time is a Tory, that's basically 43% of the population
I hope we don't build a society where people will always vote for a party no matter what.
If you’re a leftist, there’s really no choice (except in a seat where there’s a strong green presence)
But Labour isn't really a leftist party anymore. And people do change their political ideologies over a period of time. I was a hardcore liberal leftist myself in my late teens and early twenties.
I agree with this. I mean, no comment about your political journey. But that labour aren't really a leftist party anymore, and aren't offering and meaningful alternative.
But I think that's down to the system of parliamentary democracy we have. The party with the most money conducts a slicker election campaign. And in order to get the donations the party has to represent the interests of those who can donate the most (ie not ordinary people).
How did Corbyn get to lead Labour for multiple elections then? Politicians/parties are chameleons who change their colours based on what brings them the votes. If they find a political vacuum, they jump right into it. That's exactly what Starmer did. He knew that the failure of Tories would leave the moderates(majority of voters) in limbo. So he moved to the centre to grab their votes.
And in turn has alienated the actual left, as well as the Muslim vote over his Gaza stance.
The problem here is you cannot ever please everyone, Keir should've stayed in the left lane and he would've romped home this time. He'll still win but it seems to be getting thinner by the day.
I thinks what Keir did was right. You are correct that you can't please everyone. But Muslims votes aren't that big compared to the moderates votes. If he had stayed with Corbyn's policies, only part of the moderates would have moved to Labour.
Another fun story on Labour trying to please all minorities - Majority of Indians used to vote Labour in the past. About a year before last election, they made a statement in favour of a referendum in Kashmir to appease Muslim votes. This pissed off the Indians and the majority started supporting Tories. Just before the election, they made an official statement changing their Kashmir stance to "The countries should try to reach a peaceful agreement". This pissed off some loud Kashmir separatist groups in UK and they started a campaign to vote against Labour.
Not to mention the Islam vs LGBT battle they have in their backyards. I think Starmer realised that it doesn't make sense to appease Muslims at the cost of losing other groups."I agree that if you were to put the 3 together then moderates outweigh muslims. However, most moderates don't bother to vote. That brings it much closer together imo. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't identify myself with a political party. Maybe with political ideologies, but even that keeps changing all the time. I was travelling during the last election. If I were here, I would have voted Tory. But planning to vote labour next election. Plenty of people voted Tory last time out, I wouldn't automatically call them Tories. I definitely won't be voting Tory this time round. If everyone who voted Tories last time is a Tory, that's basically 43% of the population
I hope we don't build a society where people will always vote for a party no matter what.
If you’re a leftist, there’s really no choice (except in a seat where there’s a strong green presence)
But Labour isn't really a leftist party anymore. And people do change their political ideologies over a period of time. I was a hardcore liberal leftist myself in my late teens and early twenties.
I agree with this. I mean, no comment about your political journey. But that labour aren't really a leftist party anymore, and aren't offering and meaningful alternative.
But I think that's down to the system of parliamentary democracy we have. The party with the most money conducts a slicker election campaign. And in order to get the donations the party has to represent the interests of those who can donate the most (ie not ordinary people).
How did Corbyn get to lead Labour for multiple elections then? Politicians/parties are chameleons who change their colours based on what brings them the votes. If they find a political vacuum, they jump right into it. That's exactly what Starmer did. He knew that the failure of Tories would leave the moderates(majority of voters) in limbo. So he moved to the centre to grab their votes."Corbyn is a good example. Did well at first, was offering an alternative, then wasn't allowed anywhere near power. Starmer is moving to where the donations are. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't identify myself with a political party. Maybe with political ideologies, but even that keeps changing all the time. I was travelling during the last election. If I were here, I would have voted Tory. But planning to vote labour next election. Plenty of people voted Tory last time out, I wouldn't automatically call them Tories. I definitely won't be voting Tory this time round. If everyone who voted Tories last time is a Tory, that's basically 43% of the population
I hope we don't build a society where people will always vote for a party no matter what.
If you’re a leftist, there’s really no choice (except in a seat where there’s a strong green presence)
But Labour isn't really a leftist party anymore. And people do change their political ideologies over a period of time. I was a hardcore liberal leftist myself in my late teens and early twenties.
I agree with this. I mean, no comment about your political journey. But that labour aren't really a leftist party anymore, and aren't offering and meaningful alternative.
But I think that's down to the system of parliamentary democracy we have. The party with the most money conducts a slicker election campaign. And in order to get the donations the party has to represent the interests of those who can donate the most (ie not ordinary people).
How did Corbyn get to lead Labour for multiple elections then? Politicians/parties are chameleons who change their colours based on what brings them the votes. If they find a political vacuum, they jump right into it. That's exactly what Starmer did. He knew that the failure of Tories would leave the moderates(majority of voters) in limbo. So he moved to the centre to grab their votes.
And in turn has alienated the actual left, as well as the Muslim vote over his Gaza stance.
The problem here is you cannot ever please everyone, Keir should've stayed in the left lane and he would've romped home this time. He'll still win but it seems to be getting thinner by the day.
I thinks what Keir did was right. You are correct that you can't please everyone. But Muslims votes aren't that big compared to the moderates votes. If he had stayed with Corbyn's policies, only part of the moderates would have moved to Labour.
Another fun story on Labour trying to please all minorities - Majority of Indians used to vote Labour in the past. About a year before last election, they made a statement in favour of a referendum in Kashmir to appease Muslim votes. This pissed off the Indians and the majority started supporting Tories. Just before the election, they made an official statement changing their Kashmir stance to "The countries should try to reach a peaceful agreement". This pissed off some loud Kashmir separatist groups in UK and they started a campaign to vote against Labour.
Not to mention the Islam vs LGBT battle they have in their backyards. I think Starmer realised that it doesn't make sense to appease Muslims at the cost of losing other groups.
I agree that if you were to put the 3 together then moderates outweigh muslims.
However, most moderates don't bother to vote. That brings it much closer together imo. "Even if a sizeable percentage of moderates do not vote, I think it's still much bigger than the Muslims votes. And Muslims don't really have a better option either. And Starmer deciding not to appease Muslims has opened up an opportunity to reach out to Indians again. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/feb/01/labour-trying-reconnect-british-indians-fears-support-slumped The guy is playing 4D chess. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't identify myself with a political party. Maybe with political ideologies, but even that keeps changing all the time. I was travelling during the last election. If I were here, I would have voted Tory. But planning to vote labour next election. Plenty of people voted Tory last time out, I wouldn't automatically call them Tories. I definitely won't be voting Tory this time round. If everyone who voted Tories last time is a Tory, that's basically 43% of the population
I hope we don't build a society where people will always vote for a party no matter what.
If you’re a leftist, there’s really no choice (except in a seat where there’s a strong green presence)
But Labour isn't really a leftist party anymore. And people do change their political ideologies over a period of time. I was a hardcore liberal leftist myself in my late teens and early twenties.
I agree with this. I mean, no comment about your political journey. But that labour aren't really a leftist party anymore, and aren't offering and meaningful alternative.
But I think that's down to the system of parliamentary democracy we have. The party with the most money conducts a slicker election campaign. And in order to get the donations the party has to represent the interests of those who can donate the most (ie not ordinary people).
How did Corbyn get to lead Labour for multiple elections then? Politicians/parties are chameleons who change their colours based on what brings them the votes. If they find a political vacuum, they jump right into it. That's exactly what Starmer did. He knew that the failure of Tories would leave the moderates(majority of voters) in limbo. So he moved to the centre to grab their votes.
Corbyn is a good example. Did well at first, was offering an alternative, then wasn't allowed anywhere near power.
Starmer is moving to where the donations are."If Starmer moves towards Corbyn's policies now, he will lose a sizeable lead and the next election will be very close. While donations may have played a part, the biggest reason is to attract votes. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't identify myself with a political party. Maybe with political ideologies, but even that keeps changing all the time. I was travelling during the last election. If I were here, I would have voted Tory. But planning to vote labour next election. Plenty of people voted Tory last time out, I wouldn't automatically call them Tories. I definitely won't be voting Tory this time round. If everyone who voted Tories last time is a Tory, that's basically 43% of the population
I hope we don't build a society where people will always vote for a party no matter what.
If you’re a leftist, there’s really no choice (except in a seat where there’s a strong green presence)
But Labour isn't really a leftist party anymore. And people do change their political ideologies over a period of time. I was a hardcore liberal leftist myself in my late teens and early twenties.
I agree with this. I mean, no comment about your political journey. But that labour aren't really a leftist party anymore, and aren't offering and meaningful alternative.
But I think that's down to the system of parliamentary democracy we have. The party with the most money conducts a slicker election campaign. And in order to get the donations the party has to represent the interests of those who can donate the most (ie not ordinary people).
How did Corbyn get to lead Labour for multiple elections then? Politicians/parties are chameleons who change their colours based on what brings them the votes. If they find a political vacuum, they jump right into it. That's exactly what Starmer did. He knew that the failure of Tories would leave the moderates(majority of voters) in limbo. So he moved to the centre to grab their votes.
Corbyn is a good example. Did well at first, was offering an alternative, then wasn't allowed anywhere near power.
Starmer is moving to where the donations are.
If Starmer moves towards Corbyn's policies now, he will lose a sizeable lead and the next election will be very close. While donations may have played a part, the biggest reason is to attract votes."Policies polled individually weren’t Corbyn’s problem - the policies were popular overall. It was Corbyn/momentum who were the problem. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We've done political compass before but seeing as this place is awash with Tories... Come on, make yourself known. Rog & Pat need not bother, we already know "Fuck no | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We've done political compass before but seeing as this place is awash with Tories... Come on, make yourself known. Rog & Pat need not bother, we already know "I have voted Tory mostly in the past ( and I'm a basic rate tax payer) but will not be at the next GE. Doubt I will vote Labour either as they are basically the Tories in disguise though I agree it is a tactic that will work for them. Not sure if this makes me a Tory especially as I will not lend them my vote next time but if it does then so be it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We've done political compass before but seeing as this place is awash with Tories... Come on, make yourself known. Rog & Pat need not bother, we already know
I have voted Tory mostly in the past ( and I'm a basic rate tax payer) but will not be at the next GE. Doubt I will vote Labour either as they are basically the Tories in disguise though I agree it is a tactic that will work for them. Not sure if this makes me a Tory especially as I will not lend them my vote next time but if it does then so be it."What made you change your mind between the last election, and this? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We've done political compass before but seeing as this place is awash with Tories... Come on, make yourself known. Rog & Pat need not bother, we already know
I have voted Tory mostly in the past ( and I'm a basic rate tax payer) but will not be at the next GE. Doubt I will vote Labour either as they are basically the Tories in disguise though I agree it is a tactic that will work for them. Not sure if this makes me a Tory especially as I will not lend them my vote next time but if it does then so be it.
What made you change your mind between the last election, and this?"The stunning arguments presented in the forum, such as “I wouldn’t fuck a Tory” and all Tories are narcissistic bigots who love racism, fascists and hitler. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We've done political compass before but seeing as this place is awash with Tories... Come on, make yourself known. Rog & Pat need not bother, we already know
I have voted Tory mostly in the past ( and I'm a basic rate tax payer) but will not be at the next GE. Doubt I will vote Labour either as they are basically the Tories in disguise though I agree it is a tactic that will work for them. Not sure if this makes me a Tory especially as I will not lend them my vote next time but if it does then so be it.
What made you change your mind between the last election, and this?
The stunning arguments presented in the forum, such as “I wouldn’t fuck a Tory” and all Tories are narcissistic bigots who love racism, fascists and hitler." | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We've done political compass before but seeing as this place is awash with Tories... Come on, make yourself known. Rog & Pat need not bother, we already know "I'm a voter whose opinions are more Tory but the current representation of the Tory party doesn't work for me. I'm also not one of those "I've always voted this way so can't vote for anyone else". | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't identify myself with a political party. Maybe with political ideologies, but even that keeps changing all the time. I was travelling during the last election. If I were here, I would have voted Tory. But planning to vote labour next election. Plenty of people voted Tory last time out, I wouldn't automatically call them Tories. I definitely won't be voting Tory this time round. If everyone who voted Tories last time is a Tory, that's basically 43% of the population
I hope we don't build a society where people will always vote for a party no matter what.
If you’re a leftist, there’s really no choice (except in a seat where there’s a strong green presence)
But Labour isn't really a leftist party anymore. And people do change their political ideologies over a period of time. I was a hardcore liberal leftist myself in my late teens and early twenties.
I agree with this. I mean, no comment about your political journey. But that labour aren't really a leftist party anymore, and aren't offering and meaningful alternative.
But I think that's down to the system of parliamentary democracy we have. The party with the most money conducts a slicker election campaign. And in order to get the donations the party has to represent the interests of those who can donate the most (ie not ordinary people).
How did Corbyn get to lead Labour for multiple elections then? Politicians/parties are chameleons who change their colours based on what brings them the votes. If they find a political vacuum, they jump right into it. That's exactly what Starmer did. He knew that the failure of Tories would leave the moderates(majority of voters) in limbo. So he moved to the centre to grab their votes.
Corbyn is a good example. Did well at first, was offering an alternative, then wasn't allowed anywhere near power.
Starmer is moving to where the donations are.
If Starmer moves towards Corbyn's policies now, he will lose a sizeable lead and the next election will be very close. While donations may have played a part, the biggest reason is to attract votes."True. But for anyone who wants change from the status quo. It's pretty pointless voting for them. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We've done political compass before but seeing as this place is awash with Tories... Come on, make yourself known. Rog & Pat need not bother, we already know
I have voted Tory mostly in the past ( and I'm a basic rate tax payer) but will not be at the next GE. Doubt I will vote Labour either as they are basically the Tories in disguise though I agree it is a tactic that will work for them. Not sure if this makes me a Tory especially as I will not lend them my vote next time but if it does then so be it.
What made you change your mind between the last election, and this?"To put it simply it was centred around Boris and the various scandals. I realise that could be seen as unfair given he was 2 PM's ago but I made my decision and will carry it through. I do view Sunak as an improvement but in general the party needs a good shake up and reset. If I had to predict then I expect to be voting for them again in the future but no idea how far into the future that will be. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't identify myself with a political party. Maybe with political ideologies, but even that keeps changing all the time. I was travelling during the last election. If I were here, I would have voted Tory. But planning to vote labour next election. Plenty of people voted Tory last time out, I wouldn't automatically call them Tories. I definitely won't be voting Tory this time round. If everyone who voted Tories last time is a Tory, that's basically 43% of the population
I hope we don't build a society where people will always vote for a party no matter what.
If you’re a leftist, there’s really no choice (except in a seat where there’s a strong green presence)
But Labour isn't really a leftist party anymore. And people do change their political ideologies over a period of time. I was a hardcore liberal leftist myself in my late teens and early twenties.
There's a strong corellation between getting older and no longer believing in rainbows and unicorns.
Ha ha, I agree and see the reason why there is a trend of people moving away from the left as they get older. "Studies have shown people of millennial age and younger to be getting more left as they now approaching middle age. So the trend of old people being "Conservative" is quite possibly a dying concept. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't identify myself with a political party. Maybe with political ideologies, but even that keeps changing all the time. I was travelling during the last election. If I were here, I would have voted Tory. But planning to vote labour next election. Plenty of people voted Tory last time out, I wouldn't automatically call them Tories. I definitely won't be voting Tory this time round. If everyone who voted Tories last time is a Tory, that's basically 43% of the population
I hope we don't build a society where people will always vote for a party no matter what.
If you’re a leftist, there’s really no choice (except in a seat where there’s a strong green presence)
But Labour isn't really a leftist party anymore. And people do change their political ideologies over a period of time. I was a hardcore liberal leftist myself in my late teens and early twenties.
There's a strong corellation between getting older and no longer believing in rainbows and unicorns.
Ha ha, I agree and see the reason why there is a trend of people moving away from the left as they get older.
Studies have shown people of millennial age and younger to be getting more left as they now approaching middle age. So the trend of old people being "Conservative" is quite possibly a dying concept. "In which country were the studies done? In UK, if you do the survey right now, many will obviously move towards the left because the conservatives have been ruling for over a decade, they fucked up and there is widespread anti-incumbency feeling. For the same reason, youngsters in Canada are turning more right wing. These are temporary trends. If you look at long term trends, people do turn more conservative as they get older. Some reasons for it - People start earning more as they get older. So they learn to hate higher taxes for high earners - People start admiring some conservative values if they get a good family - Once they have kids, they start seeing issues like crimes more seriously. For a single person, the guys selling dr*gs near your home isn't a big problem. But if you have kids, they are a problem. You start wanting the government to be more stricter against crime. - This is just me - Once you get more and more exposure in life and learn more economics, you start seeing why socialism will not work. Of course there will be outliers. Also, if we as a society destroy the concept of family, the above reasons will stop making sense, which may well be the reason why the movement to conservatism as people get older may have slowed down recently. Less and less people are having kids or even getting married for that matter. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't identify myself with a political party. Maybe with political ideologies, but even that keeps changing all the time. I was travelling during the last election. If I were here, I would have voted Tory. But planning to vote labour next election. Plenty of people voted Tory last time out, I wouldn't automatically call them Tories. I definitely won't be voting Tory this time round. If everyone who voted Tories last time is a Tory, that's basically 43% of the population
I hope we don't build a society where people will always vote for a party no matter what.
If you’re a leftist, there’s really no choice (except in a seat where there’s a strong green presence)
But Labour isn't really a leftist party anymore. And people do change their political ideologies over a period of time. I was a hardcore liberal leftist myself in my late teens and early twenties.
There's a strong corellation between getting older and no longer believing in rainbows and unicorns.
Ha ha, I agree and see the reason why there is a trend of people moving away from the left as they get older.
Studies have shown people of millennial age and younger to be getting more left as they now approaching middle age. So the trend of old people being "Conservative" is quite possibly a dying concept.
In which country were the studies done? In UK, if you do the survey right now, many will obviously move towards the left because the conservatives have been ruling for over a decade, they fucked up and there is widespread anti-incumbency feeling. For the same reason, youngsters in Canada are turning more right wing.
These are temporary trends. If you look at long term trends, people do turn more conservative as they get older. Some reasons for it
- People start earning more as they get older. So they learn to hate higher taxes for high earners
- People start admiring some conservative values if they get a good family
- Once they have kids, they start seeing issues like crimes more seriously. For a single person, the guys selling dr*gs near your home isn't a big problem. But if you have kids, they are a problem. You start wanting the government to be more stricter against crime.
- This is just me - Once you get more and more exposure in life and learn more economics, you start seeing why socialism will not work.
Of course there will be outliers. Also, if we as a society destroy the concept of family, the above reasons will stop making sense, which may well be the reason why the movement to conservatism as people get older may have slowed down recently. Less and less people are having kids or even getting married for that matter."Most research reveals that the age-related left to right shift is a myth - most people retain their overall views for life - though admittedly of the minority who do shift, left to right is far more common than right to left. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
I blame brexit | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't identify myself with a political party. Maybe with political ideologies, but even that keeps changing all the time. I was travelling during the last election. If I were here, I would have voted Tory. But planning to vote labour next election. Plenty of people voted Tory last time out, I wouldn't automatically call them Tories. I definitely won't be voting Tory this time round. If everyone who voted Tories last time is a Tory, that's basically 43% of the population
I hope we don't build a society where people will always vote for a party no matter what.
If you’re a leftist, there’s really no choice (except in a seat where there’s a strong green presence)
But Labour isn't really a leftist party anymore. And people do change their political ideologies over a period of time. I was a hardcore liberal leftist myself in my late teens and early twenties.
There's a strong corellation between getting older and no longer believing in rainbows and unicorns.
Ha ha, I agree and see the reason why there is a trend of people moving away from the left as they get older.
Studies have shown people of millennial age and younger to be getting more left as they now approaching middle age. So the trend of old people being "Conservative" is quite possibly a dying concept.
In which country were the studies done? In UK, if you do the survey right now, many will obviously move towards the left because the conservatives have been ruling for over a decade, they fucked up and there is widespread anti-incumbency feeling. For the same reason, youngsters in Canada are turning more right wing.
These are temporary trends. If you look at long term trends, people do turn more conservative as they get older. Some reasons for it
- People start earning more as they get older. So they learn to hate higher taxes for high earners
- People start admiring some conservative values if they get a good family
- Once they have kids, they start seeing issues like crimes more seriously. For a single person, the guys selling dr*gs near your home isn't a big problem. But if you have kids, they are a problem. You start wanting the government to be more stricter against crime.
- This is just me - Once you get more and more exposure in life and learn more economics, you start seeing why socialism will not work.
Of course there will be outliers. Also, if we as a society destroy the concept of family, the above reasons will stop making sense, which may well be the reason why the movement to conservatism as people get older may have slowed down recently. Less and less people are having kids or even getting married for that matter.
Most research reveals that the age-related left to right shift is a myth - most people retain their overall views for life - though admittedly of the minority who do shift, left to right is far more common than right to left.""Most researches" For every research that you can find that people's views don't change, I can find researches that show they do change. Social trends are easily deceptive in that way. At least in my circles, both my school and university friends have massively swayed either to centrism or full on conservatism when they grew up. I am pretty sure most of us will laugh at the strong political opinions we had when we were in universities. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't identify myself with a political party. Maybe with political ideologies, but even that keeps changing all the time. I was travelling during the last election. If I were here, I would have voted Tory. But planning to vote labour next election. Plenty of people voted Tory last time out, I wouldn't automatically call them Tories. I definitely won't be voting Tory this time round. If everyone who voted Tories last time is a Tory, that's basically 43% of the population
I hope we don't build a society where people will always vote for a party no matter what.
If you’re a leftist, there’s really no choice (except in a seat where there’s a strong green presence)
But Labour isn't really a leftist party anymore. And people do change their political ideologies over a period of time. I was a hardcore liberal leftist myself in my late teens and early twenties.
There's a strong corellation between getting older and no longer believing in rainbows and unicorns.
Ha ha, I agree and see the reason why there is a trend of people moving away from the left as they get older.
Studies have shown people of millennial age and younger to be getting more left as they now approaching middle age. So the trend of old people being "Conservative" is quite possibly a dying concept.
In which country were the studies done? In UK, if you do the survey right now, many will obviously move towards the left because the conservatives have been ruling for over a decade, they fucked up and there is widespread anti-incumbency feeling. For the same reason, youngsters in Canada are turning more right wing.
These are temporary trends. If you look at long term trends, people do turn more conservative as they get older. Some reasons for it
- People start earning more as they get older. So they learn to hate higher taxes for high earners
- People start admiring some conservative values if they get a good family
- Once they have kids, they start seeing issues like crimes more seriously. For a single person, the guys selling dr*gs near your home isn't a big problem. But if you have kids, they are a problem. You start wanting the government to be more stricter against crime.
- This is just me - Once you get more and more exposure in life and learn more economics, you start seeing why socialism will not work.
Of course there will be outliers. Also, if we as a society destroy the concept of family, the above reasons will stop making sense, which may well be the reason why the movement to conservatism as people get older may have slowed down recently. Less and less people are having kids or even getting married for that matter."I will be honest, only really take notice of UK politics, seems a waste of time to be bothered about other countries government and that's how I see it. You state these reasons as absolute truths, but they're considered from that point of view. In fact they're literally from a stand out selfish view, which I know is not how every "conservative" could be described, that is just too linear of a person. For instance; people earn more as they get older. This is not always true in real terms, historically women haven't been big earners or working as much as until the last 30 years and this has almost always been the case. The concept that as you get older, more promotions, more training, experience that can entitle better pay is true, but only in relation to some. There's many, as I would think more the majority that don't climb this ladder of fortune. It's an outdated concept in this world of huge human population and automation from generations that saw the world as; the harder you work the more you earn. But the biggest problem with that what you said is this classic (wild) statement that socialism is 1. A left only implementation 2. Doesn't work 3. The biggest misconceptions is that it is confused with communism in some way. This is because sending every child to school is a socialist concept, not to forget hospitals, police, social security etc etc are socialist ideals. You could argue they are run in capitalist free market forms and in other countries this can go either way, again, not interested in other countries for the argument of GB. But most definitely Education of a nation is solely a socialist concept. People not having kids isn't really political, I don't see what the relevance of it is in this. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't identify myself with a political party. Maybe with political ideologies, but even that keeps changing all the time. I was travelling during the last election. If I were here, I would have voted Tory. But planning to vote labour next election. Plenty of people voted Tory last time out, I wouldn't automatically call them Tories. I definitely won't be voting Tory this time round. If everyone who voted Tories last time is a Tory, that's basically 43% of the population
I hope we don't build a society where people will always vote for a party no matter what.
If you’re a leftist, there’s really no choice (except in a seat where there’s a strong green presence)
But Labour isn't really a leftist party anymore. And people do change their political ideologies over a period of time. I was a hardcore liberal leftist myself in my late teens and early twenties.
There's a strong corellation between getting older and no longer believing in rainbows and unicorns.
Ha ha, I agree and see the reason why there is a trend of people moving away from the left as they get older.
Studies have shown people of millennial age and younger to be getting more left as they now approaching middle age. So the trend of old people being "Conservative" is quite possibly a dying concept.
In which country were the studies done? In UK, if you do the survey right now, many will obviously move towards the left because the conservatives have been ruling for over a decade, they fucked up and there is widespread anti-incumbency feeling. For the same reason, youngsters in Canada are turning more right wing.
These are temporary trends. If you look at long term trends, people do turn more conservative as they get older. Some reasons for it
- People start earning more as they get older. So they learn to hate higher taxes for high earners
- People start admiring some conservative values if they get a good family
- Once they have kids, they start seeing issues like crimes more seriously. For a single person, the guys selling dr*gs near your home isn't a big problem. But if you have kids, they are a problem. You start wanting the government to be more stricter against crime.
- This is just me - Once you get more and more exposure in life and learn more economics, you start seeing why socialism will not work.
Of course there will be outliers. Also, if we as a society destroy the concept of family, the above reasons will stop making sense, which may well be the reason why the movement to conservatism as people get older may have slowed down recently. Less and less people are having kids or even getting married for that matter.
Most research reveals that the age-related left to right shift is a myth - most people retain their overall views for life - though admittedly of the minority who do shift, left to right is far more common than right to left.
"Most researches" For every research that you can find that people's views don't change, I can find researches that show they do change. Social trends are easily deceptive in that way. At least in my circles, both my school and university friends have massively swayed either to centrism or full on conservatism when they grew up. I am pretty sure most of us will laugh at the strong political opinions we had when we were in universities."Your anecdotes are not data though. Many peope seem to struggle with that concept. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't identify myself with a political party. Maybe with political ideologies, but even that keeps changing all the time. I was travelling during the last election. If I were here, I would have voted Tory. But planning to vote labour next election. Plenty of people voted Tory last time out, I wouldn't automatically call them Tories. I definitely won't be voting Tory this time round. If everyone who voted Tories last time is a Tory, that's basically 43% of the population
I hope we don't build a society where people will always vote for a party no matter what.
If you’re a leftist, there’s really no choice (except in a seat where there’s a strong green presence)
But Labour isn't really a leftist party anymore. And people do change their political ideologies over a period of time. I was a hardcore liberal leftist myself in my late teens and early twenties.
There's a strong corellation between getting older and no longer believing in rainbows and unicorns.
Ha ha, I agree and see the reason why there is a trend of people moving away from the left as they get older.
Studies have shown people of millennial age and younger to be getting more left as they now approaching middle age. So the trend of old people being "Conservative" is quite possibly a dying concept.
In which country were the studies done? In UK, if you do the survey right now, many will obviously move towards the left because the conservatives have been ruling for over a decade, they fucked up and there is widespread anti-incumbency feeling. For the same reason, youngsters in Canada are turning more right wing.
These are temporary trends. If you look at long term trends, people do turn more conservative as they get older. Some reasons for it
- People start earning more as they get older. So they learn to hate higher taxes for high earners
- People start admiring some conservative values if they get a good family
- Once they have kids, they start seeing issues like crimes more seriously. For a single person, the guys selling dr*gs near your home isn't a big problem. But if you have kids, they are a problem. You start wanting the government to be more stricter against crime.
- This is just me - Once you get more and more exposure in life and learn more economics, you start seeing why socialism will not work.
Of course there will be outliers. Also, if we as a society destroy the concept of family, the above reasons will stop making sense, which may well be the reason why the movement to conservatism as people get older may have slowed down recently. Less and less people are having kids or even getting married for that matter.
Most research reveals that the age-related left to right shift is a myth - most people retain their overall views for life - though admittedly of the minority who do shift, left to right is far more common than right to left.
"Most researches" For every research that you can find that people's views don't change, I can find researches that show they do change. Social trends are easily deceptive in that way. At least in my circles, both my school and university friends have massively swayed either to centrism or full on conservatism when they grew up. I am pretty sure most of us will laugh at the strong political opinions we had when we were in universities.
Your anecdotes are not data though. Many peope seem to struggle with that concept."You are cherrypicking what I said. I mentioned something about the "researches" you said and then went on to give my anecdotal experience. You are the one struggling here. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't identify myself with a political party. Maybe with political ideologies, but even that keeps changing all the time. I was travelling during the last election. If I were here, I would have voted Tory. But planning to vote labour next election. Plenty of people voted Tory last time out, I wouldn't automatically call them Tories. I definitely won't be voting Tory this time round. If everyone who voted Tories last time is a Tory, that's basically 43% of the population
I hope we don't build a society where people will always vote for a party no matter what.
If you’re a leftist, there’s really no choice (except in a seat where there’s a strong green presence)
But Labour isn't really a leftist party anymore. And people do change their political ideologies over a period of time. I was a hardcore liberal leftist myself in my late teens and early twenties.
There's a strong corellation between getting older and no longer believing in rainbows and unicorns.
Ha ha, I agree and see the reason why there is a trend of people moving away from the left as they get older.
Studies have shown people of millennial age and younger to be getting more left as they now approaching middle age. So the trend of old people being "Conservative" is quite possibly a dying concept.
In which country were the studies done? In UK, if you do the survey right now, many will obviously move towards the left because the conservatives have been ruling for over a decade, they fucked up and there is widespread anti-incumbency feeling. For the same reason, youngsters in Canada are turning more right wing.
These are temporary trends. If you look at long term trends, people do turn more conservative as they get older. Some reasons for it
- People start earning more as they get older. So they learn to hate higher taxes for high earners
- People start admiring some conservative values if they get a good family
- Once they have kids, they start seeing issues like crimes more seriously. For a single person, the guys selling dr*gs near your home isn't a big problem. But if you have kids, they are a problem. You start wanting the government to be more stricter against crime.
- This is just me - Once you get more and more exposure in life and learn more economics, you start seeing why socialism will not work.
Of course there will be outliers. Also, if we as a society destroy the concept of family, the above reasons will stop making sense, which may well be the reason why the movement to conservatism as people get older may have slowed down recently. Less and less people are having kids or even getting married for that matter.
I will be honest, only really take notice of UK politics, seems a waste of time to be bothered about other countries government and that's how I see it.
You state these reasons as absolute truths, but they're considered from that point of view. In fact they're literally from a stand out selfish view, which I know is not how every "conservative" could be described, that is just too linear of a person.
For instance; people earn more as they get older. This is not always true in real terms, historically women haven't been big earners or working as much as until the last 30 years and this has almost always been the case. The concept that as you get older, more promotions, more training, experience that can entitle better pay is true, but only in relation to some. There's many, as I would think more the majority that don't climb this ladder of fortune. It's an outdated concept in this world of huge human population and automation from generations that saw the world as; the harder you work the more you earn.
But the biggest problem with that what you said is this classic (wild) statement that socialism is 1. A left only implementation 2. Doesn't work 3. The biggest misconceptions is that it is confused with communism in some way. This is because sending every child to school is a socialist concept, not to forget hospitals, police, social security etc etc are socialist ideals. You could argue they are run in capitalist free market forms and in other countries this can go either way, again, not interested in other countries for the argument of GB. But most definitely Education of a nation is solely a socialist concept.
People not having kids isn't really political, I don't see what the relevance of it is in this."The majority of people will earn more, and will have more disposable income as they get older. Costs in manufacturing drop, in many cases making items many time less expensive some years down the line. TV's, microwaves, computers, food items etc tend to follow that path. People tend to be conservative with their money as they get older too. Now that of course is not the case for everyone, but everyone has the opportunity to achieve this. Society needs a structure so many of the things you say are socialist, police, schools etc are part of an infrastructure that is required for any healthy nation, regardless of political persuasion. How they are managed and the policies they adhere too are influenced by political bias. People not having children is a huge political problem, I can't understand how you could not see that? Pensions, services, manufacturing, military and everything else that makes a strong nation would start to decline removing the ability of that nation to trade and service itself. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't identify myself with a political party. Maybe with political ideologies, but even that keeps changing all the time. I was travelling during the last election. If I were here, I would have voted Tory. But planning to vote labour next election. Plenty of people voted Tory last time out, I wouldn't automatically call them Tories. I definitely won't be voting Tory this time round. If everyone who voted Tories last time is a Tory, that's basically 43% of the population
I hope we don't build a society where people will always vote for a party no matter what.
If you’re a leftist, there’s really no choice (except in a seat where there’s a strong green presence)
But Labour isn't really a leftist party anymore. And people do change their political ideologies over a period of time. I was a hardcore liberal leftist myself in my late teens and early twenties.
There's a strong corellation between getting older and no longer believing in rainbows and unicorns.
Ha ha, I agree and see the reason why there is a trend of people moving away from the left as they get older.
Studies have shown people of millennial age and younger to be getting more left as they now approaching middle age. So the trend of old people being "Conservative" is quite possibly a dying concept.
In which country were the studies done? In UK, if you do the survey right now, many will obviously move towards the left because the conservatives have been ruling for over a decade, they fucked up and there is widespread anti-incumbency feeling. For the same reason, youngsters in Canada are turning more right wing.
These are temporary trends. If you look at long term trends, people do turn more conservative as they get older. Some reasons for it
- People start earning more as they get older. So they learn to hate higher taxes for high earners
- People start admiring some conservative values if they get a good family
- Once they have kids, they start seeing issues like crimes more seriously. For a single person, the guys selling dr*gs near your home isn't a big problem. But if you have kids, they are a problem. You start wanting the government to be more stricter against crime.
- This is just me - Once you get more and more exposure in life and learn more economics, you start seeing why socialism will not work.
Of course there will be outliers. Also, if we as a society destroy the concept of family, the above reasons will stop making sense, which may well be the reason why the movement to conservatism as people get older may have slowed down recently. Less and less people are having kids or even getting married for that matter.
Most research reveals that the age-related left to right shift is a myth - most people retain their overall views for life - though admittedly of the minority who do shift, left to right is far more common than right to left.
"Most researches" For every research that you can find that people's views don't change, I can find researches that show they do change. Social trends are easily deceptive in that way. At least in my circles, both my school and university friends have massively swayed either to centrism or full on conservatism when they grew up. I am pretty sure most of us will laugh at the strong political opinions we had when we were in universities.
Your anecdotes are not data though. Many peope seem to struggle with that concept.
You are cherrypicking what I said. I mentioned something about the "researches" you said and then went on to give my anecdotal experience. You are the one struggling here."Am I? Because I’m the one who discussed research, and you’re the one who said ‘but muh friends’ I’m sure that once upon a time the notion of age leading people to turn conservative rang true - that’s how stereotypes come to fruition. But data suggests that it’s no longer correct. Feel free to look it up. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't identify myself with a political party. Maybe with political ideologies, but even that keeps changing all the time. I was travelling during the last election. If I were here, I would have voted Tory. But planning to vote labour next election. Plenty of people voted Tory last time out, I wouldn't automatically call them Tories. I definitely won't be voting Tory this time round. If everyone who voted Tories last time is a Tory, that's basically 43% of the population
I hope we don't build a society where people will always vote for a party no matter what.
If you’re a leftist, there’s really no choice (except in a seat where there’s a strong green presence)
But Labour isn't really a leftist party anymore. And people do change their political ideologies over a period of time. I was a hardcore liberal leftist myself in my late teens and early twenties.
There's a strong corellation between getting older and no longer believing in rainbows and unicorns.
Ha ha, I agree and see the reason why there is a trend of people moving away from the left as they get older.
Studies have shown people of millennial age and younger to be getting more left as they now approaching middle age. So the trend of old people being "Conservative" is quite possibly a dying concept.
In which country were the studies done? In UK, if you do the survey right now, many will obviously move towards the left because the conservatives have been ruling for over a decade, they fucked up and there is widespread anti-incumbency feeling. For the same reason, youngsters in Canada are turning more right wing.
These are temporary trends. If you look at long term trends, people do turn more conservative as they get older. Some reasons for it
- People start earning more as they get older. So they learn to hate higher taxes for high earners
- People start admiring some conservative values if they get a good family
- Once they have kids, they start seeing issues like crimes more seriously. For a single person, the guys selling dr*gs near your home isn't a big problem. But if you have kids, they are a problem. You start wanting the government to be more stricter against crime.
- This is just me - Once you get more and more exposure in life and learn more economics, you start seeing why socialism will not work.
Of course there will be outliers. Also, if we as a society destroy the concept of family, the above reasons will stop making sense, which may well be the reason why the movement to conservatism as people get older may have slowed down recently. Less and less people are having kids or even getting married for that matter.
Most research reveals that the age-related left to right shift is a myth - most people retain their overall views for life - though admittedly of the minority who do shift, left to right is far more common than right to left.
"Most researches" For every research that you can find that people's views don't change, I can find researches that show they do change. Social trends are easily deceptive in that way. At least in my circles, both my school and university friends have massively swayed either to centrism or full on conservatism when they grew up. I am pretty sure most of us will laugh at the strong political opinions we had when we were in universities.
Your anecdotes are not data though. Many peope seem to struggle with that concept.
You are cherrypicking what I said. I mentioned something about the "researches" you said and then went on to give my anecdotal experience. You are the one struggling here.
Am I? Because I’m the one who discussed research, and you’re the one who said ‘but muh friends’
I’m sure that once upon a time the notion of age leading people to turn conservative rang true - that’s how stereotypes come to fruition. But data suggests that it’s no longer correct.
Feel free to look it up. "The tories have held office for 30 years during the last 50 years. They are still in power and have been for the last 14 years, how does your research tie in with the facts? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't identify myself with a political party. Maybe with political ideologies, but even that keeps changing all the time. I was travelling during the last election. If I were here, I would have voted Tory. But planning to vote labour next election. Plenty of people voted Tory last time out, I wouldn't automatically call them Tories. I definitely won't be voting Tory this time round. If everyone who voted Tories last time is a Tory, that's basically 43% of the population
I hope we don't build a society where people will always vote for a party no matter what.
If you’re a leftist, there’s really no choice (except in a seat where there’s a strong green presence)
But Labour isn't really a leftist party anymore. And people do change their political ideologies over a period of time. I was a hardcore liberal leftist myself in my late teens and early twenties.
There's a strong corellation between getting older and no longer believing in rainbows and unicorns.
Ha ha, I agree and see the reason why there is a trend of people moving away from the left as they get older.
Studies have shown people of millennial age and younger to be getting more left as they now approaching middle age. So the trend of old people being "Conservative" is quite possibly a dying concept.
In which country were the studies done? In UK, if you do the survey right now, many will obviously move towards the left because the conservatives have been ruling for over a decade, they fucked up and there is widespread anti-incumbency feeling. For the same reason, youngsters in Canada are turning more right wing.
These are temporary trends. If you look at long term trends, people do turn more conservative as they get older. Some reasons for it
- People start earning more as they get older. So they learn to hate higher taxes for high earners
- People start admiring some conservative values if they get a good family
- Once they have kids, they start seeing issues like crimes more seriously. For a single person, the guys selling dr*gs near your home isn't a big problem. But if you have kids, they are a problem. You start wanting the government to be more stricter against crime.
- This is just me - Once you get more and more exposure in life and learn more economics, you start seeing why socialism will not work.
Of course there will be outliers. Also, if we as a society destroy the concept of family, the above reasons will stop making sense, which may well be the reason why the movement to conservatism as people get older may have slowed down recently. Less and less people are having kids or even getting married for that matter.
Most research reveals that the age-related left to right shift is a myth - most people retain their overall views for life - though admittedly of the minority who do shift, left to right is far more common than right to left.
"Most researches" For every research that you can find that people's views don't change, I can find researches that show they do change. Social trends are easily deceptive in that way. At least in my circles, both my school and university friends have massively swayed either to centrism or full on conservatism when they grew up. I am pretty sure most of us will laugh at the strong political opinions we had when we were in universities.
Your anecdotes are not data though. Many peope seem to struggle with that concept.
You are cherrypicking what I said. I mentioned something about the "researches" you said and then went on to give my anecdotal experience. You are the one struggling here.
Am I? Because I’m the one who discussed research, and you’re the one who said ‘but muh friends’
I’m sure that once upon a time the notion of age leading people to turn conservative rang true - that’s how stereotypes come to fruition. But data suggests that it’s no longer correct.
Feel free to look it up. "It looks like you are the one struggling to read. I clearly said that for every research that you say proves one thing, I can find a research that proves the opposite. "Research" when it comes to social studies have been regularly shown to be biased themselves. At this point, we should not even consider them science because it's an insult to science. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't identify myself with a political party. Maybe with political ideologies, but even that keeps changing all the time. I was travelling during the last election. If I were here, I would have voted Tory. But planning to vote labour next election. Plenty of people voted Tory last time out, I wouldn't automatically call them Tories. I definitely won't be voting Tory this time round. If everyone who voted Tories last time is a Tory, that's basically 43% of the population
I hope we don't build a society where people will always vote for a party no matter what.
If you’re a leftist, there’s really no choice (except in a seat where there’s a strong green presence)
But Labour isn't really a leftist party anymore. And people do change their political ideologies over a period of time. I was a hardcore liberal leftist myself in my late teens and early twenties.
There's a strong corellation between getting older and no longer believing in rainbows and unicorns.
Ha ha, I agree and see the reason why there is a trend of people moving away from the left as they get older.
Studies have shown people of millennial age and younger to be getting more left as they now approaching middle age. So the trend of old people being "Conservative" is quite possibly a dying concept.
In which country were the studies done? In UK, if you do the survey right now, many will obviously move towards the left because the conservatives have been ruling for over a decade, they fucked up and there is widespread anti-incumbency feeling. For the same reason, youngsters in Canada are turning more right wing.
These are temporary trends. If you look at long term trends, people do turn more conservative as they get older. Some reasons for it
- People start earning more as they get older. So they learn to hate higher taxes for high earners
- People start admiring some conservative values if they get a good family
- Once they have kids, they start seeing issues like crimes more seriously. For a single person, the guys selling dr*gs near your home isn't a big problem. But if you have kids, they are a problem. You start wanting the government to be more stricter against crime.
- This is just me - Once you get more and more exposure in life and learn more economics, you start seeing why socialism will not work.
Of course there will be outliers. Also, if we as a society destroy the concept of family, the above reasons will stop making sense, which may well be the reason why the movement to conservatism as people get older may have slowed down recently. Less and less people are having kids or even getting married for that matter.
Most research reveals that the age-related left to right shift is a myth - most people retain their overall views for life - though admittedly of the minority who do shift, left to right is far more common than right to left.
"Most researches" For every research that you can find that people's views don't change, I can find researches that show they do change. Social trends are easily deceptive in that way. At least in my circles, both my school and university friends have massively swayed either to centrism or full on conservatism when they grew up. I am pretty sure most of us will laugh at the strong political opinions we had when we were in universities.
Your anecdotes are not data though. Many peope seem to struggle with that concept.
You are cherrypicking what I said. I mentioned something about the "researches" you said and then went on to give my anecdotal experience. You are the one struggling here.
Am I? Because I’m the one who discussed research, and you’re the one who said ‘but muh friends’
I’m sure that once upon a time the notion of age leading people to turn conservative rang true - that’s how stereotypes come to fruition. But data suggests that it’s no longer correct.
Feel free to look it up.
The tories have held office for 30 years during the last 50 years.
They are still in power and have been for the last 14 years, how does your research tie in with the facts?
"Did I say Tory? I said Conservative (in the political sense). In purely party political terms, the Tory base is an increasingly decreasing sector of predominantly 55+ (I think the only group of whom a majority self-identify as Tories is 65+ but I’d need to check the figures on that) Election results under FPTP aren’t a particularly reliable form of data - remember that in 2019 more people voted for second referendum backing parties than Brexit ones, and Johnson still got an enormous majority. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't identify myself with a political party. Maybe with political ideologies, but even that keeps changing all the time. I was travelling during the last election. If I were here, I would have voted Tory. But planning to vote labour next election. Plenty of people voted Tory last time out, I wouldn't automatically call them Tories. I definitely won't be voting Tory this time round. If everyone who voted Tories last time is a Tory, that's basically 43% of the population
I hope we don't build a society where people will always vote for a party no matter what.
If you’re a leftist, there’s really no choice (except in a seat where there’s a strong green presence)
But Labour isn't really a leftist party anymore. And people do change their political ideologies over a period of time. I was a hardcore liberal leftist myself in my late teens and early twenties.
There's a strong corellation between getting older and no longer believing in rainbows and unicorns.
Ha ha, I agree and see the reason why there is a trend of people moving away from the left as they get older.
Studies have shown people of millennial age and younger to be getting more left as they now approaching middle age. So the trend of old people being "Conservative" is quite possibly a dying concept.
In which country were the studies done? In UK, if you do the survey right now, many will obviously move towards the left because the conservatives have been ruling for over a decade, they fucked up and there is widespread anti-incumbency feeling. For the same reason, youngsters in Canada are turning more right wing.
These are temporary trends. If you look at long term trends, people do turn more conservative as they get older. Some reasons for it
- People start earning more as they get older. So they learn to hate higher taxes for high earners
- People start admiring some conservative values if they get a good family
- Once they have kids, they start seeing issues like crimes more seriously. For a single person, the guys selling dr*gs near your home isn't a big problem. But if you have kids, they are a problem. You start wanting the government to be more stricter against crime.
- This is just me - Once you get more and more exposure in life and learn more economics, you start seeing why socialism will not work.
Of course there will be outliers. Also, if we as a society destroy the concept of family, the above reasons will stop making sense, which may well be the reason why the movement to conservatism as people get older may have slowed down recently. Less and less people are having kids or even getting married for that matter.
Most research reveals that the age-related left to right shift is a myth - most people retain their overall views for life - though admittedly of the minority who do shift, left to right is far more common than right to left.
"Most researches" For every research that you can find that people's views don't change, I can find researches that show they do change. Social trends are easily deceptive in that way. At least in my circles, both my school and university friends have massively swayed either to centrism or full on conservatism when they grew up. I am pretty sure most of us will laugh at the strong political opinions we had when we were in universities.
Your anecdotes are not data though. Many peope seem to struggle with that concept.
You are cherrypicking what I said. I mentioned something about the "researches" you said and then went on to give my anecdotal experience. You are the one struggling here.
Am I? Because I’m the one who discussed research, and you’re the one who said ‘but muh friends’
I’m sure that once upon a time the notion of age leading people to turn conservative rang true - that’s how stereotypes come to fruition. But data suggests that it’s no longer correct.
Feel free to look it up.
It looks like you are the one struggling to read. I clearly said that for every research that you say proves one thing, I can find a research that proves the opposite.
"Research" when it comes to social studies have been regularly shown to be biased themselves. At this point, we should not even consider them science because it's an insult to science."I’m aware of your claim about counter research, but you’ve not actually backed it up - which means it’s your opinion. I’ve looked into this as something of a political nerd, the data appears to hold true. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't identify myself with a political party. Maybe with political ideologies, but even that keeps changing all the time. I was travelling during the last election. If I were here, I would have voted Tory. But planning to vote labour next election. Plenty of people voted Tory last time out, I wouldn't automatically call them Tories. I definitely won't be voting Tory this time round. If everyone who voted Tories last time is a Tory, that's basically 43% of the population
I hope we don't build a society where people will always vote for a party no matter what.
If you’re a leftist, there’s really no choice (except in a seat where there’s a strong green presence)
But Labour isn't really a leftist party anymore. And people do change their political ideologies over a period of time. I was a hardcore liberal leftist myself in my late teens and early twenties.
There's a strong corellation between getting older and no longer believing in rainbows and unicorns.
Ha ha, I agree and see the reason why there is a trend of people moving away from the left as they get older.
Studies have shown people of millennial age and younger to be getting more left as they now approaching middle age. So the trend of old people being "Conservative" is quite possibly a dying concept.
In which country were the studies done? In UK, if you do the survey right now, many will obviously move towards the left because the conservatives have been ruling for over a decade, they fucked up and there is widespread anti-incumbency feeling. For the same reason, youngsters in Canada are turning more right wing.
These are temporary trends. If you look at long term trends, people do turn more conservative as they get older. Some reasons for it
- People start earning more as they get older. So they learn to hate higher taxes for high earners
- People start admiring some conservative values if they get a good family
- Once they have kids, they start seeing issues like crimes more seriously. For a single person, the guys selling dr*gs near your home isn't a big problem. But if you have kids, they are a problem. You start wanting the government to be more stricter against crime.
- This is just me - Once you get more and more exposure in life and learn more economics, you start seeing why socialism will not work.
Of course there will be outliers. Also, if we as a society destroy the concept of family, the above reasons will stop making sense, which may well be the reason why the movement to conservatism as people get older may have slowed down recently. Less and less people are having kids or even getting married for that matter.
Most research reveals that the age-related left to right shift is a myth - most people retain their overall views for life - though admittedly of the minority who do shift, left to right is far more common than right to left.
"Most researches" For every research that you can find that people's views don't change, I can find researches that show they do change. Social trends are easily deceptive in that way. At least in my circles, both my school and university friends have massively swayed either to centrism or full on conservatism when they grew up. I am pretty sure most of us will laugh at the strong political opinions we had when we were in universities.
Your anecdotes are not data though. Many peope seem to struggle with that concept.
You are cherrypicking what I said. I mentioned something about the "researches" you said and then went on to give my anecdotal experience. You are the one struggling here.
Am I? Because I’m the one who discussed research, and you’re the one who said ‘but muh friends’
I’m sure that once upon a time the notion of age leading people to turn conservative rang true - that’s how stereotypes come to fruition. But data suggests that it’s no longer correct.
Feel free to look it up.
The tories have held office for 30 years during the last 50 years.
They are still in power and have been for the last 14 years, how does your research tie in with the facts?
Did I say Tory? I said Conservative (in the political sense).
In purely party political terms, the Tory base is an increasingly decreasing sector of predominantly 55+ (I think the only group of whom a majority self-identify as Tories is 65+ but I’d need to check the figures on that)
Election results under FPTP aren’t a particularly reliable form of data - remember that in 2019 more people voted for second referendum backing parties than Brexit ones, and Johnson still got an enormous majority."If a person becomes more conservative with age I would expect them to change their voting patterns, or the fact of becoming more conservative brings no gain or loss. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't identify myself with a political party. Maybe with political ideologies, but even that keeps changing all the time. I was travelling during the last election. If I were here, I would have voted Tory. But planning to vote labour next election. Plenty of people voted Tory last time out, I wouldn't automatically call them Tories. I definitely won't be voting Tory this time round. If everyone who voted Tories last time is a Tory, that's basically 43% of the population
I hope we don't build a society where people will always vote for a party no matter what.
If you’re a leftist, there’s really no choice (except in a seat where there’s a strong green presence)
But Labour isn't really a leftist party anymore. And people do change their political ideologies over a period of time. I was a hardcore liberal leftist myself in my late teens and early twenties.
There's a strong corellation between getting older and no longer believing in rainbows and unicorns.
Ha ha, I agree and see the reason why there is a trend of people moving away from the left as they get older.
Studies have shown people of millennial age and younger to be getting more left as they now approaching middle age. So the trend of old people being "Conservative" is quite possibly a dying concept.
In which country were the studies done? In UK, if you do the survey right now, many will obviously move towards the left because the conservatives have been ruling for over a decade, they fucked up and there is widespread anti-incumbency feeling. For the same reason, youngsters in Canada are turning more right wing.
These are temporary trends. If you look at long term trends, people do turn more conservative as they get older. Some reasons for it
- People start earning more as they get older. So they learn to hate higher taxes for high earners
- People start admiring some conservative values if they get a good family
- Once they have kids, they start seeing issues like crimes more seriously. For a single person, the guys selling dr*gs near your home isn't a big problem. But if you have kids, they are a problem. You start wanting the government to be more stricter against crime.
- This is just me - Once you get more and more exposure in life and learn more economics, you start seeing why socialism will not work.
Of course there will be outliers. Also, if we as a society destroy the concept of family, the above reasons will stop making sense, which may well be the reason why the movement to conservatism as people get older may have slowed down recently. Less and less people are having kids or even getting married for that matter.
Most research reveals that the age-related left to right shift is a myth - most people retain their overall views for life - though admittedly of the minority who do shift, left to right is far more common than right to left.
"Most researches" For every research that you can find that people's views don't change, I can find researches that show they do change. Social trends are easily deceptive in that way. At least in my circles, both my school and university friends have massively swayed either to centrism or full on conservatism when they grew up. I am pretty sure most of us will laugh at the strong political opinions we had when we were in universities.
Your anecdotes are not data though. Many peope seem to struggle with that concept.
You are cherrypicking what I said. I mentioned something about the "researches" you said and then went on to give my anecdotal experience. You are the one struggling here.
Am I? Because I’m the one who discussed research, and you’re the one who said ‘but muh friends’
I’m sure that once upon a time the notion of age leading people to turn conservative rang true - that’s how stereotypes come to fruition. But data suggests that it’s no longer correct.
Feel free to look it up.
It looks like you are the one struggling to read. I clearly said that for every research that you say proves one thing, I can find a research that proves the opposite.
"Research" when it comes to social studies have been regularly shown to be biased themselves. At this point, we should not even consider them science because it's an insult to science.
I’m aware of your claim about counter research, but you’ve not actually backed it up - which means it’s your opinion.
I’ve looked into this as something of a political nerd, the data appears to hold true.
"Bit rich asking me for counter research data when you haven't shared any yourself. Anyway, not sure which links will get me banned from posting Search for "Age and vote choice" and "Conservatism is good for you: Cultural conservatism protects self-esteem in older adults" topic in science direct. Now I don't trust these researches blindly either. Most researches start by saying that all empirical studies have been inconclusive. IMO there are multiple reasons why people become conservative as they get old. I pointed it out in my post. I also pointed out that you can slow down the trend by destroying the concept of familes. If you have logical reasons to deny it, feel free to do so. If you want to pick random social study "research" to prove the point, I can also provide a random social study "research" to prove my point. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" People not having children is a huge political problem, I can't understand how you could not see that? Pensions, services, manufacturing, military and everything else that makes a strong nation would start to decline removing the ability of that nation to trade and service itself." I said people not having children isn't political, as a response to family, that's not politics nor are they correct. Didn’t say it's not a problem to politics, because it probably is. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We've done political compass before but seeing as this place is awash with Tories... Come on, make yourself known. Rog & Pat need not bother, we already know "I don't you know what you are - you just follow the usual popularist tripe | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We've done political compass before but seeing as this place is awash with Tories... Come on, make yourself known. Rog & Pat need not bother, we already know
I don't you know what you are - you just follow the usual popularist tripe"You can lump me in with the Tories, many others do. Someone else for you to hate | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We've done political compass before but seeing as this place is awash with Tories... Come on, make yourself known. Rog & Pat need not bother, we already know "Not a Tory, no. There’s no one more masochistic than a working class Tory. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We've done political compass before but seeing as this place is awash with Tories... Come on, make yourself known. Rog & Pat need not bother, we already know
I don't you know what you are - you just follow the usual popularist tripe
You can lump me in with the Tories, many others do. Someone else for you to hate "Your not though.. you lurch around cherry picking, you don't know what your are either | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We've done political compass before but seeing as this place is awash with Tories... Come on, make yourself known. Rog & Pat need not bother, we already know
I don't you know what you are - you just follow the usual popularist tripe
You can lump me in with the Tories, many others do. Someone else for you to hate "You should start the "sheople party" you'd be ideal | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We've done political compass before but seeing as this place is awash with Tories... Come on, make yourself known. Rog & Pat need not bother, we already know
I don't you know what you are - you just follow the usual popularist tripe
You can lump me in with the Tories, many others do. Someone else for you to hate
Your not though.. you lurch around cherry picking, you don't know what your are either"I know exactly what I am. I don't subscribe to any ideology. Why can't I cherry pick the best policies from different parties? As for the sheople party? I'd rather not. At least I can be sound in the mind that I don't go round insulting people because they have differing views. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We've done political compass before but seeing as this place is awash with Tories... Come on, make yourself known. Rog & Pat need not bother, we already know
I don't you know what you are - you just follow the usual popularist tripe
You can lump me in with the Tories, many others do. Someone else for you to hate
Your not though.. you lurch around cherry picking, you don't know what your are either
I know exactly what I am. I don't subscribe to any ideology.
Why can't I cherry pick the best policies from different parties?
As for the sheople party? I'd rather not. At least I can be sound in the mind that I don't go round insulting people because they have differing views. "You have some extreme views and I am entitled to be appauled by some of your views | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We've done political compass before but seeing as this place is awash with Tories... Come on, make yourself known. Rog & Pat need not bother, we already know
I don't you know what you are - you just follow the usual popularist tripe
You can lump me in with the Tories, many others do. Someone else for you to hate
Your not though.. you lurch around cherry picking, you don't know what your are either
I know exactly what I am. I don't subscribe to any ideology.
Why can't I cherry pick the best policies from different parties?
As for the sheople party? I'd rather not. At least I can be sound in the mind that I don't go round insulting people because they have differing views.
You have some extreme views and I am entitled to be appauled by some of your views "Yes you would be, if and when you see me say those 'extreme' things. What you're not entitled to do is come into threads to do nothing other than attempt to abuse me. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I used to be, I voted for them for decades but this is not a Conservative Government now and hasn’t been for many years. " What would you say they are now? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I must say on that particular topic - it’s right that some people should be mocked for their views. Not all of them, no. But some, definitely. Flat Earth? Yes I’ll mock you. Racial supremacy? Yes I’ll mock you Homophobe? Yes I’ll mock you. Brexit has been a success? Yes I’ll mock you. Some things just deserve mockery "And on those views it would be entirely objective and rational to do so. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We've done political compass before but seeing as this place is awash with Tories... Come on, make yourself known. Rog & Pat need not bother, we already know
I don't you know what you are - you just follow the usual popularist tripe
You can lump me in with the Tories, many others do. Someone else for you to hate
Your not though.. you lurch around cherry picking, you don't know what your are either
I know exactly what I am. I don't subscribe to any ideology.
Why can't I cherry pick the best policies from different parties?
As for the sheople party? I'd rather not. At least I can be sound in the mind that I don't go round insulting people because they have differing views.
You have some extreme views and I am entitled to be appauled by some of your views
Yes you would be, if and when you see me say those 'extreme' things. What you're not entitled to do is come into threads to do nothing other than attempt to abuse me."What rubbish.. your very sensitive arnt you..you can dish it out but can't take criticism for your posts.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I must say on that particular topic - it’s right that some people should be mocked for their views. Not all of them, no. But some, definitely. Flat Earth? Yes I’ll mock you. Racial supremacy? Yes I’ll mock you Homophobe? Yes I’ll mock you. Brexit has been a success? Yes I’ll mock you. Some things just deserve mockery "Hey don't be criticising fiesty like that you nasty wasty person | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Never ever will i be a tory" I would vote Tory. But they'd have to do four things. 1. Convince me that they care about running the country for the benefit of British people and all those who call this place home. 2. Completely stop the divide and conquer tactics, stop whipping up hate towards minorities through their rhetoric and they'd have to stop the culture wars nonsense that continue to stoke. 3. They'd have to have policies that prioritise the UK and the people who live here instead of themselves, big corporations and other billionaires. 4. They'd have to not have politicians who vote against equality legislation based on what they imagine a fictional superhero from a 2000 year old book would want them to do. Then I'd consider it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Never ever will i be a tory I would vote Tory. But they'd have to do four things. 1. Convince me that they care about running the country for the benefit of British people and all those who call this place home. 2. Completely stop the divide and conquer tactics, stop whipping up hate towards minorities through their rhetoric and they'd have to stop the culture wars nonsense that continue to stoke. 3. They'd have to have policies that prioritise the UK and the people who live here instead of themselves, big corporations and other billionaires. 4. They'd have to not have politicians who vote against equality legislation based on what they imagine a fictional superhero from a 2000 year old book would want them to do. Then I'd consider it." If number 2 is a problem, you should stop voting labour too. They also follow divide and conquer tactics only favouring a different group of people. And can you clarify number 4? Which equality legislation are you talking about? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Never ever will i be a tory I would vote Tory. But they'd have to do four things. 1. Convince me that they care about running the country for the benefit of British people and all those who call this place home. 2. Completely stop the divide and conquer tactics, stop whipping up hate towards minorities through their rhetoric and they'd have to stop the culture wars nonsense that continue to stoke. 3. They'd have to have policies that prioritise the UK and the people who live here instead of themselves, big corporations and other billionaires. 4. They'd have to not have politicians who vote against equality legislation based on what they imagine a fictional superhero from a 2000 year old book would want them to do. Then I'd consider it. If number 2 is a problem, you should stop voting labour too. They also follow divide and conquer tactics only favouring a different group of people. And can you clarify number 4? Which equality legislation are you talking about?" I don't vote Labour. Point four, I'm talking about the likes of Jacob Rees Mogg and the others who vote against gay rights. When asked in interview JRM said it was because it's what god would want him to do. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Never ever will i be a tory I would vote Tory. But they'd have to do four things. 1. Convince me that they care about running the country for the benefit of British people and all those who call this place home. 2. Completely stop the divide and conquer tactics, stop whipping up hate towards minorities through their rhetoric and they'd have to stop the culture wars nonsense that continue to stoke. 3. They'd have to have policies that prioritise the UK and the people who live here instead of themselves, big corporations and other billionaires. 4. They'd have to not have politicians who vote against equality legislation based on what they imagine a fictional superhero from a 2000 year old book would want them to do. Then I'd consider it. If number 2 is a problem, you should stop voting labour too. They also follow divide and conquer tactics only favouring a different group of people. And can you clarify number 4? Which equality legislation are you talking about? I don't vote Labour. Point four, I'm talking about the likes of Jacob Rees Mogg and the others who vote against gay rights. When asked in interview JRM said it was because it's what god would want him to do." Is this OK for him to consider the whole party because of a particular member Funfella? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Never ever will i be a tory I would vote Tory. But they'd have to do four things. 1. Convince me that they care about running the country for the benefit of British people and all those who call this place home. 2. Completely stop the divide and conquer tactics, stop whipping up hate towards minorities through their rhetoric and they'd have to stop the culture wars nonsense that continue to stoke. 3. They'd have to have policies that prioritise the UK and the people who live here instead of themselves, big corporations and other billionaires. 4. They'd have to not have politicians who vote against equality legislation based on what they imagine a fictional superhero from a 2000 year old book would want them to do. Then I'd consider it. If number 2 is a problem, you should stop voting labour too. They also follow divide and conquer tactics only favouring a different group of people. And can you clarify number 4? Which equality legislation are you talking about? I don't vote Labour. Point four, I'm talking about the likes of Jacob Rees Mogg and the others who vote against gay rights. When asked in interview JRM said it was because it's what god would want him to do." Labour also has MPs who voted against gay marriage. But definitely not as many as conservatives. So I see your point  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Never ever will i be a tory I would vote Tory. But they'd have to do four things. 1. Convince me that they care about running the country for the benefit of British people and all those who call this place home. 2. Completely stop the divide and conquer tactics, stop whipping up hate towards minorities through their rhetoric and they'd have to stop the culture wars nonsense that continue to stoke. 3. They'd have to have policies that prioritise the UK and the people who live here instead of themselves, big corporations and other billionaires. 4. They'd have to not have politicians who vote against equality legislation based on what they imagine a fictional superhero from a 2000 year old book would want them to do. Then I'd consider it. If number 2 is a problem, you should stop voting labour too. They also follow divide and conquer tactics only favouring a different group of people. And can you clarify number 4? Which equality legislation are you talking about? I don't vote Labour. Point four, I'm talking about the likes of Jacob Rees Mogg and the others who vote against gay rights. When asked in interview JRM said it was because it's what god would want him to do. Is this OK for him to consider the whole party because of a particular member Funfella?" You tell me, you’re the one who lumps all groups together. I’ve met tories who are very much pro LGBT rights, but still vote for these folk for some reason. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Never ever will i be a tory I would vote Tory. But they'd have to do four things. 1. Convince me that they care about running the country for the benefit of British people and all those who call this place home. 2. Completely stop the divide and conquer tactics, stop whipping up hate towards minorities through their rhetoric and they'd have to stop the culture wars nonsense that continue to stoke. 3. They'd have to have policies that prioritise the UK and the people who live here instead of themselves, big corporations and other billionaires. 4. They'd have to not have politicians who vote against equality legislation based on what they imagine a fictional superhero from a 2000 year old book would want them to do. Then I'd consider it. If number 2 is a problem, you should stop voting labour too. They also follow divide and conquer tactics only favouring a different group of people. And can you clarify number 4? Which equality legislation are you talking about? I don't vote Labour. Point four, I'm talking about the likes of Jacob Rees Mogg and the others who vote against gay rights. When asked in interview JRM said it was because it's what god would want him to do. Labour also has MPs who voted against gay marriage. But definitely not as many as conservatives. So I see your point "I mean, those same criteria can apply to any political party. I only specifically mentioned the Conservatives because that is the theme of the thread. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Never ever will i be a tory I would vote Tory. But they'd have to do four things. 1. Convince me that they care about running the country for the benefit of British people and all those who call this place home. 2. Completely stop the divide and conquer tactics, stop whipping up hate towards minorities through their rhetoric and they'd have to stop the culture wars nonsense that continue to stoke. 3. They'd have to have policies that prioritise the UK and the people who live here instead of themselves, big corporations and other billionaires. 4. They'd have to not have politicians who vote against equality legislation based on what they imagine a fictional superhero from a 2000 year old book would want them to do. Then I'd consider it. If number 2 is a problem, you should stop voting labour too. They also follow divide and conquer tactics only favouring a different group of people. And can you clarify number 4? Which equality legislation are you talking about? I don't vote Labour. Point four, I'm talking about the likes of Jacob Rees Mogg and the others who vote against gay rights. When asked in interview JRM said it was because it's what god would want him to do. Labour also has MPs who voted against gay marriage. But definitely not as many as conservatives. So I see your point
I mean, those same criteria can apply to any political party. I only specifically mentioned the Conservatives because that is the theme of the thread."I think you said you'd vote Greens? You should check out their issues with trans-rights  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I must say on that particular topic - it’s right that some people should be mocked for their views. Not all of them, no. But some, definitely. Flat Earth? Yes I’ll mock you. Racial supremacy? Yes I’ll mock you Homophobe? Yes I’ll mock you. Brexit has been a success? Yes I’ll mock you. Some things just deserve mockery
Hey don't be criticising fiesty like that you nasty wasty person
Been drinking again mate? You should probably avoid the forums at the weekends
I called out another poster for this shit. It’s a bad look.
But you don't call out the shit he's given me. There's a surprise  "Can I just say you do the same thing only then to complain about others. You should look at your own posts before you say anything about other people I am just saying | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Never ever will i be a tory I would vote Tory. But they'd have to do four things. 1. Convince me that they care about running the country for the benefit of British people and all those who call this place home. 2. Completely stop the divide and conquer tactics, stop whipping up hate towards minorities through their rhetoric and they'd have to stop the culture wars nonsense that continue to stoke. 3. They'd have to have policies that prioritise the UK and the people who live here instead of themselves, big corporations and other billionaires. 4. They'd have to not have politicians who vote against equality legislation based on what they imagine a fictional superhero from a 2000 year old book would want them to do. Then I'd consider it. If number 2 is a problem, you should stop voting labour too. They also follow divide and conquer tactics only favouring a different group of people. And can you clarify number 4? Which equality legislation are you talking about? I don't vote Labour. Point four, I'm talking about the likes of Jacob Rees Mogg and the others who vote against gay rights. When asked in interview JRM said it was because it's what god would want him to do. Labour also has MPs who voted against gay marriage. But definitely not as many as conservatives. So I see your point
I mean, those same criteria can apply to any political party. I only specifically mentioned the Conservatives because that is the theme of the thread."Some good points there. Not sure off the top of my head any party that ticks all the boxes. That said I would imagine I'm not alone in not agreeing with all policies of a party and therefore lean towards those that tick most of my boxes | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I used to be, I voted for them for decades but this is not a Conservative Government now and hasn’t been for many years. What would you say they are now?" Pathetic frauds. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I used to be, I voted for them for decades but this is not a Conservative Government now and hasn’t been for many years. What would you say they are now? Pathetic frauds. " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I used to be, I voted for them for decades but this is not a Conservative Government now and hasn’t been for many years. What would you say they are now? Pathetic frauds. " In what way aren’t they conservatives though? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't identify myself with a political party. Maybe with political ideologies, but even that keeps changing all the time. I was travelling during the last election. If I were here, I would have voted Tory. But planning to vote labour next election. Plenty of people voted Tory last time out, I wouldn't automatically call them Tories. I definitely won't be voting Tory this time round. If everyone who voted Tories last time is a Tory, that's basically 43% of the population
I hope we don't build a society where people will always vote for a party no matter what.
If you’re a leftist, there’s really no choice (except in a seat where there’s a strong green presence)
But Labour isn't really a leftist party anymore. And people do change their political ideologies over a period of time. I was a hardcore liberal leftist myself in my late teens and early twenties.
There's a strong corellation between getting older and no longer believing in rainbows and unicorns.
Ha ha, I agree and see the reason why there is a trend of people moving away from the left as they get older.
Studies have shown people of millennial age and younger to be getting more left as they now approaching middle age. So the trend of old people being "Conservative" is quite possibly a dying concept.
In which country were the studies done? In UK, if you do the survey right now, many will obviously move towards the left because the conservatives have been ruling for over a decade, they fucked up and there is widespread anti-incumbency feeling. For the same reason, youngsters in Canada are turning more right wing.
These are temporary trends. If you look at long term trends, people do turn more conservative as they get older. Some reasons for it
- People start earning more as they get older. So they learn to hate higher taxes for high earners
- People start admiring some conservative values if they get a good family
- Once they have kids, they start seeing issues like crimes more seriously. For a single person, the guys selling dr*gs near your home isn't a big problem. But if you have kids, they are a problem. You start wanting the government to be more stricter against crime.
- This is just me - Once you get more and more exposure in life and learn more economics, you start seeing why socialism will not work.
Of course there will be outliers. Also, if we as a society destroy the concept of family, the above reasons will stop making sense, which may well be the reason why the movement to conservatism as people get older may have slowed down recently. Less and less people are having kids or even getting married for that matter.
Most research reveals that the age-related left to right shift is a myth - most people retain their overall views for life - though admittedly of the minority who do shift, left to right is far more common than right to left."I'm now in my early 60s and I despise the Tories more than I ever have done in my entire life. I'm always flabbergasted by the fact that a party that is run by mostly millionaires and billionaires, and whose sole purpose is to line the pockets of themselves and their rich buddies continue to convince the working class that only they have their best interests at heart. Do they fuck, they couldn't care less about them if they tried, they are just there to be poked when needed, by usually demonising some group or another, and saying only they can stop them - immigrants being the obvious one, but also the 'liberal' Elite, yeah how dare someone on the left be rich and care about the country/people, when only us greedy fuckers on the right are allowed to get rich and ru(I)n the country | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't identify myself with a political party. Maybe with political ideologies, but even that keeps changing all the time. I was travelling during the last election. If I were here, I would have voted Tory. But planning to vote labour next election. Plenty of people voted Tory last time out, I wouldn't automatically call them Tories. I definitely won't be voting Tory this time round. If everyone who voted Tories last time is a Tory, that's basically 43% of the population
I hope we don't build a society where people will always vote for a party no matter what.
If you’re a leftist, there’s really no choice (except in a seat where there’s a strong green presence)
But Labour isn't really a leftist party anymore. And people do change their political ideologies over a period of time. I was a hardcore liberal leftist myself in my late teens and early twenties.
There's a strong corellation between getting older and no longer believing in rainbows and unicorns.
Ha ha, I agree and see the reason why there is a trend of people moving away from the left as they get older.
Studies have shown people of millennial age and younger to be getting more left as they now approaching middle age. So the trend of old people being "Conservative" is quite possibly a dying concept.
In which country were the studies done? In UK, if you do the survey right now, many will obviously move towards the left because the conservatives have been ruling for over a decade, they fucked up and there is widespread anti-incumbency feeling. For the same reason, youngsters in Canada are turning more right wing.
These are temporary trends. If you look at long term trends, people do turn more conservative as they get older. Some reasons for it
- People start earning more as they get older. So they learn to hate higher taxes for high earners
- People start admiring some conservative values if they get a good family
- Once they have kids, they start seeing issues like crimes more seriously. For a single person, the guys selling dr*gs near your home isn't a big problem. But if you have kids, they are a problem. You start wanting the government to be more stricter against crime.
- This is just me - Once you get more and more exposure in life and learn more economics, you start seeing why socialism will not work.
Of course there will be outliers. Also, if we as a society destroy the concept of family, the above reasons will stop making sense, which may well be the reason why the movement to conservatism as people get older may have slowed down recently. Less and less people are having kids or even getting married for that matter.
Most research reveals that the age-related left to right shift is a myth - most people retain their overall views for life - though admittedly of the minority who do shift, left to right is far more common than right to left.
I'm now in my early 60s and I despise the Tories more than I ever have done in my entire life. I'm always flabbergasted by the fact that a party that is run by mostly millionaires and billionaires, and whose sole purpose is to line the pockets of themselves and their rich buddies continue to convince the working class that only they have their best interests at heart. Do they fuck, they couldn't care less about them if they tried, they are just there to be poked when needed, by usually demonising some group or another, and saying only they can stop them - immigrants being the obvious one, but also the 'liberal' Elite, yeah how dare someone on the left be rich and care about the country/people, when only us greedy fuckers on the right are allowed to get rich and ru(I)n the country "Do you believe there is a difference in wealth when it comes to party donors? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't identify myself with a political party. Maybe with political ideologies, but even that keeps changing all the time. I was travelling during the last election. If I were here, I would have voted Tory. But planning to vote labour next election. Plenty of people voted Tory last time out, I wouldn't automatically call them Tories. I definitely won't be voting Tory this time round. If everyone who voted Tories last time is a Tory, that's basically 43% of the population
I hope we don't build a society where people will always vote for a party no matter what.
If you’re a leftist, there’s really no choice (except in a seat where there’s a strong green presence)
But Labour isn't really a leftist party anymore. And people do change their political ideologies over a period of time. I was a hardcore liberal leftist myself in my late teens and early twenties.
There's a strong corellation between getting older and no longer believing in rainbows and unicorns.
Ha ha, I agree and see the reason why there is a trend of people moving away from the left as they get older.
Studies have shown people of millennial age and younger to be getting more left as they now approaching middle age. So the trend of old people being "Conservative" is quite possibly a dying concept.
In which country were the studies done? In UK, if you do the survey right now, many will obviously move towards the left because the conservatives have been ruling for over a decade, they fucked up and there is widespread anti-incumbency feeling. For the same reason, youngsters in Canada are turning more right wing.
These are temporary trends. If you look at long term trends, people do turn more conservative as they get older. Some reasons for it
- People start earning more as they get older. So they learn to hate higher taxes for high earners
- People start admiring some conservative values if they get a good family
- Once they have kids, they start seeing issues like crimes more seriously. For a single person, the guys selling dr*gs near your home isn't a big problem. But if you have kids, they are a problem. You start wanting the government to be more stricter against crime.
- This is just me - Once you get more and more exposure in life and learn more economics, you start seeing why socialism will not work.
Of course there will be outliers. Also, if we as a society destroy the concept of family, the above reasons will stop making sense, which may well be the reason why the movement to conservatism as people get older may have slowed down recently. Less and less people are having kids or even getting married for that matter.
Most research reveals that the age-related left to right shift is a myth - most people retain their overall views for life - though admittedly of the minority who do shift, left to right is far more common than right to left.
I'm now in my early 60s and I despise the Tories more than I ever have done in my entire life. I'm always flabbergasted by the fact that a party that is run by mostly millionaires and billionaires, and whose sole purpose is to line the pockets of themselves and their rich buddies continue to convince the working class that only they have their best interests at heart. Do they fuck, they couldn't care less about them if they tried, they are just there to be poked when needed, by usually demonising some group or another, and saying only they can stop them - immigrants being the obvious one, but also the 'liberal' Elite, yeah how dare someone on the left be rich and care about the country/people, when only us greedy fuckers on the right are allowed to get rich and ru(I)n the country "The debate we had was about people turning towards conservative values as they age. You went on a full-on rage mode about the Tory party. Both are different. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't identify myself with a political party. Maybe with political ideologies, but even that keeps changing all the time. I was travelling during the last election. If I were here, I would have voted Tory. But planning to vote labour next election. Plenty of people voted Tory last time out, I wouldn't automatically call them Tories. I definitely won't be voting Tory this time round. If everyone who voted Tories last time is a Tory, that's basically 43% of the population
I hope we don't build a society where people will always vote for a party no matter what.
If you’re a leftist, there’s really no choice (except in a seat where there’s a strong green presence)
But Labour isn't really a leftist party anymore. And people do change their political ideologies over a period of time. I was a hardcore liberal leftist myself in my late teens and early twenties.
There's a strong corellation between getting older and no longer believing in rainbows and unicorns.
Ha ha, I agree and see the reason why there is a trend of people moving away from the left as they get older.
Studies have shown people of millennial age and younger to be getting more left as they now approaching middle age. So the trend of old people being "Conservative" is quite possibly a dying concept.
In which country were the studies done? In UK, if you do the survey right now, many will obviously move towards the left because the conservatives have been ruling for over a decade, they fucked up and there is widespread anti-incumbency feeling. For the same reason, youngsters in Canada are turning more right wing.
These are temporary trends. If you look at long term trends, people do turn more conservative as they get older. Some reasons for it
- People start earning more as they get older. So they learn to hate higher taxes for high earners
- People start admiring some conservative values if they get a good family
- Once they have kids, they start seeing issues like crimes more seriously. For a single person, the guys selling dr*gs near your home isn't a big problem. But if you have kids, they are a problem. You start wanting the government to be more stricter against crime.
- This is just me - Once you get more and more exposure in life and learn more economics, you start seeing why socialism will not work.
Of course there will be outliers. Also, if we as a society destroy the concept of family, the above reasons will stop making sense, which may well be the reason why the movement to conservatism as people get older may have slowed down recently. Less and less people are having kids or even getting married for that matter.
Most research reveals that the age-related left to right shift is a myth - most people retain their overall views for life - though admittedly of the minority who do shift, left to right is far more common than right to left.
I'm now in my early 60s and I despise the Tories more than I ever have done in my entire life. I'm always flabbergasted by the fact that a party that is run by mostly millionaires and billionaires, and whose sole purpose is to line the pockets of themselves and their rich buddies continue to convince the working class that only they have their best interests at heart. Do they fuck, they couldn't care less about them if they tried, they are just there to be poked when needed, by usually demonising some group or another, and saying only they can stop them - immigrants being the obvious one, but also the 'liberal' Elite, yeah how dare someone on the left be rich and care about the country/people, when only us greedy fuckers on the right are allowed to get rich and ru(I)n the country
The debate we had was about people turning towards conservative values as they age. You went on a full-on rage mode about the Tory party. Both are different."Yeah to prove the point that for me at least that simply isn't the case | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Given the thread above I doubt anyone will admit to it at the moment "I believe wholeheartedly in conservative law and order, I also strongly support lower taxes and not being controlled by a government making personal choice decisions on my behalf. I also strongly believe that energy and water should be in state ownership, although not run by the state. I flip between conservative and some social ideals, but I tend to fall towards who is going to give me my best return. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Given the thread above I doubt anyone will admit to it at the moment "Why? Surely if people genuinely think that the Tories are the party that will produce the best results for the country, or them personally, then they wouldn’t hide that just to get laid? It always amuses me when people (usually Right wingers) say that their politics shouldn’t be a block to someone having sex with them, without taking a moment to think about what it is about their politics that makes them so unattractive. Whereas left wing people tend not to care if someone doesn’t find them attractive because of their politics, because they wouldn’t want to sleep with them anyway. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Given the thread above I doubt anyone will admit to it at the moment "There are people who openly support the Tories. There are those who show support by attacking anyone who questions the integrity of the current government. And there are those who don't want to appear heartless, but who will vote for them at the next GE. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Given the thread above I doubt anyone will admit to it at the moment
Why? Surely if people genuinely think that the Tories are the party that will produce the best results for the country, or them personally, then they wouldn’t hide that just to get laid?
It always amuses me when people (usually Right wingers) say that their politics shouldn’t be a block to someone having sex with them, without taking a moment to think about what it is about their politics that makes them so unattractive.
Whereas left wing people tend not to care if someone doesn’t find them attractive because of their politics, because they wouldn’t want to sleep with them anyway."I think there are nuances to it. There is the party then there is the ideology. Everyone has the right to choose who they want to date or have sex with. Saying that someone wouldn't date anyone who voted for "X" party is well within their rights but doesn't make any logical sense because a party can represent so many things and people are usually not 100% aligned with whatever the party says though they vote for it. Saying that someone wouldn't date anyone who follows "Y" ideology is reasonable in my opinion because that is down to personal values and getting into a relationship with someone who doesn't share your relationship is a risk even though it has worked out well in some rare cases. It may apply for one-night flings too because people can expect to build a connection even for one night flings. As I said above, I would have voted Tory if I weren't travelling during last election and plan to vote Labour next election. But I always swipe left when I see anyone who mentions that they don't date someone who has voted for "X" party. In my experience, people who get attached so much to a political party are insufferable in real life. You can't have an opinion that goes against theirs without them going on full rage. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Given the thread above I doubt anyone will admit to it at the moment
Why? Surely if people genuinely think that the Tories are the party that will produce the best results for the country, or them personally, then they wouldn’t hide that just to get laid?
It always amuses me when people (usually Right wingers) say that their politics shouldn’t be a block to someone having sex with them, without taking a moment to think about what it is about their politics that makes them so unattractive.
Whereas left wing people tend not to care if someone doesn’t find them attractive because of their politics, because they wouldn’t want to sleep with them anyway.
I think there are nuances to it. There is the party then there is the ideology.
Everyone has the right to choose who they want to date or have sex with.
Saying that someone wouldn't date anyone who voted for "X" party is well within their rights but doesn't make any logical sense because a party can represent so many things and people are usually not 100% aligned with whatever the party says though they vote for it.
Saying that someone wouldn't date anyone who follows "Y" ideology is reasonable in my opinion because that is down to personal values and getting into a relationship with someone who doesn't share your relationship is a risk even though it has worked out well in some rare cases. It may apply for one-night flings too because people can expect to build a connection even for one night flings.
As I said above, I would have voted Tory if I weren't travelling during last election and plan to vote Labour next election. But I always swipe left when I see anyone who mentions that they don't date someone who has voted for "X" party. In my experience, people who get attached so much to a political party are insufferable in real life. You can't have an opinion that goes against theirs without them going on full rage."Assuming we are talking major political parties and nothing extreme, I think the idea that sex with a person would not happen due to their voting preference is virtue signalling at its most shallow. If a person makes that decision, I think they would be so far entrenched in their own political views, striking up a conversation in the first place would be problematic unless you were both glued to the road.... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Given the thread above I doubt anyone will admit to it at the moment
Why? Surely if people genuinely think that the Tories are the party that will produce the best results for the country, or them personally, then they wouldn’t hide that just to get laid?
It always amuses me when people (usually Right wingers) say that their politics shouldn’t be a block to someone having sex with them, without taking a moment to think about what it is about their politics that makes them so unattractive.
Whereas left wing people tend not to care if someone doesn’t find them attractive because of their politics, because they wouldn’t want to sleep with them anyway.
I think there are nuances to it. There is the party then there is the ideology.
Everyone has the right to choose who they want to date or have sex with.
Saying that someone wouldn't date anyone who voted for "X" party is well within their rights but doesn't make any logical sense because a party can represent so many things and people are usually not 100% aligned with whatever the party says though they vote for it.
Saying that someone wouldn't date anyone who follows "Y" ideology is reasonable in my opinion because that is down to personal values and getting into a relationship with someone who doesn't share your relationship is a risk even though it has worked out well in some rare cases. It may apply for one-night flings too because people can expect to build a connection even for one night flings.
As I said above, I would have voted Tory if I weren't travelling during last election and plan to vote Labour next election. But I always swipe left when I see anyone who mentions that they don't date someone who has voted for "X" party. In my experience, people who get attached so much to a political party are insufferable in real life. You can't have an opinion that goes against theirs without them going on full rage.
Assuming we are talking major political parties and nothing extreme, I think the idea that sex with a person would not happen due to their voting preference is virtue signalling at its most shallow.
If a person makes that decision, I think they would be so far entrenched in their own political views, striking up a conversation in the first place would be problematic unless you were both glued to the road.... "Yeah I agree. In a way, it's good that they openly mention their attitude on their profiles. Easy for others to filter them out. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yes I am a lifelong Tory and will never change. My main motivation being that they are NOT the Labour party (I suppose a bit like Trump winning because he wasn't Hillary Clinton) I would stick red hot needles into my eyes before I would ever vote for that two faced shower of shit. OK the current Tory party is (at best) underwhelming and over the years I've cultivated a dislike of all politicians. But I still think they are the best of a bad bunch. But as I no longer vote in UK elections it's a moot point really. " Is there no other party that interests you, or the not voting option? Or is it keeping Labour out at whatever the cost? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Given the thread above I doubt anyone will admit to it at the moment
Why? Surely if people genuinely think that the Tories are the party that will produce the best results for the country, or them personally, then they wouldn’t hide that just to get laid?
It always amuses me when people (usually Right wingers) say that their politics shouldn’t be a block to someone having sex with them, without taking a moment to think about what it is about their politics that makes them so unattractive.
Whereas left wing people tend not to care if someone doesn’t find them attractive because of their politics, because they wouldn’t want to sleep with them anyway.
I think there are nuances to it. There is the party then there is the ideology.
Everyone has the right to choose who they want to date or have sex with.
Saying that someone wouldn't date anyone who voted for "X" party is well within their rights but doesn't make any logical sense because a party can represent so many things and people are usually not 100% aligned with whatever the party says though they vote for it.
Saying that someone wouldn't date anyone who follows "Y" ideology is reasonable in my opinion because that is down to personal values and getting into a relationship with someone who doesn't share your relationship is a risk even though it has worked out well in some rare cases. It may apply for one-night flings too because people can expect to build a connection even for one night flings.
As I said above, I would have voted Tory if I weren't travelling during last election and plan to vote Labour next election. But I always swipe left when I see anyone who mentions that they don't date someone who has voted for "X" party. In my experience, people who get attached so much to a political party are insufferable in real life. You can't have an opinion that goes against theirs without them going on full rage."I think for a lot of people, myself included, I see the Tories as being the party of self interest, at least since Thatcher, I can’t comment on before. I have no interest in being around selfish people in any way shape or form. I also have no interest in people who are socially conservative, e.g. about trans rights. Or who view refugees as somehow less than human. Like it or not a lot of people see Tories as ‘I’m alright Jack and fuck the rest’. I cannot think of people I would less like to spend any time with, let alone fuck. Mr DD | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Given the thread above I doubt anyone will admit to it at the moment
Why? Surely if people genuinely think that the Tories are the party that will produce the best results for the country, or them personally, then they wouldn’t hide that just to get laid?
It always amuses me when people (usually Right wingers) say that their politics shouldn’t be a block to someone having sex with them, without taking a moment to think about what it is about their politics that makes them so unattractive.
Whereas left wing people tend not to care if someone doesn’t find them attractive because of their politics, because they wouldn’t want to sleep with them anyway.
I think there are nuances to it. There is the party then there is the ideology.
Everyone has the right to choose who they want to date or have sex with.
Saying that someone wouldn't date anyone who voted for "X" party is well within their rights but doesn't make any logical sense because a party can represent so many things and people are usually not 100% aligned with whatever the party says though they vote for it.
Saying that someone wouldn't date anyone who follows "Y" ideology is reasonable in my opinion because that is down to personal values and getting into a relationship with someone who doesn't share your relationship is a risk even though it has worked out well in some rare cases. It may apply for one-night flings too because people can expect to build a connection even for one night flings.
As I said above, I would have voted Tory if I weren't travelling during last election and plan to vote Labour next election. But I always swipe left when I see anyone who mentions that they don't date someone who has voted for "X" party. In my experience, people who get attached so much to a political party are insufferable in real life. You can't have an opinion that goes against theirs without them going on full rage.
I think for a lot of people, myself included, I see the Tories as being the party of self interest, at least since Thatcher, I can’t comment on before. I have no interest in being around selfish people in any way shape or form. I also have no interest in people who are socially conservative, e.g. about trans rights. Or who view refugees as somehow less than human.
Like it or not a lot of people see Tories as ‘I’m alright Jack and fuck the rest’. I cannot think of people I would less like to spend any time with, let alone fuck.
Mr DD
"Does this apply only to tories, or does it cover all that think I’m alright Jack and fuck the rest? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yes I am a lifelong Tory and will never change. My main motivation being that they are NOT the Labour party (I suppose a bit like Trump winning because he wasn't Hillary Clinton) I would stick red hot needles into my eyes before I would ever vote for that two faced shower of shit. OK the current Tory party is (at best) underwhelming and over the years I've cultivated a dislike of all politicians. But I still think they are the best of a bad bunch. But as I no longer vote in UK elections it's a moot point really. Is there no other party that interests you, or the not voting option? Or is it keeping Labour out at whatever the cost?" Keeping Labour out, yes whatever the cost. I really despise that party. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yes I am a lifelong Tory and will never change. My main motivation being that they are NOT the Labour party (I suppose a bit like Trump winning because he wasn't Hillary Clinton) I would stick red hot needles into my eyes before I would ever vote for that two faced shower of shit. OK the current Tory party is (at best) underwhelming and over the years I've cultivated a dislike of all politicians. But I still think they are the best of a bad bunch. But as I no longer vote in UK elections it's a moot point really. Is there no other party that interests you, or the not voting option? Or is it keeping Labour out at whatever the cost? Keeping Labour out, yes whatever the cost. I really despise that party." Fair enough, lots of people vote tactically to try to keep out the Tories. Only makes sense that some people do it to keep out Labour. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Given the thread above I doubt anyone will admit to it at the moment
Why? Surely if people genuinely think that the Tories are the party that will produce the best results for the country, or them personally, then they wouldn’t hide that just to get laid?
It always amuses me when people (usually Right wingers) say that their politics shouldn’t be a block to someone having sex with them, without taking a moment to think about what it is about their politics that makes them so unattractive.
Whereas left wing people tend not to care if someone doesn’t find them attractive because of their politics, because they wouldn’t want to sleep with them anyway.
I think there are nuances to it. There is the party then there is the ideology.
Everyone has the right to choose who they want to date or have sex with.
Saying that someone wouldn't date anyone who voted for "X" party is well within their rights but doesn't make any logical sense because a party can represent so many things and people are usually not 100% aligned with whatever the party says though they vote for it.
Saying that someone wouldn't date anyone who follows "Y" ideology is reasonable in my opinion because that is down to personal values and getting into a relationship with someone who doesn't share your relationship is a risk even though it has worked out well in some rare cases. It may apply for one-night flings too because people can expect to build a connection even for one night flings.
As I said above, I would have voted Tory if I weren't travelling during last election and plan to vote Labour next election. But I always swipe left when I see anyone who mentions that they don't date someone who has voted for "X" party. In my experience, people who get attached so much to a political party are insufferable in real life. You can't have an opinion that goes against theirs without them going on full rage.
I think for a lot of people, myself included, I see the Tories as being the party of self interest, at least since Thatcher, I can’t comment on before. I have no interest in being around selfish people in any way shape or form. I also have no interest in people who are socially conservative, e.g. about trans rights. Or who view refugees as somehow less than human.
Like it or not a lot of people see Tories as ‘I’m alright Jack and fuck the rest’. I cannot think of people I would less like to spend any time with, let alone fuck.
Mr DD
Does this apply only to tories, or does it cover all that think I’m alright Jack and fuck the rest? "Everyone, it’s just that voting Tory is a good indicator. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Given the thread above I doubt anyone will admit to it at the moment
Why? Surely if people genuinely think that the Tories are the party that will produce the best results for the country, or them personally, then they wouldn’t hide that just to get laid?
It always amuses me when people (usually Right wingers) say that their politics shouldn’t be a block to someone having sex with them, without taking a moment to think about what it is about their politics that makes them so unattractive.
Whereas left wing people tend not to care if someone doesn’t find them attractive because of their politics, because they wouldn’t want to sleep with them anyway.
I think there are nuances to it. There is the party then there is the ideology.
Everyone has the right to choose who they want to date or have sex with.
Saying that someone wouldn't date anyone who voted for "X" party is well within their rights but doesn't make any logical sense because a party can represent so many things and people are usually not 100% aligned with whatever the party says though they vote for it.
Saying that someone wouldn't date anyone who follows "Y" ideology is reasonable in my opinion because that is down to personal values and getting into a relationship with someone who doesn't share your relationship is a risk even though it has worked out well in some rare cases. It may apply for one-night flings too because people can expect to build a connection even for one night flings.
As I said above, I would have voted Tory if I weren't travelling during last election and plan to vote Labour next election. But I always swipe left when I see anyone who mentions that they don't date someone who has voted for "X" party. In my experience, people who get attached so much to a political party are insufferable in real life. You can't have an opinion that goes against theirs without them going on full rage.
I think for a lot of people, myself included, I see the Tories as being the party of self interest, at least since Thatcher, I can’t comment on before. I have no interest in being around selfish people in any way shape or form. I also have no interest in people who are socially conservative, e.g. about trans rights. Or who view refugees as somehow less than human.
Like it or not a lot of people see Tories as ‘I’m alright Jack and fuck the rest’. I cannot think of people I would less like to spend any time with, let alone fuck.
Mr DD
"Most of these are wrong assumptions you make about a person based on who they voted for in an election. Last election, many people voted for Tories because they were pissed off with the way Brexit was being stretched for too long and Tories were the only ones who promised to get it done and move on. Supporting free markets doesn't mean that they admire selfishness. And don't tell us that you are not selfish. If there is choice between helping your own family and some stranger, are you going to tell us you are going to help the stranger instead of your family for the sake of virtue? And no one sees refugees as less of a human. Many think they aren't refugees in the first place. They know for a fact that the country has limited resources and is incapable of doing charity for all the refugees in the world. About the 'I’m alright Jack and fuck the rest' attitude, your post itself is an exemplification of the attitude of the ones who judge people purely based on which party they voted for - 'I am the pinnacle of virtues. Anyone who doesn't do exactly what I expect of them to do is spiteful evil' In my personal experience, I have never seen a single person who virtue signals like this and living up to what they say. They are insanely hypocritical, come up with insane logic to justify their hypocrisy and attack anyone who tries to point out their hypocrisy, which is why I am happy when they make these statements in their dating profiles. Makes it easy to swipe left on them. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Given the thread above I doubt anyone will admit to it at the moment
Why? Surely if people genuinely think that the Tories are the party that will produce the best results for the country, or them personally, then they wouldn’t hide that just to get laid?
It always amuses me when people (usually Right wingers) say that their politics shouldn’t be a block to someone having sex with them, without taking a moment to think about what it is about their politics that makes them so unattractive.
Whereas left wing people tend not to care if someone doesn’t find them attractive because of their politics, because they wouldn’t want to sleep with them anyway.
I think there are nuances to it. There is the party then there is the ideology.
Everyone has the right to choose who they want to date or have sex with.
Saying that someone wouldn't date anyone who voted for "X" party is well within their rights but doesn't make any logical sense because a party can represent so many things and people are usually not 100% aligned with whatever the party says though they vote for it.
Saying that someone wouldn't date anyone who follows "Y" ideology is reasonable in my opinion because that is down to personal values and getting into a relationship with someone who doesn't share your relationship is a risk even though it has worked out well in some rare cases. It may apply for one-night flings too because people can expect to build a connection even for one night flings.
As I said above, I would have voted Tory if I weren't travelling during last election and plan to vote Labour next election. But I always swipe left when I see anyone who mentions that they don't date someone who has voted for "X" party. In my experience, people who get attached so much to a political party are insufferable in real life. You can't have an opinion that goes against theirs without them going on full rage.
I think for a lot of people, myself included, I see the Tories as being the party of self interest, at least since Thatcher, I can’t comment on before. I have no interest in being around selfish people in any way shape or form. I also have no interest in people who are socially conservative, e.g. about trans rights. Or who view refugees as somehow less than human.
Like it or not a lot of people see Tories as ‘I’m alright Jack and fuck the rest’. I cannot think of people I would less like to spend any time with, let alone fuck.
Mr DD
Does this apply only to tories, or does it cover all that think I’m alright Jack and fuck the rest?
Everyone, it’s just that voting Tory is a good indicator."Got it! You don't like judgmental people | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yes I am a lifelong Tory and will never change. My main motivation being that they are NOT the Labour party (I suppose a bit like Trump winning because he wasn't Hillary Clinton) I would stick red hot needles into my eyes before I would ever vote for that two faced shower of shit. OK the current Tory party is (at best) underwhelming and over the years I've cultivated a dislike of all politicians. But I still think they are the best of a bad bunch. But as I no longer vote in UK elections it's a moot point really. Is there no other party that interests you, or the not voting option? Or is it keeping Labour out at whatever the cost? Keeping Labour out, yes whatever the cost. I really despise that party." Damn them and their wanting to make things a bit better eh? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Given the thread above I doubt anyone will admit to it at the moment
Why? Surely if people genuinely think that the Tories are the party that will produce the best results for the country, or them personally, then they wouldn’t hide that just to get laid?
It always amuses me when people (usually Right wingers) say that their politics shouldn’t be a block to someone having sex with them, without taking a moment to think about what it is about their politics that makes them so unattractive.
Whereas left wing people tend not to care if someone doesn’t find them attractive because of their politics, because they wouldn’t want to sleep with them anyway.
I think there are nuances to it. There is the party then there is the ideology.
Everyone has the right to choose who they want to date or have sex with.
Saying that someone wouldn't date anyone who voted for "X" party is well within their rights but doesn't make any logical sense because a party can represent so many things and people are usually not 100% aligned with whatever the party says though they vote for it.
Saying that someone wouldn't date anyone who follows "Y" ideology is reasonable in my opinion because that is down to personal values and getting into a relationship with someone who doesn't share your relationship is a risk even though it has worked out well in some rare cases. It may apply for one-night flings too because people can expect to build a connection even for one night flings.
As I said above, I would have voted Tory if I weren't travelling during last election and plan to vote Labour next election. But I always swipe left when I see anyone who mentions that they don't date someone who has voted for "X" party. In my experience, people who get attached so much to a political party are insufferable in real life. You can't have an opinion that goes against theirs without them going on full rage.
I think for a lot of people, myself included, I see the Tories as being the party of self interest, at least since Thatcher, I can’t comment on before. I have no interest in being around selfish people in any way shape or form. I also have no interest in people who are socially conservative, e.g. about trans rights. Or who view refugees as somehow less than human.
Like it or not a lot of people see Tories as ‘I’m alright Jack and fuck the rest’. I cannot think of people I would less like to spend any time with, let alone fuck.
Mr DD
Does this apply only to tories, or does it cover all that think I’m alright Jack and fuck the rest?
Everyone, it’s just that voting Tory is a good indicator.
Got it! You don't like judgmental people "There’s nothing wrong with judging, everyone does it. What makes the difference is the criteria used for judging. There may be people who vote Tory who on meeting them they seem perfectly kind and reasonable, they vote for a party, however, which is actively cruel to the poor, the disabled, refugees, and basically anyone who can’t benefit them. I’m afraid i just believe that enabling is pretty much the same as doing. Other people have different opinions, and that’s great but if it annoys them that someone they want to sleep with won’t sleep with them because of their political/social views perhaps instead of getting annoyed and blaming other person, they should take a moment to look at what the other person sees. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Given the thread above I doubt anyone will admit to it at the moment
Why? Surely if people genuinely think that the Tories are the party that will produce the best results for the country, or them personally, then they wouldn’t hide that just to get laid?
It always amuses me when people (usually Right wingers) say that their politics shouldn’t be a block to someone having sex with them, without taking a moment to think about what it is about their politics that makes them so unattractive.
Whereas left wing people tend not to care if someone doesn’t find them attractive because of their politics, because they wouldn’t want to sleep with them anyway.
I think there are nuances to it. There is the party then there is the ideology.
Everyone has the right to choose who they want to date or have sex with.
Saying that someone wouldn't date anyone who voted for "X" party is well within their rights but doesn't make any logical sense because a party can represent so many things and people are usually not 100% aligned with whatever the party says though they vote for it.
Saying that someone wouldn't date anyone who follows "Y" ideology is reasonable in my opinion because that is down to personal values and getting into a relationship with someone who doesn't share your relationship is a risk even though it has worked out well in some rare cases. It may apply for one-night flings too because people can expect to build a connection even for one night flings.
As I said above, I would have voted Tory if I weren't travelling during last election and plan to vote Labour next election. But I always swipe left when I see anyone who mentions that they don't date someone who has voted for "X" party. In my experience, people who get attached so much to a political party are insufferable in real life. You can't have an opinion that goes against theirs without them going on full rage.
I think for a lot of people, myself included, I see the Tories as being the party of self interest, at least since Thatcher, I can’t comment on before. I have no interest in being around selfish people in any way shape or form. I also have no interest in people who are socially conservative, e.g. about trans rights. Or who view refugees as somehow less than human.
Like it or not a lot of people see Tories as ‘I’m alright Jack and fuck the rest’. I cannot think of people I would less like to spend any time with, let alone fuck.
Mr DD
Most of these are wrong assumptions you make about a person based on who they voted for in an election. Last election, many people voted for Tories because they were pissed off with the way Brexit was being stretched for too long and Tories were the only ones who promised to get it done and move on.
Supporting free markets doesn't mean that they admire selfishness. And don't tell us that you are not selfish. If there is choice between helping your own family and some stranger, are you going to tell us you are going to help the stranger instead of your family for the sake of virtue?
And no one sees refugees as less of a human. Many think they aren't refugees in the first place. They know for a fact that the country has limited resources and is incapable of doing charity for all the refugees in the world.
About the 'I’m alright Jack and fuck the rest' attitude, your post itself is an exemplification of the attitude of the ones who judge people purely based on which party they voted for - 'I am the pinnacle of virtues. Anyone who doesn't do exactly what I expect of them to do is spiteful evil'
In my personal experience, I have never seen a single person who virtue signals like this and living up to what they say. They are insanely hypocritical, come up with insane logic to justify their hypocrisy and attack anyone who tries to point out their hypocrisy, which is why I am happy when they make these statements in their dating profiles. Makes it easy to swipe left on them."Well said. Thanks for expressing what many of us think but do not know how to put it into words. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"An interesting fact about selfishness of right wingers. This is for US - Political conservatives are significantly more charitable than liberals. It looks like they put the money where their mouth is, unlike the liberals who want the government to tax other people more and help others so that they can act like they are selfless and others are selfish. It would be interesting to see these numbers for UK too." As we’ve discussed - true socialists shouldn’t give to charity, because they don’t believe it should exist. I sympathise with this view, but ultimately you have to play the board as it lay - and that means giving to charity or seeing people go without. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Given the thread above I doubt anyone will admit to it at the moment
Why? Surely if people genuinely think that the Tories are the party that will produce the best results for the country, or them personally, then they wouldn’t hide that just to get laid?
It always amuses me when people (usually Right wingers) say that their politics shouldn’t be a block to someone having sex with them, without taking a moment to think about what it is about their politics that makes them so unattractive.
Whereas left wing people tend not to care if someone doesn’t find them attractive because of their politics, because they wouldn’t want to sleep with them anyway.
I think there are nuances to it. There is the party then there is the ideology.
Everyone has the right to choose who they want to date or have sex with.
Saying that someone wouldn't date anyone who voted for "X" party is well within their rights but doesn't make any logical sense because a party can represent so many things and people are usually not 100% aligned with whatever the party says though they vote for it.
Saying that someone wouldn't date anyone who follows "Y" ideology is reasonable in my opinion because that is down to personal values and getting into a relationship with someone who doesn't share your relationship is a risk even though it has worked out well in some rare cases. It may apply for one-night flings too because people can expect to build a connection even for one night flings.
As I said above, I would have voted Tory if I weren't travelling during last election and plan to vote Labour next election. But I always swipe left when I see anyone who mentions that they don't date someone who has voted for "X" party. In my experience, people who get attached so much to a political party are insufferable in real life. You can't have an opinion that goes against theirs without them going on full rage.
I think for a lot of people, myself included, I see the Tories as being the party of self interest, at least since Thatcher, I can’t comment on before. I have no interest in being around selfish people in any way shape or form. I also have no interest in people who are socially conservative, e.g. about trans rights. Or who view refugees as somehow less than human.
Like it or not a lot of people see Tories as ‘I’m alright Jack and fuck the rest’. I cannot think of people I would less like to spend any time with, let alone fuck.
Mr DD
Most of these are wrong assumptions you make about a person based on who they voted for in an election. Last election, many people voted for Tories because they were pissed off with the way Brexit was being stretched for too long and Tories were the only ones who promised to get it done and move on. "Maybe people did, but they still voted for a party which actively pursues policies that are cruel to the most vulnerable in society. Brexit is a complete shambles but it's still a choice to support cruelty. " Supporting free markets doesn't mean that they admire selfishness. And don't tell us that you are not selfish. If there is choice between helping your own family and some stranger, are you going to tell us you are going to help the stranger instead of your family for the sake of virtue? " You act as if it's a binary choice, why not help both? We can afford it as a country but we have a government that chose austerity, which failed, then it doubled down on a policy which had failed despite how much it was hurting the least well off and marginalised. " And no one sees refugees as less of a human. Many think they aren't refugees in the first place. They know for a fact that the country has limited resources and is incapable of doing charity for all the refugees in the world. " Yet people are happy to see refugees shipped off to a country that our own supreme court has declared unsafe, rather than allow a genuine decision be made in this country. The UK takes a miniscule amount of refugees in, far fewer than much poorer countries, yet we act like they are some kind of plague. They are not, they are humans and deserve to be treated with kindness and respect. " About the 'I’m alright Jack and fuck the rest' attitude, your post itself is an exemplification of the attitude of the ones who judge people purely based on which party they voted for - 'I am the pinnacle of virtues. Anyone who doesn't do exactly what I expect of them to do is spiteful evil' " You seem to be taking this very personally, don't. You have your morality and I have mine. If people choose not to fuck me because of my political views then I don't see it as an attack, they just have different moral priorities to those I feel are important. I haven't said anything about anyone being evil, just that I won't fuck them. People can do whatever they want, and I can choose to fuck them or not, it doesn't mean they are evil, it just means I don't find them attractive. " In my personal experience, I have never seen a single person who virtue signals like this and living up to what they say. They are insanely hypocritical, come up with insane logic to justify their hypocrisy and attack anyone who tries to point out their hypocrisy, which is why I am happy when they make these statements in their dating profiles. Makes it easy to swipe left on them." Have you considered decaf? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
So not fucking a Tory made him into a right wanker. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"An interesting fact about selfishness of right wingers. This is for US - Political conservatives are significantly more charitable than liberals. It looks like they put the money where their mouth is, unlike the liberals who want the government to tax other people more and help others so that they can act like they are selfless and others are selfish. It would be interesting to see these numbers for UK too. As we’ve discussed - true socialists shouldn’t give to charity, because they don’t believe it should exist. I sympathise with this view, but ultimately you have to play the board as it lay - and that means giving to charity or seeing people go without." That in my opinion is the biggest cop out from the part of socialists. If they really cared about others suffering, they would have donated their own money. Otherwise, it looks like an exercise of forcing other people to donate money so that they can feel good about themselves. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"An interesting fact about selfishness of right wingers. This is for US - Political conservatives are significantly more charitable than liberals. It looks like they put the money where their mouth is, unlike the liberals who want the government to tax other people more and help others so that they can act like they are selfless and others are selfish. It would be interesting to see these numbers for UK too. As we’ve discussed - true socialists shouldn’t give to charity, because they don’t believe it should exist. I sympathise with this view, but ultimately you have to play the board as it lay - and that means giving to charity or seeing people go without. That in my opinion is the biggest cop out from the part of socialists. If they really cared about others suffering, they would have donated their own money. Otherwise, it looks like an exercise of forcing other people to donate money so that they can feel good about themselves." Would you donate to something that you’re politically diametrically opposed to? (We’re talking about hardcore socialists here btw, not liberals) | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Maybe people did, but they still voted for a party which actively pursues policies that are cruel to the most vulnerable in society. Brexit is a complete shambles but it's still a choice to support cruelty. " The same could be said about people who voted for Labour last time. Tony Blair says hi. " You act as if it's a binary choice, why not help both? We can afford it as a country but we have a government that chose austerity, which failed, then it doubled down on a policy which had failed despite how much it was hurting the least well off and marginalised. " You act like we have infinite money and time. In case you didn't know, the country is already under lot of debt.We make these kind of choices every day only without making moral judgement. I am pretty sure you have space in your house for a homeless person to sleep. I am pretty sure you can skip a holiday to donate money and feed other people. We don't do it because we value our self interest first. Austerity did not fail. We took a route completely opposite to austerity during covid, which is what failed and caused the inflationary mess. " Yet people are happy to see refugees shipped off to a country that our own supreme court has declared unsafe, rather than allow a genuine decision be made in this country. The UK takes a miniscule amount of refugees in, far fewer than much poorer countries, yet we act like they are some kind of plague. They are not, they are humans and deserve to be treated with kindness and respect. " That's because too many people are taking advantage of the pressure on the asylum system to just show up here. The way you say, it sounds like people who already live in Rwanda voluntarily are not humans. " You seem to be taking this very personally, don't. You have your morality and I have mine. If people choose not to fuck me because of my political views then I don't see it as an attack, they just have different moral priorities to those I feel are important. I haven't said anything about anyone being evil, just that I won't fuck them. People can do whatever they want, and I can choose to fuck them or not, it doesn't mean they are evil, it just means I don't find them attractive. " You can't call people selfish and run run away from it by saying "that's just my morality". The better way to put it is "I won't fuck Tories because they have different opinion compared to mine". When you make statements like "They are selfish" or "They see regugees as less than humans", you are not making a relativistic statement. You are passing an absolute judgement of someone's character. You have the right to judge and you have the right to sleep with whoever you want. Others have the right to call it BS. " Have you considered decaf?" I like to have it with milk. But someone told me I am selfish for drinking milk from animals. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"An interesting fact about selfishness of right wingers. This is for US - Political conservatives are significantly more charitable than liberals. It looks like they put the money where their mouth is, unlike the liberals who want the government to tax other people more and help others so that they can act like they are selfless and others are selfish. It would be interesting to see these numbers for UK too. As we’ve discussed - true socialists shouldn’t give to charity, because they don’t believe it should exist. I sympathise with this view, but ultimately you have to play the board as it lay - and that means giving to charity or seeing people go without. That in my opinion is the biggest cop out from the part of socialists. If they really cared about others suffering, they would have donated their own money. Otherwise, it looks like an exercise of forcing other people to donate money so that they can feel good about themselves. Would you donate to something that you’re politically diametrically opposed to? (We’re talking about hardcore socialists here btw, not liberals) " I know where you are getting at. I have two questions. Who decides the right thing that all humans should donate to? If you cannot achieve your socialistic ideals of taxing the crap out of everyone and donate to the cause you care about, wouldn't it make sense for the armchair socialists to just make private donations until they achieve their goals through goverment? What are they waiting for? Pretty sure there are people in dire conditions who need immediate help? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"An interesting fact about selfishness of right wingers. This is for US - Political conservatives are significantly more charitable than liberals. It looks like they put the money where their mouth is, unlike the liberals who want the government to tax other people more and help others so that they can act like they are selfless and others are selfish. It would be interesting to see these numbers for UK too. As we’ve discussed - true socialists shouldn’t give to charity, because they don’t believe it should exist. I sympathise with this view, but ultimately you have to play the board as it lay - and that means giving to charity or seeing people go without. That in my opinion is the biggest cop out from the part of socialists. If they really cared about others suffering, they would have donated their own money. Otherwise, it looks like an exercise of forcing other people to donate money so that they can feel good about themselves. Would you donate to something that you’re politically diametrically opposed to? (We’re talking about hardcore socialists here btw, not liberals) I know where you are getting at. I have two questions. Who decides the right thing that all humans should donate to? If you cannot achieve your socialistic ideals of taxing the crap out of everyone and donate to the cause you care about, wouldn't it make sense for the armchair socialists to just make private donations until they achieve their goals through goverment? What are they waiting for? Pretty sure there are people in dire conditions who need immediate help?" Ah. I see the problem here. You don’t understand what theoretical socialism is. Also, you didn’t answer my question. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"An interesting fact about selfishness of right wingers. This is for US - Political conservatives are significantly more charitable than liberals. It looks like they put the money where their mouth is, unlike the liberals who want the government to tax other people more and help others so that they can act like they are selfless and others are selfish. It would be interesting to see these numbers for UK too. As we’ve discussed - true socialists shouldn’t give to charity, because they don’t believe it should exist. I sympathise with this view, but ultimately you have to play the board as it lay - and that means giving to charity or seeing people go without. That in my opinion is the biggest cop out from the part of socialists. If they really cared about others suffering, they would have donated their own money. Otherwise, it looks like an exercise of forcing other people to donate money so that they can feel good about themselves. Would you donate to something that you’re politically diametrically opposed to? (We’re talking about hardcore socialists here btw, not liberals) I know where you are getting at. I have two questions. Who decides the right thing that all humans should donate to? If you cannot achieve your socialistic ideals of taxing the crap out of everyone and donate to the cause you care about, wouldn't it make sense for the armchair socialists to just make private donations until they achieve their goals through goverment? What are they waiting for? Pretty sure there are people in dire conditions who need immediate help? Ah. I see the problem here. You don’t understand what theoretical socialism is. Also, you didn’t answer my question. " I thought you knew my answer to your question. Anyway the answer is no - I don't want to donate to a cause I don't care about. I find it immoral and authoritarian of someone else to forcefully make me pay for a cause I don't care about. I know what theoretical socialism is. I am asking for the basis of it. Atleast Marx never mentioned anything about mortality or selflessness. He viewed socialism as a natural outcome of capitalism that will eventually take us to communism and he has been proven wrong. But modern socialists claim that their socialism is based on selflessness. Hence my question. If you are really about selflessness, why don't you donate your own money until you achieve your socialistic ideals? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Tories traditionally supported the upper classes, who ruled the country. This is now been replaced with Corporations and capitalism who the Tories have aliened themselves. If Satan cam out the group and took over the world, then they would be Satanists in a few hours. Power and money is thier God." Any government led by any political party is going to be close to the corporate world, it drives jobs, trade and wealth. These are the things all governments thrive for as it brings in more tax. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Tories traditionally supported the upper classes, who ruled the country. This is now been replaced with Corporations and capitalism who the Tories have aliened themselves. If Satan cam out the group and took over the world, then they would be Satanists in a few hours. Power and money is thier God. Any government led by any political party is going to be close to the corporate world, it drives jobs, trade and wealth. These are the things all governments thrive for as it brings in more tax." Hence why Labour are getting close to big businesses and no longer saying they will reverse things brought in by the current government | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Tories traditionally supported the upper classes, who ruled the country. This is now been replaced with Corporations and capitalism who the Tories have aliened themselves. If Satan cam out the group and took over the world, then they would be Satanists in a few hours. Power and money is thier God. Any government led by any political party is going to be close to the corporate world, it drives jobs, trade and wealth. These are the things all governments thrive for as it brings in more tax. Hence why Labour are getting close to big businesses and no longer saying they will reverse things brought in by the current government" That is true, the labour party were out if force at davos this year, with Mr starmer and Mrs reeves attending, a typical tell of were the Labour party are looking for answers. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Maybe people did, but they still voted for a party which actively pursues policies that are cruel to the most vulnerable in society. Brexit is a complete shambles but it's still a choice to support cruelty. The same could be said about people who voted for Labour last time. Tony Blair says hi. " I'm no fan of Blair buy I don't recall him initiating policies that deliberately targeted the worst off in society, could you provide some examples? "You act as if it's a binary choice, why not help both? We can afford it as a country but we have a government that chose austerity, which failed, then it doubled down on a policy which had failed despite how much it was hurting the least well off and marginalised. You act like we have infinite money and time. In case you didn't know, the country is already under lot of debt.We make these kind of choices every day only without making moral judgement. I am pretty sure you have space in your house for a homeless person to sleep. I am pretty sure you can skip a holiday to donate money and feed other people. We don't do it because we value our self interest first. " Actually no, I have no spare rooms in my house, and I give to several charities monthly. You value your self interest first, don't assume everyone else shares your morality. Also, again, it's not a binary choice, you can both look after yourself and help others. That you think it's the case is very revealing though. "Austerity did not fail. We took a route completely opposite to austerity during covid, which is what failed and caused the inflationary mess." When Austerity began the country was £1.03 Trillion in debt, in March 2020 (pre Covid spending) it was £1.8 Trillion in debt. Austerity policies directly caused 148,000 deaths. Cutting public spending reduced demand in the economy, which constrained tax revenues and increased demand on the public sector. "Yet people are happy to see refugees shipped off to a country that our own supreme court has declared unsafe, rather than allow a genuine decision be made in this country. The UK takes a miniscule amount of refugees in, far fewer than much poorer countries, yet we act like they are some kind of plague. They are not, they are humans and deserve to be treated with kindness and respect. That's because too many people are taking advantage of the pressure on the asylum system to just show up here. The way you say, it sounds like people who already live in Rwanda voluntarily are not humans. " 63% of people who apply for asylum in the UK are accepted, this rises to 75% on appeal. Also, what that I said makes it sound like I think Rwandans aren't human? "You seem to be taking this very personally, don't. You have your morality and I have mine. If people choose not to fuck me because of my political views then I don't see it as an attack, they just have different moral priorities to those I feel are important. I haven't said anything about anyone being evil, just that I won't fuck them. People can do whatever they want, and I can choose to fuck them or not, it doesn't mean they are evil, it just means I don't find them attractive. You can't call people selfish and run run away from it by saying "that's just my morality". The better way to put it is "I won't fuck Tories because they have different opinion compared to mine". When you make statements like "They are selfish" or "They see regugees as less than humans", you are not making a relativistic statement. You are passing an absolute judgement of someone's character. You have the right to judge and you have the right to sleep with whoever you want. Others have the right to call it BS." selfish /'s?lf??/ adjective (of a person, action, or motive) lacking consideration for other people; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure. You said: "We don't do it because we value our self interest first." You are literally the dictionary definition of selfish, you just assume everyone else is like you. You say I have no right to judge yet you make the judgment that people are taking advantage of the backlog in the immigration system (caused by the Tories btw). "Have you considered decaf? I like to have it with milk. But someone told me I am selfish for drinking milk from animals. " You really should try decaf. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Maybe people did, but they still voted for a party which actively pursues policies that are cruel to the most vulnerable in society. Brexit is a complete shambles but it's still a choice to support cruelty. The same could be said about people who voted for Labour last time. Tony Blair says hi. I'm no fan of Blair buy I don't recall him initiating policies that deliberately targeted the worst off in society, could you provide some examples? You act as if it's a binary choice, why not help both? We can afford it as a country but we have a government that chose austerity, which failed, then it doubled down on a policy which had failed despite how much it was hurting the least well off and marginalised. You act like we have infinite money and time. In case you didn't know, the country is already under lot of debt.We make these kind of choices every day only without making moral judgement. I am pretty sure you have space in your house for a homeless person to sleep. I am pretty sure you can skip a holiday to donate money and feed other people. We don't do it because we value our self interest first. Actually no, I have no spare rooms in my house, and I give to several charities monthly. You value your self interest first, don't assume everyone else shares your morality. Also, again, it's not a binary choice, you can both look after yourself and help others. That you think it's the case is very revealing though. Austerity did not fail. We took a route completely opposite to austerity during covid, which is what failed and caused the inflationary mess. When Austerity began the country was £1.03 Trillion in debt, in March 2020 (pre Covid spending) it was £1.8 Trillion in debt. Austerity policies directly caused 148,000 deaths. Cutting public spending reduced demand in the economy, which constrained tax revenues and increased demand on the public sector. Yet people are happy to see refugees shipped off to a country that our own supreme court has declared unsafe, rather than allow a genuine decision be made in this country. The UK takes a miniscule amount of refugees in, far fewer than much poorer countries, yet we act like they are some kind of plague. They are not, they are humans and deserve to be treated with kindness and respect. That's because too many people are taking advantage of the pressure on the asylum system to just show up here. The way you say, it sounds like people who already live in Rwanda voluntarily are not humans. 63% of people who apply for asylum in the UK are accepted, this rises to 75% on appeal. Also, what that I said makes it sound like I think Rwandans aren't human? You seem to be taking this very personally, don't. You have your morality and I have mine. If people choose not to fuck me because of my political views then I don't see it as an attack, they just have different moral priorities to those I feel are important. I haven't said anything about anyone being evil, just that I won't fuck them. People can do whatever they want, and I can choose to fuck them or not, it doesn't mean they are evil, it just means I don't find them attractive. You can't call people selfish and run run away from it by saying "that's just my morality". The better way to put it is "I won't fuck Tories because they have different opinion compared to mine". When you make statements like "They are selfish" or "They see regugees as less than humans", you are not making a relativistic statement. You are passing an absolute judgement of someone's character. You have the right to judge and you have the right to sleep with whoever you want. Others have the right to call it BS. selfish /'s?lf??/ adjective (of a person, action, or motive) lacking consideration for other people; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure. You said: "We don't do it because we value our self interest first." You are literally the dictionary definition of selfish, you just assume everyone else is like you. You say I have no right to judge yet you make the judgment that people are taking advantage of the backlog in the immigration system (caused by the Tories btw). Have you considered decaf? I like to have it with milk. But someone told me I am selfish for drinking milk from animals. You really should try decaf." That old chestnut, I’ve no spare room! Make some room, split a room, share a room, or you could move out for a while, donate money to build some rooms locally, be socialist or not as it suits  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I'm no fan of Blair buy I don't recall him initiating policies that deliberately targeted the worst off in society, could you provide some examples? " He went on a war that resulted in massive loss of lives and screwed up the entire geopolitical environment. For someone who cares a lot about other people, that should have made stop fucking labour voters. " Actually no, I have no spare rooms in my house, and I give to several charities monthly. You value your self interest first, don't assume everyone else shares your morality. Also, again, it's not a binary choice, you can both look after yourself and help others. That you think it's the case is very revealing though. " Pretty sure there is some space in the kitchen or living room where a homeless person would happily stay for the night instead of sleeping in the cold. Hell you're here having a paid account on a swingers website. That's money which could have paid the meal for someone. Isn't that ao selfish of you? The question how much do you want for yourself before you decide to help others. If you really want to help others, why don't you do it yourself through charity instead of wanting the government to do it? " When Austerity began the country was £1.03 Trillion in debt, in March 2020 (pre Covid spending) it was £1.8 Trillion in debt. " Without austerity, it would have been even higher. UK's debt to GDP ratio stabilised during that period. " Austerity policies directly caused 148,000 deaths. " Based on what? " Cutting public spending reduced demand in the economy, which constrained tax revenues and increased demand on the public sector. " Forcing demand through public spending is precisely what causes inflation that we experienced last two years. 63% of people who apply for asylum in the UK are accepted, this rises to 75% on appeal. Also, what that I said makes it sound like I think Rwandans aren't human? " You seem to be taking this very personally, don't. You have your morality and I have mine. If people choose not to fuck me because of my political views then I don't see it as an attack, they just have different moral priorities to those I feel are important. I haven't said anything about anyone being evil, just that I won't fuck them. People can do whatever they want, and I can choose to fuck them or not, it doesn't mean they are evil, it just means I don't find them attractive. " There are enough examples you have seen in the news recently that tells you how our processing system can be gamed. Right from claiming fake religious conversations to claiming that they are gay. " selfish /'s?lf??/ adjective (of a person, action, or motive) lacking consideration for other people; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure. You said: "We don't do it because we value our self interest first." You are literally the dictionary definition of selfish, you just assume everyone else is like you. " You can't help others before you are in a stable state yourself. Like how they tell you in the airlines - Wear your own oxygen mask before helping others. At least we are honest enough to accept it. We don't tell we are selfless while going around spending money on swingers website instead of using that money to help others. " You say I have no right to judge yet you make the judgment that people are taking advantage of the backlog in the immigration system (caused by the Tories btw). " I don't think I ever said you don't have the right to judge. You have have the right to judge. But your judgement is lame. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm starting to understand that our progressives are equally as selfish as the tories they despise. It makes so much sense that we have a country that votes down the middle and both parties are pretty much the same, the consequences of going off that line are frightening. " That's the problem. It was never about acting selflessly. It was always about the story we tell ourselves on why we aren't acting selflessly. Right wingers who don't help others tell themselves that it's the responsibility of the sufferers for being in this state. Left wingers tell themselves that "it's those damn rich people" who should take responsibility. Many people help others if they have something extra - Like spare change in their pocket or some left over food they have. The reason why republicans in the US have higher share of charity donations is simple - Religion. I hate religions myself, but when it comes to getting people to donate for others, religion has been the strongest driver. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Maybe people did, but they still voted for a party which actively pursues policies that are cruel to the most vulnerable in society. Brexit is a complete shambles but it's still a choice to support cruelty. The same could be said about people who voted for Labour last time. Tony Blair says hi. I'm no fan of Blair buy I don't recall him initiating policies that deliberately targeted the worst off in society, could you provide some examples? You act as if it's a binary choice, why not help both? We can afford it as a country but we have a government that chose austerity, which failed, then it doubled down on a policy which had failed despite how much it was hurting the least well off and marginalised. You act like we have infinite money and time. In case you didn't know, the country is already under lot of debt.We make these kind of choices every day only without making moral judgement. I am pretty sure you have space in your house for a homeless person to sleep. I am pretty sure you can skip a holiday to donate money and feed other people. We don't do it because we value our self interest first. Actually no, I have no spare rooms in my house, and I give to several charities monthly. You value your self interest first, don't assume everyone else shares your morality. Also, again, it's not a binary choice, you can both look after yourself and help others. That you think it's the case is very revealing though. Austerity did not fail. We took a route completely opposite to austerity during covid, which is what failed and caused the inflationary mess. When Austerity began the country was £1.03 Trillion in debt, in March 2020 (pre Covid spending) it was £1.8 Trillion in debt. Austerity policies directly caused 148,000 deaths. Cutting public spending reduced demand in the economy, which constrained tax revenues and increased demand on the public sector. Yet people are happy to see refugees shipped off to a country that our own supreme court has declared unsafe, rather than allow a genuine decision be made in this country. The UK takes a miniscule amount of refugees in, far fewer than much poorer countries, yet we act like they are some kind of plague. They are not, they are humans and deserve to be treated with kindness and respect. That's because too many people are taking advantage of the pressure on the asylum system to just show up here. The way you say, it sounds like people who already live in Rwanda voluntarily are not humans. 63% of people who apply for asylum in the UK are accepted, this rises to 75% on appeal. Also, what that I said makes it sound like I think Rwandans aren't human? You seem to be taking this very personally, don't. You have your morality and I have mine. If people choose not to fuck me because of my political views then I don't see it as an attack, they just have different moral priorities to those I feel are important. I haven't said anything about anyone being evil, just that I won't fuck them. People can do whatever they want, and I can choose to fuck them or not, it doesn't mean they are evil, it just means I don't find them attractive. You can't call people selfish and run run away from it by saying "that's just my morality". The better way to put it is "I won't fuck Tories because they have different opinion compared to mine". When you make statements like "They are selfish" or "They see regugees as less than humans", you are not making a relativistic statement. You are passing an absolute judgement of someone's character. You have the right to judge and you have the right to sleep with whoever you want. Others have the right to call it BS. selfish /'s?lf??/ adjective (of a person, action, or motive) lacking consideration for other people; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure. You said: "We don't do it because we value our self interest first." You are literally the dictionary definition of selfish, you just assume everyone else is like you. You say I have no right to judge yet you make the judgment that people are taking advantage of the backlog in the immigration system (caused by the Tories btw). Have you considered decaf? I like to have it with milk. But someone told me I am selfish for drinking milk from animals. You really should try decaf. That old chestnut, I’ve no spare room! Make some room, split a room, share a room, or you could move out for a while, donate money to build some rooms locally, be socialist or not as it suits "In a true socialist world, everyone would have property according to their need, so no need to split rooms
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Maybe people did, but they still voted for a party which actively pursues policies that are cruel to the most vulnerable in society. Brexit is a complete shambles but it's still a choice to support cruelty. The same could be said about people who voted for Labour last time. Tony Blair says hi. I'm no fan of Blair buy I don't recall him initiating policies that deliberately targeted the worst off in society, could you provide some examples? You act as if it's a binary choice, why not help both? We can afford it as a country but we have a government that chose austerity, which failed, then it doubled down on a policy which had failed despite how much it was hurting the least well off and marginalised. You act like we have infinite money and time. In case you didn't know, the country is already under lot of debt.We make these kind of choices every day only without making moral judgement. I am pretty sure you have space in your house for a homeless person to sleep. I am pretty sure you can skip a holiday to donate money and feed other people. We don't do it because we value our self interest first. Actually no, I have no spare rooms in my house, and I give to several charities monthly. You value your self interest first, don't assume everyone else shares your morality. Also, again, it's not a binary choice, you can both look after yourself and help others. That you think it's the case is very revealing though. Austerity did not fail. We took a route completely opposite to austerity during covid, which is what failed and caused the inflationary mess. When Austerity began the country was £1.03 Trillion in debt, in March 2020 (pre Covid spending) it was £1.8 Trillion in debt. Austerity policies directly caused 148,000 deaths. Cutting public spending reduced demand in the economy, which constrained tax revenues and increased demand on the public sector. Yet people are happy to see refugees shipped off to a country that our own supreme court has declared unsafe, rather than allow a genuine decision be made in this country. The UK takes a miniscule amount of refugees in, far fewer than much poorer countries, yet we act like they are some kind of plague. They are not, they are humans and deserve to be treated with kindness and respect. That's because too many people are taking advantage of the pressure on the asylum system to just show up here. The way you say, it sounds like people who already live in Rwanda voluntarily are not humans. 63% of people who apply for asylum in the UK are accepted, this rises to 75% on appeal. Also, what that I said makes it sound like I think Rwandans aren't human? You seem to be taking this very personally, don't. You have your morality and I have mine. If people choose not to fuck me because of my political views then I don't see it as an attack, they just have different moral priorities to those I feel are important. I haven't said anything about anyone being evil, just that I won't fuck them. People can do whatever they want, and I can choose to fuck them or not, it doesn't mean they are evil, it just means I don't find them attractive. You can't call people selfish and run run away from it by saying "that's just my morality". The better way to put it is "I won't fuck Tories because they have different opinion compared to mine". When you make statements like "They are selfish" or "They see regugees as less than humans", you are not making a relativistic statement. You are passing an absolute judgement of someone's character. You have the right to judge and you have the right to sleep with whoever you want. Others have the right to call it BS. selfish /'s?lf??/ adjective (of a person, action, or motive) lacking consideration for other people; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure. You said: "We don't do it because we value our self interest first." You are literally the dictionary definition of selfish, you just assume everyone else is like you. You say I have no right to judge yet you make the judgment that people are taking advantage of the backlog in the immigration system (caused by the Tories btw). Have you considered decaf? I like to have it with milk. But someone told me I am selfish for drinking milk from animals. You really should try decaf. That old chestnut, I’ve no spare room! Make some room, split a room, share a room, or you could move out for a while, donate money to build some rooms locally, be socialist or not as it suits
In a true socialist world, everyone would have property according to their need, so no need to split rooms
"Only when it is tried, millions die of starvation. But hey, at least there will be so many houses free. Let me guess.. Socialism was never implemented properly? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Maybe people did, but they still voted for a party which actively pursues policies that are cruel to the most vulnerable in society. Brexit is a complete shambles but it's still a choice to support cruelty. The same could be said about people who voted for Labour last time. Tony Blair says hi. I'm no fan of Blair buy I don't recall him initiating policies that deliberately targeted the worst off in society, could you provide some examples? You act as if it's a binary choice, why not help both? We can afford it as a country but we have a government that chose austerity, which failed, then it doubled down on a policy which had failed despite how much it was hurting the least well off and marginalised. You act like we have infinite money and time. In case you didn't know, the country is already under lot of debt.We make these kind of choices every day only without making moral judgement. I am pretty sure you have space in your house for a homeless person to sleep. I am pretty sure you can skip a holiday to donate money and feed other people. We don't do it because we value our self interest first. Actually no, I have no spare rooms in my house, and I give to several charities monthly. You value your self interest first, don't assume everyone else shares your morality. Also, again, it's not a binary choice, you can both look after yourself and help others. That you think it's the case is very revealing though. Austerity did not fail. We took a route completely opposite to austerity during covid, which is what failed and caused the inflationary mess. When Austerity began the country was £1.03 Trillion in debt, in March 2020 (pre Covid spending) it was £1.8 Trillion in debt. Austerity policies directly caused 148,000 deaths. Cutting public spending reduced demand in the economy, which constrained tax revenues and increased demand on the public sector. Yet people are happy to see refugees shipped off to a country that our own supreme court has declared unsafe, rather than allow a genuine decision be made in this country. The UK takes a miniscule amount of refugees in, far fewer than much poorer countries, yet we act like they are some kind of plague. They are not, they are humans and deserve to be treated with kindness and respect. That's because too many people are taking advantage of the pressure on the asylum system to just show up here. The way you say, it sounds like people who already live in Rwanda voluntarily are not humans. 63% of people who apply for asylum in the UK are accepted, this rises to 75% on appeal. Also, what that I said makes it sound like I think Rwandans aren't human? You seem to be taking this very personally, don't. You have your morality and I have mine. If people choose not to fuck me because of my political views then I don't see it as an attack, they just have different moral priorities to those I feel are important. I haven't said anything about anyone being evil, just that I won't fuck them. People can do whatever they want, and I can choose to fuck them or not, it doesn't mean they are evil, it just means I don't find them attractive. You can't call people selfish and run run away from it by saying "that's just my morality". The better way to put it is "I won't fuck Tories because they have different opinion compared to mine". When you make statements like "They are selfish" or "They see regugees as less than humans", you are not making a relativistic statement. You are passing an absolute judgement of someone's character. You have the right to judge and you have the right to sleep with whoever you want. Others have the right to call it BS. selfish /'s?lf??/ adjective (of a person, action, or motive) lacking consideration for other people; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure. You said: "We don't do it because we value our self interest first." You are literally the dictionary definition of selfish, you just assume everyone else is like you. You say I have no right to judge yet you make the judgment that people are taking advantage of the backlog in the immigration system (caused by the Tories btw). Have you considered decaf? I like to have it with milk. But someone told me I am selfish for drinking milk from animals. You really should try decaf. That old chestnut, I’ve no spare room! Make some room, split a room, share a room, or you could move out for a while, donate money to build some rooms locally, be socialist or not as it suits
In a true socialist world, everyone would have property according to their need, so no need to split rooms
"You need to start somewhere and at sometime comrade, why not now? Line up, excuse number 238: If we tax..... On another note: I'm interested in this comment "everyone would have property according to their need" I would need at least 5 bedrooms, all on-suite, Kitchen with bi-folds and enough island space for 14 people, large games room is a must with access to the pool and a secure garage to house 5 cars. Outdoors, I would need separation from others and approx 10 acres for the dogs and enough clearance from roads and others for my guns. I will make do with the rest. Where do I sign up? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Maybe people did, but they still voted for a party which actively pursues policies that are cruel to the most vulnerable in society. Brexit is a complete shambles but it's still a choice to support cruelty. The same could be said about people who voted for Labour last time. Tony Blair says hi. I'm no fan of Blair buy I don't recall him initiating policies that deliberately targeted the worst off in society, could you provide some examples? You act as if it's a binary choice, why not help both? We can afford it as a country but we have a government that chose austerity, which failed, then it doubled down on a policy which had failed despite how much it was hurting the least well off and marginalised. You act like we have infinite money and time. In case you didn't know, the country is already under lot of debt.We make these kind of choices every day only without making moral judgement. I am pretty sure you have space in your house for a homeless person to sleep. I am pretty sure you can skip a holiday to donate money and feed other people. We don't do it because we value our self interest first. Actually no, I have no spare rooms in my house, and I give to several charities monthly. You value your self interest first, don't assume everyone else shares your morality. Also, again, it's not a binary choice, you can both look after yourself and help others. That you think it's the case is very revealing though. Austerity did not fail. We took a route completely opposite to austerity during covid, which is what failed and caused the inflationary mess. When Austerity began the country was £1.03 Trillion in debt, in March 2020 (pre Covid spending) it was £1.8 Trillion in debt. Austerity policies directly caused 148,000 deaths. Cutting public spending reduced demand in the economy, which constrained tax revenues and increased demand on the public sector. Yet people are happy to see refugees shipped off to a country that our own supreme court has declared unsafe, rather than allow a genuine decision be made in this country. The UK takes a miniscule amount of refugees in, far fewer than much poorer countries, yet we act like they are some kind of plague. They are not, they are humans and deserve to be treated with kindness and respect. That's because too many people are taking advantage of the pressure on the asylum system to just show up here. The way you say, it sounds like people who already live in Rwanda voluntarily are not humans. 63% of people who apply for asylum in the UK are accepted, this rises to 75% on appeal. Also, what that I said makes it sound like I think Rwandans aren't human? You seem to be taking this very personally, don't. You have your morality and I have mine. If people choose not to fuck me because of my political views then I don't see it as an attack, they just have different moral priorities to those I feel are important. I haven't said anything about anyone being evil, just that I won't fuck them. People can do whatever they want, and I can choose to fuck them or not, it doesn't mean they are evil, it just means I don't find them attractive. You can't call people selfish and run run away from it by saying "that's just my morality". The better way to put it is "I won't fuck Tories because they have different opinion compared to mine". When you make statements like "They are selfish" or "They see regugees as less than humans", you are not making a relativistic statement. You are passing an absolute judgement of someone's character. You have the right to judge and you have the right to sleep with whoever you want. Others have the right to call it BS. selfish /'s?lf??/ adjective (of a person, action, or motive) lacking consideration for other people; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure. You said: "We don't do it because we value our self interest first." You are literally the dictionary definition of selfish, you just assume everyone else is like you. You say I have no right to judge yet you make the judgment that people are taking advantage of the backlog in the immigration system (caused by the Tories btw). Have you considered decaf? I like to have it with milk. But someone told me I am selfish for drinking milk from animals. You really should try decaf. That old chestnut, I’ve no spare room! Make some room, split a room, share a room, or you could move out for a while, donate money to build some rooms locally, be socialist or not as it suits
In a true socialist world, everyone would have property according to their need, so no need to split rooms
You need to start somewhere and at sometime comrade, why not now?
Line up, excuse number 238: If we tax.....
On another note:
I'm interested in this comment
"everyone would have property according to their need"
I would need at least 5 bedrooms, all on-suite, Kitchen with bi-folds and enough island space for 14 people, large games room is a must with access to the pool and a secure garage to house 5 cars.
Outdoors, I would need separation from others and approx 10 acres for the dogs and enough clearance from roads and others for my guns.
I will make do with the rest.
Where do I sign up?"It’s ok, you could have typed ‘I don’t understand socialism’ and saved some characters | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Maybe people did, but they still voted for a party which actively pursues policies that are cruel to the most vulnerable in society. Brexit is a complete shambles but it's still a choice to support cruelty. The same could be said about people who voted for Labour last time. Tony Blair says hi. I'm no fan of Blair buy I don't recall him initiating policies that deliberately targeted the worst off in society, could you provide some examples? You act as if it's a binary choice, why not help both? We can afford it as a country but we have a government that chose austerity, which failed, then it doubled down on a policy which had failed despite how much it was hurting the least well off and marginalised. You act like we have infinite money and time. In case you didn't know, the country is already under lot of debt.We make these kind of choices every day only without making moral judgement. I am pretty sure you have space in your house for a homeless person to sleep. I am pretty sure you can skip a holiday to donate money and feed other people. We don't do it because we value our self interest first. Actually no, I have no spare rooms in my house, and I give to several charities monthly. You value your self interest first, don't assume everyone else shares your morality. Also, again, it's not a binary choice, you can both look after yourself and help others. That you think it's the case is very revealing though. Austerity did not fail. We took a route completely opposite to austerity during covid, which is what failed and caused the inflationary mess. When Austerity began the country was £1.03 Trillion in debt, in March 2020 (pre Covid spending) it was £1.8 Trillion in debt. Austerity policies directly caused 148,000 deaths. Cutting public spending reduced demand in the economy, which constrained tax revenues and increased demand on the public sector. Yet people are happy to see refugees shipped off to a country that our own supreme court has declared unsafe, rather than allow a genuine decision be made in this country. The UK takes a miniscule amount of refugees in, far fewer than much poorer countries, yet we act like they are some kind of plague. They are not, they are humans and deserve to be treated with kindness and respect. That's because too many people are taking advantage of the pressure on the asylum system to just show up here. The way you say, it sounds like people who already live in Rwanda voluntarily are not humans. 63% of people who apply for asylum in the UK are accepted, this rises to 75% on appeal. Also, what that I said makes it sound like I think Rwandans aren't human? You seem to be taking this very personally, don't. You have your morality and I have mine. If people choose not to fuck me because of my political views then I don't see it as an attack, they just have different moral priorities to those I feel are important. I haven't said anything about anyone being evil, just that I won't fuck them. People can do whatever they want, and I can choose to fuck them or not, it doesn't mean they are evil, it just means I don't find them attractive. You can't call people selfish and run run away from it by saying "that's just my morality". The better way to put it is "I won't fuck Tories because they have different opinion compared to mine". When you make statements like "They are selfish" or "They see regugees as less than humans", you are not making a relativistic statement. You are passing an absolute judgement of someone's character. You have the right to judge and you have the right to sleep with whoever you want. Others have the right to call it BS. selfish /'s?lf??/ adjective (of a person, action, or motive) lacking consideration for other people; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure. You said: "We don't do it because we value our self interest first." You are literally the dictionary definition of selfish, you just assume everyone else is like you. You say I have no right to judge yet you make the judgment that people are taking advantage of the backlog in the immigration system (caused by the Tories btw). Have you considered decaf? I like to have it with milk. But someone told me I am selfish for drinking milk from animals. You really should try decaf. That old chestnut, I’ve no spare room! Make some room, split a room, share a room, or you could move out for a while, donate money to build some rooms locally, be socialist or not as it suits
In a true socialist world, everyone would have property according to their need, so no need to split rooms
Only when it is tried, millions die of starvation. But hey, at least there will be so many houses free.
Let me guess.. Socialism was never implemented properly?"I’m just pointing out people’s misconceptions, that’s all. Incidentally, we live in a part socialised nation now (not so much as would be ideal, but we borrow some elements). | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Maybe people did, but they still voted for a party which actively pursues policies that are cruel to the most vulnerable in society. Brexit is a complete shambles but it's still a choice to support cruelty. The same could be said about people who voted for Labour last time. Tony Blair says hi. I'm no fan of Blair buy I don't recall him initiating policies that deliberately targeted the worst off in society, could you provide some examples? You act as if it's a binary choice, why not help both? We can afford it as a country but we have a government that chose austerity, which failed, then it doubled down on a policy which had failed despite how much it was hurting the least well off and marginalised. You act like we have infinite money and time. In case you didn't know, the country is already under lot of debt.We make these kind of choices every day only without making moral judgement. I am pretty sure you have space in your house for a homeless person to sleep. I am pretty sure you can skip a holiday to donate money and feed other people. We don't do it because we value our self interest first. Actually no, I have no spare rooms in my house, and I give to several charities monthly. You value your self interest first, don't assume everyone else shares your morality. Also, again, it's not a binary choice, you can both look after yourself and help others. That you think it's the case is very revealing though. Austerity did not fail. We took a route completely opposite to austerity during covid, which is what failed and caused the inflationary mess. When Austerity began the country was £1.03 Trillion in debt, in March 2020 (pre Covid spending) it was £1.8 Trillion in debt. Austerity policies directly caused 148,000 deaths. Cutting public spending reduced demand in the economy, which constrained tax revenues and increased demand on the public sector. Yet people are happy to see refugees shipped off to a country that our own supreme court has declared unsafe, rather than allow a genuine decision be made in this country. The UK takes a miniscule amount of refugees in, far fewer than much poorer countries, yet we act like they are some kind of plague. They are not, they are humans and deserve to be treated with kindness and respect. That's because too many people are taking advantage of the pressure on the asylum system to just show up here. The way you say, it sounds like people who already live in Rwanda voluntarily are not humans. 63% of people who apply for asylum in the UK are accepted, this rises to 75% on appeal. Also, what that I said makes it sound like I think Rwandans aren't human? You seem to be taking this very personally, don't. You have your morality and I have mine. If people choose not to fuck me because of my political views then I don't see it as an attack, they just have different moral priorities to those I feel are important. I haven't said anything about anyone being evil, just that I won't fuck them. People can do whatever they want, and I can choose to fuck them or not, it doesn't mean they are evil, it just means I don't find them attractive. You can't call people selfish and run run away from it by saying "that's just my morality". The better way to put it is "I won't fuck Tories because they have different opinion compared to mine". When you make statements like "They are selfish" or "They see regugees as less than humans", you are not making a relativistic statement. You are passing an absolute judgement of someone's character. You have the right to judge and you have the right to sleep with whoever you want. Others have the right to call it BS. selfish /'s?lf??/ adjective (of a person, action, or motive) lacking consideration for other people; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure. You said: "We don't do it because we value our self interest first." You are literally the dictionary definition of selfish, you just assume everyone else is like you. You say I have no right to judge yet you make the judgment that people are taking advantage of the backlog in the immigration system (caused by the Tories btw). Have you considered decaf? I like to have it with milk. But someone told me I am selfish for drinking milk from animals. You really should try decaf. That old chestnut, I’ve no spare room! Make some room, split a room, share a room, or you could move out for a while, donate money to build some rooms locally, be socialist or not as it suits
In a true socialist world, everyone would have property according to their need, so no need to split rooms
Only when it is tried, millions die of starvation. But hey, at least there will be so many houses free.
Let me guess.. Socialism was never implemented properly?
I’m just pointing out people’s misconceptions, that’s all.
Incidentally, we live in a part socialised nation now (not so much as would be ideal, but we borrow some elements)."True... Social welfare systems around Europe are working amazingly well right now that we only want more of it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" It’s ok, you could have typed ‘I don’t understand socialism’ and saved some characters "Maybe you should tell us what you mean by socialism. All I see is you jumping around and moving goal posts saying "But that's not the socialism I am talking about", something which most other champagne socialists do. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Maybe people did, but they still voted for a party which actively pursues policies that are cruel to the most vulnerable in society. Brexit is a complete shambles but it's still a choice to support cruelty. The same could be said about people who voted for Labour last time. Tony Blair says hi. I'm no fan of Blair buy I don't recall him initiating policies that deliberately targeted the worst off in society, could you provide some examples? You act as if it's a binary choice, why not help both? We can afford it as a country but we have a government that chose austerity, which failed, then it doubled down on a policy which had failed despite how much it was hurting the least well off and marginalised. You act like we have infinite money and time. In case you didn't know, the country is already under lot of debt.We make these kind of choices every day only without making moral judgement. I am pretty sure you have space in your house for a homeless person to sleep. I am pretty sure you can skip a holiday to donate money and feed other people. We don't do it because we value our self interest first. Actually no, I have no spare rooms in my house, and I give to several charities monthly. You value your self interest first, don't assume everyone else shares your morality. Also, again, it's not a binary choice, you can both look after yourself and help others. That you think it's the case is very revealing though. Austerity did not fail. We took a route completely opposite to austerity during covid, which is what failed and caused the inflationary mess. When Austerity began the country was £1.03 Trillion in debt, in March 2020 (pre Covid spending) it was £1.8 Trillion in debt. Austerity policies directly caused 148,000 deaths. Cutting public spending reduced demand in the economy, which constrained tax revenues and increased demand on the public sector. Yet people are happy to see refugees shipped off to a country that our own supreme court has declared unsafe, rather than allow a genuine decision be made in this country. The UK takes a miniscule amount of refugees in, far fewer than much poorer countries, yet we act like they are some kind of plague. They are not, they are humans and deserve to be treated with kindness and respect. That's because too many people are taking advantage of the pressure on the asylum system to just show up here. The way you say, it sounds like people who already live in Rwanda voluntarily are not humans. 63% of people who apply for asylum in the UK are accepted, this rises to 75% on appeal. Also, what that I said makes it sound like I think Rwandans aren't human? You seem to be taking this very personally, don't. You have your morality and I have mine. If people choose not to fuck me because of my political views then I don't see it as an attack, they just have different moral priorities to those I feel are important. I haven't said anything about anyone being evil, just that I won't fuck them. People can do whatever they want, and I can choose to fuck them or not, it doesn't mean they are evil, it just means I don't find them attractive. You can't call people selfish and run run away from it by saying "that's just my morality". The better way to put it is "I won't fuck Tories because they have different opinion compared to mine". When you make statements like "They are selfish" or "They see regugees as less than humans", you are not making a relativistic statement. You are passing an absolute judgement of someone's character. You have the right to judge and you have the right to sleep with whoever you want. Others have the right to call it BS. selfish /'s?lf??/ adjective (of a person, action, or motive) lacking consideration for other people; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure. You said: "We don't do it because we value our self interest first." You are literally the dictionary definition of selfish, you just assume everyone else is like you. You say I have no right to judge yet you make the judgment that people are taking advantage of the backlog in the immigration system (caused by the Tories btw). Have you considered decaf? I like to have it with milk. But someone told me I am selfish for drinking milk from animals. You really should try decaf. That old chestnut, I’ve no spare room! Make some room, split a room, share a room, or you could move out for a while, donate money to build some rooms locally, be socialist or not as it suits
In a true socialist world, everyone would have property according to their need, so no need to split rooms
You need to start somewhere and at sometime comrade, why not now?
Line up, excuse number 238: If we tax.....
On another note:
I'm interested in this comment
"everyone would have property according to their need"
I would need at least 5 bedrooms, all on-suite, Kitchen with bi-folds and enough island space for 14 people, large games room is a must with access to the pool and a secure garage to house 5 cars.
Outdoors, I would need separation from others and approx 10 acres for the dogs and enough clearance from roads and others for my guns.
I will make do with the rest.
Where do I sign up?
It’s ok, you could have typed ‘I don’t understand socialism’ and saved some characters "Don't start back tracking now! Or are you telling me things would be rather grim with a one size fits all? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We should have a "none of the above" option on the ballot papers." Now if you could guarantee the last spot on the ballot paper that would be a great name for a political party
S | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" It’s ok, you could have typed ‘I don’t understand socialism’ and saved some characters
Maybe you should tell us what you mean by socialism. All I see is you jumping around and moving goal posts saying "But that's not the socialism I am talking about", something which most other champagne socialists do. "You do seem to have trouble understanding simple language, it’s quite bizarre. Just because I have mentioned socialism, doesn’t mean that I am defending, promoting or making any claim about socialism working/failing etc. If you’d paid any attention around here, you’d know that I define myself as a soc-dem (which is a very different thing indeed). I just happen to have read some Marx and other writings, and don’t base my knowledge of socialism on what mouthy capitalist tell me it is… | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Maybe people did, but they still voted for a party which actively pursues policies that are cruel to the most vulnerable in society. Brexit is a complete shambles but it's still a choice to support cruelty. The same could be said about people who voted for Labour last time. Tony Blair says hi. I'm no fan of Blair buy I don't recall him initiating policies that deliberately targeted the worst off in society, could you provide some examples? You act as if it's a binary choice, why not help both? We can afford it as a country but we have a government that chose austerity, which failed, then it doubled down on a policy which had failed despite how much it was hurting the least well off and marginalised. You act like we have infinite money and time. In case you didn't know, the country is already under lot of debt.We make these kind of choices every day only without making moral judgement. I am pretty sure you have space in your house for a homeless person to sleep. I am pretty sure you can skip a holiday to donate money and feed other people. We don't do it because we value our self interest first. Actually no, I have no spare rooms in my house, and I give to several charities monthly. You value your self interest first, don't assume everyone else shares your morality. Also, again, it's not a binary choice, you can both look after yourself and help others. That you think it's the case is very revealing though. Austerity did not fail. We took a route completely opposite to austerity during covid, which is what failed and caused the inflationary mess. When Austerity began the country was £1.03 Trillion in debt, in March 2020 (pre Covid spending) it was £1.8 Trillion in debt. Austerity policies directly caused 148,000 deaths. Cutting public spending reduced demand in the economy, which constrained tax revenues and increased demand on the public sector. Yet people are happy to see refugees shipped off to a country that our own supreme court has declared unsafe, rather than allow a genuine decision be made in this country. The UK takes a miniscule amount of refugees in, far fewer than much poorer countries, yet we act like they are some kind of plague. They are not, they are humans and deserve to be treated with kindness and respect. That's because too many people are taking advantage of the pressure on the asylum system to just show up here. The way you say, it sounds like people who already live in Rwanda voluntarily are not humans. 63% of people who apply for asylum in the UK are accepted, this rises to 75% on appeal. Also, what that I said makes it sound like I think Rwandans aren't human? You seem to be taking this very personally, don't. You have your morality and I have mine. If people choose not to fuck me because of my political views then I don't see it as an attack, they just have different moral priorities to those I feel are important. I haven't said anything about anyone being evil, just that I won't fuck them. People can do whatever they want, and I can choose to fuck them or not, it doesn't mean they are evil, it just means I don't find them attractive. You can't call people selfish and run run away from it by saying "that's just my morality". The better way to put it is "I won't fuck Tories because they have different opinion compared to mine". When you make statements like "They are selfish" or "They see regugees as less than humans", you are not making a relativistic statement. You are passing an absolute judgement of someone's character. You have the right to judge and you have the right to sleep with whoever you want. Others have the right to call it BS. selfish /'s?lf??/ adjective (of a person, action, or motive) lacking consideration for other people; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure. You said: "We don't do it because we value our self interest first." You are literally the dictionary definition of selfish, you just assume everyone else is like you. You say I have no right to judge yet you make the judgment that people are taking advantage of the backlog in the immigration system (caused by the Tories btw). Have you considered decaf? I like to have it with milk. But someone told me I am selfish for drinking milk from animals. You really should try decaf. That old chestnut, I’ve no spare room! Make some room, split a room, share a room, or you could move out for a while, donate money to build some rooms locally, be socialist or not as it suits
In a true socialist world, everyone would have property according to their need, so no need to split rooms
You need to start somewhere and at sometime comrade, why not now?
Line up, excuse number 238: If we tax.....
On another note:
I'm interested in this comment
"everyone would have property according to their need"
I would need at least 5 bedrooms, all on-suite, Kitchen with bi-folds and enough island space for 14 people, large games room is a must with access to the pool and a secure garage to house 5 cars.
Outdoors, I would need separation from others and approx 10 acres for the dogs and enough clearance from roads and others for my guns.
I will make do with the rest.
Where do I sign up?
It’s ok, you could have typed ‘I don’t understand socialism’ and saved some characters
Don't start back tracking now! Or are you telling me things would be rather grim with a one size fits all?"You’re still demonstrating a lack of understanding, aren’t you? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Maybe people did, but they still voted for a party which actively pursues policies that are cruel to the most vulnerable in society. Brexit is a complete shambles but it's still a choice to support cruelty. The same could be said about people who voted for Labour last time. Tony Blair says hi. I'm no fan of Blair buy I don't recall him initiating policies that deliberately targeted the worst off in society, could you provide some examples? You act as if it's a binary choice, why not help both? We can afford it as a country but we have a government that chose austerity, which failed, then it doubled down on a policy which had failed despite how much it was hurting the least well off and marginalised. You act like we have infinite money and time. In case you didn't know, the country is already under lot of debt.We make these kind of choices every day only without making moral judgement. I am pretty sure you have space in your house for a homeless person to sleep. I am pretty sure you can skip a holiday to donate money and feed other people. We don't do it because we value our self interest first. Actually no, I have no spare rooms in my house, and I give to several charities monthly. You value your self interest first, don't assume everyone else shares your morality. Also, again, it's not a binary choice, you can both look after yourself and help others. That you think it's the case is very revealing though. Austerity did not fail. We took a route completely opposite to austerity during covid, which is what failed and caused the inflationary mess. When Austerity began the country was £1.03 Trillion in debt, in March 2020 (pre Covid spending) it was £1.8 Trillion in debt. Austerity policies directly caused 148,000 deaths. Cutting public spending reduced demand in the economy, which constrained tax revenues and increased demand on the public sector. Yet people are happy to see refugees shipped off to a country that our own supreme court has declared unsafe, rather than allow a genuine decision be made in this country. The UK takes a miniscule amount of refugees in, far fewer than much poorer countries, yet we act like they are some kind of plague. They are not, they are humans and deserve to be treated with kindness and respect. That's because too many people are taking advantage of the pressure on the asylum system to just show up here. The way you say, it sounds like people who already live in Rwanda voluntarily are not humans. 63% of people who apply for asylum in the UK are accepted, this rises to 75% on appeal. Also, what that I said makes it sound like I think Rwandans aren't human? You seem to be taking this very personally, don't. You have your morality and I have mine. If people choose not to fuck me because of my political views then I don't see it as an attack, they just have different moral priorities to those I feel are important. I haven't said anything about anyone being evil, just that I won't fuck them. People can do whatever they want, and I can choose to fuck them or not, it doesn't mean they are evil, it just means I don't find them attractive. You can't call people selfish and run run away from it by saying "that's just my morality". The better way to put it is "I won't fuck Tories because they have different opinion compared to mine". When you make statements like "They are selfish" or "They see regugees as less than humans", you are not making a relativistic statement. You are passing an absolute judgement of someone's character. You have the right to judge and you have the right to sleep with whoever you want. Others have the right to call it BS. selfish /'s?lf??/ adjective (of a person, action, or motive) lacking consideration for other people; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure. You said: "We don't do it because we value our self interest first." You are literally the dictionary definition of selfish, you just assume everyone else is like you. You say I have no right to judge yet you make the judgment that people are taking advantage of the backlog in the immigration system (caused by the Tories btw). Have you considered decaf? I like to have it with milk. But someone told me I am selfish for drinking milk from animals. You really should try decaf. That old chestnut, I’ve no spare room! Make some room, split a room, share a room, or you could move out for a while, donate money to build some rooms locally, be socialist or not as it suits
In a true socialist world, everyone would have property according to their need, so no need to split rooms
You need to start somewhere and at sometime comrade, why not now?
Line up, excuse number 238: If we tax.....
On another note:
I'm interested in this comment
"everyone would have property according to their need"
I would need at least 5 bedrooms, all on-suite, Kitchen with bi-folds and enough island space for 14 people, large games room is a must with access to the pool and a secure garage to house 5 cars.
Outdoors, I would need separation from others and approx 10 acres for the dogs and enough clearance from roads and others for my guns.
I will make do with the rest.
Where do I sign up?
It’s ok, you could have typed ‘I don’t understand socialism’ and saved some characters
Don't start back tracking now! Or are you telling me things would be rather grim with a one size fits all?
You’re still demonstrating a lack of understanding, aren’t you? "Clearly, but to be fair you are not really helping me understand what the country would look like from this comment that I assume is accurate: "everyone would have property according to their need, so no need to split rooms". How does this work and what does it mean to the country? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Maybe people did, but they still voted for a party which actively pursues policies that are cruel to the most vulnerable in society. Brexit is a complete shambles but it's still a choice to support cruelty. The same could be said about people who voted for Labour last time. Tony Blair says hi. I'm no fan of Blair buy I don't recall him initiating policies that deliberately targeted the worst off in society, could you provide some examples? You act as if it's a binary choice, why not help both? We can afford it as a country but we have a government that chose austerity, which failed, then it doubled down on a policy which had failed despite how much it was hurting the least well off and marginalised. You act like we have infinite money and time. In case you didn't know, the country is already under lot of debt.We make these kind of choices every day only without making moral judgement. I am pretty sure you have space in your house for a homeless person to sleep. I am pretty sure you can skip a holiday to donate money and feed other people. We don't do it because we value our self interest first. Actually no, I have no spare rooms in my house, and I give to several charities monthly. You value your self interest first, don't assume everyone else shares your morality. Also, again, it's not a binary choice, you can both look after yourself and help others. That you think it's the case is very revealing though. Austerity did not fail. We took a route completely opposite to austerity during covid, which is what failed and caused the inflationary mess. When Austerity began the country was £1.03 Trillion in debt, in March 2020 (pre Covid spending) it was £1.8 Trillion in debt. Austerity policies directly caused 148,000 deaths. Cutting public spending reduced demand in the economy, which constrained tax revenues and increased demand on the public sector. Yet people are happy to see refugees shipped off to a country that our own supreme court has declared unsafe, rather than allow a genuine decision be made in this country. The UK takes a miniscule amount of refugees in, far fewer than much poorer countries, yet we act like they are some kind of plague. They are not, they are humans and deserve to be treated with kindness and respect. That's because too many people are taking advantage of the pressure on the asylum system to just show up here. The way you say, it sounds like people who already live in Rwanda voluntarily are not humans. 63% of people who apply for asylum in the UK are accepted, this rises to 75% on appeal. Also, what that I said makes it sound like I think Rwandans aren't human? You seem to be taking this very personally, don't. You have your morality and I have mine. If people choose not to fuck me because of my political views then I don't see it as an attack, they just have different moral priorities to those I feel are important. I haven't said anything about anyone being evil, just that I won't fuck them. People can do whatever they want, and I can choose to fuck them or not, it doesn't mean they are evil, it just means I don't find them attractive. You can't call people selfish and run run away from it by saying "that's just my morality". The better way to put it is "I won't fuck Tories because they have different opinion compared to mine". When you make statements like "They are selfish" or "They see regugees as less than humans", you are not making a relativistic statement. You are passing an absolute judgement of someone's character. You have the right to judge and you have the right to sleep with whoever you want. Others have the right to call it BS. selfish /'s?lf??/ adjective (of a person, action, or motive) lacking consideration for other people; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure. You said: "We don't do it because we value our self interest first." You are literally the dictionary definition of selfish, you just assume everyone else is like you. You say I have no right to judge yet you make the judgment that people are taking advantage of the backlog in the immigration system (caused by the Tories btw). Have you considered decaf? I like to have it with milk. But someone told me I am selfish for drinking milk from animals. You really should try decaf. That old chestnut, I’ve no spare room! Make some room, split a room, share a room, or you could move out for a while, donate money to build some rooms locally, be socialist or not as it suits
In a true socialist world, everyone would have property according to their need, so no need to split rooms
You need to start somewhere and at sometime comrade, why not now?
Line up, excuse number 238: If we tax.....
On another note:
I'm interested in this comment
"everyone would have property according to their need"
I would need at least 5 bedrooms, all on-suite, Kitchen with bi-folds and enough island space for 14 people, large games room is a must with access to the pool and a secure garage to house 5 cars.
Outdoors, I would need separation from others and approx 10 acres for the dogs and enough clearance from roads and others for my guns.
I will make do with the rest.
Where do I sign up?
It’s ok, you could have typed ‘I don’t understand socialism’ and saved some characters
Don't start back tracking now! Or are you telling me things would be rather grim with a one size fits all?
You’re still demonstrating a lack of understanding, aren’t you?
Clearly, but to be fair you are not really helping me understand what the country would look like from this comment that I assume is accurate: "everyone would have property according to their need, so no need to split rooms".
How does this work and what does it mean to the country?"You appeared to claim that your ‘need’ would be a mansion with masses of land, did you not? You demonstrated the failure of socialism - greed. That’s why socialism is an interesting and worthy theoretical discussion and nothing more. But of course you see someone mention socialism and instantly assume they’re advocating for it and singing The Red Flag. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Maybe people did, but they still voted for a party which actively pursues policies that are cruel to the most vulnerable in society. Brexit is a complete shambles but it's still a choice to support cruelty. The same could be said about people who voted for Labour last time. Tony Blair says hi. I'm no fan of Blair buy I don't recall him initiating policies that deliberately targeted the worst off in society, could you provide some examples? You act as if it's a binary choice, why not help both? We can afford it as a country but we have a government that chose austerity, which failed, then it doubled down on a policy which had failed despite how much it was hurting the least well off and marginalised. You act like we have infinite money and time. In case you didn't know, the country is already under lot of debt.We make these kind of choices every day only without making moral judgement. I am pretty sure you have space in your house for a homeless person to sleep. I am pretty sure you can skip a holiday to donate money and feed other people. We don't do it because we value our self interest first. Actually no, I have no spare rooms in my house, and I give to several charities monthly. You value your self interest first, don't assume everyone else shares your morality. Also, again, it's not a binary choice, you can both look after yourself and help others. That you think it's the case is very revealing though. Austerity did not fail. We took a route completely opposite to austerity during covid, which is what failed and caused the inflationary mess. When Austerity began the country was £1.03 Trillion in debt, in March 2020 (pre Covid spending) it was £1.8 Trillion in debt. Austerity policies directly caused 148,000 deaths. Cutting public spending reduced demand in the economy, which constrained tax revenues and increased demand on the public sector. Yet people are happy to see refugees shipped off to a country that our own supreme court has declared unsafe, rather than allow a genuine decision be made in this country. The UK takes a miniscule amount of refugees in, far fewer than much poorer countries, yet we act like they are some kind of plague. They are not, they are humans and deserve to be treated with kindness and respect. That's because too many people are taking advantage of the pressure on the asylum system to just show up here. The way you say, it sounds like people who already live in Rwanda voluntarily are not humans. 63% of people who apply for asylum in the UK are accepted, this rises to 75% on appeal. Also, what that I said makes it sound like I think Rwandans aren't human? You seem to be taking this very personally, don't. You have your morality and I have mine. If people choose not to fuck me because of my political views then I don't see it as an attack, they just have different moral priorities to those I feel are important. I haven't said anything about anyone being evil, just that I won't fuck them. People can do whatever they want, and I can choose to fuck them or not, it doesn't mean they are evil, it just means I don't find them attractive. You can't call people selfish and run run away from it by saying "that's just my morality". The better way to put it is "I won't fuck Tories because they have different opinion compared to mine". When you make statements like "They are selfish" or "They see regugees as less than humans", you are not making a relativistic statement. You are passing an absolute judgement of someone's character. You have the right to judge and you have the right to sleep with whoever you want. Others have the right to call it BS. selfish /'s?lf??/ adjective (of a person, action, or motive) lacking consideration for other people; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure. You said: "We don't do it because we value our self interest first." You are literally the dictionary definition of selfish, you just assume everyone else is like you. You say I have no right to judge yet you make the judgment that people are taking advantage of the backlog in the immigration system (caused by the Tories btw). Have you considered decaf? I like to have it with milk. But someone told me I am selfish for drinking milk from animals. You really should try decaf. That old chestnut, I’ve no spare room! Make some room, split a room, share a room, or you could move out for a while, donate money to build some rooms locally, be socialist or not as it suits
In a true socialist world, everyone would have property according to their need, so no need to split rooms
You need to start somewhere and at sometime comrade, why not now?
Line up, excuse number 238: If we tax.....
On another note:
I'm interested in this comment
"everyone would have property according to their need"
I would need at least 5 bedrooms, all on-suite, Kitchen with bi-folds and enough island space for 14 people, large games room is a must with access to the pool and a secure garage to house 5 cars.
Outdoors, I would need separation from others and approx 10 acres for the dogs and enough clearance from roads and others for my guns.
I will make do with the rest.
Where do I sign up?
It’s ok, you could have typed ‘I don’t understand socialism’ and saved some characters
Don't start back tracking now! Or are you telling me things would be rather grim with a one size fits all?
You’re still demonstrating a lack of understanding, aren’t you?
Clearly, but to be fair you are not really helping me understand what the country would look like from this comment that I assume is accurate: "everyone would have property according to their need, so no need to split rooms".
How does this work and what does it mean to the country?
You appeared to claim that your ‘need’ would be a mansion with masses of land, did you not?
You demonstrated the failure of socialism - greed. That’s why socialism is an interesting and worthy theoretical discussion and nothing more.
But of course you see someone mention socialism and instantly assume they’re advocating for it and singing The Red Flag. "You know very well my reply was intended to push on the fact that a one size fits all answer to housing will not work in this country. It hasn't worked anywhere else either as far as I'm aware? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" It’s ok, you could have typed ‘I don’t understand socialism’ and saved some characters
Maybe you should tell us what you mean by socialism. All I see is you jumping around and moving goal posts saying "But that's not the socialism I am talking about", something which most other champagne socialists do.
You do seem to have trouble understanding simple language, it’s quite bizarre.
Just because I have mentioned socialism, doesn’t mean that I am defending, promoting or making any claim about socialism working/failing etc.
If you’d paid any attention around here, you’d know that I define myself as a soc-dem (which is a very different thing indeed).
I just happen to have read some Marx and other writings, and don’t base my knowledge of socialism on what mouthy capitalist tell me it is…"Don't we already live in a Soc-Dem country? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" It’s ok, you could have typed ‘I don’t understand socialism’ and saved some characters
Maybe you should tell us what you mean by socialism. All I see is you jumping around and moving goal posts saying "But that's not the socialism I am talking about", something which most other champagne socialists do.
You do seem to have trouble understanding simple language, it’s quite bizarre.
Just because I have mentioned socialism, doesn’t mean that I am defending, promoting or making any claim about socialism working/failing etc.
If you’d paid any attention around here, you’d know that I define myself as a soc-dem (which is a very different thing indeed).
I just happen to have read some Marx and other writings, and don’t base my knowledge of socialism on what mouthy capitalist tell me it is…
Don't we already live in a Soc-Dem country?"Sort of. Not to the same extent of some countries (eg Scandinavia), but certainly better balanced than others. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Maybe people did, but they still voted for a party which actively pursues policies that are cruel to the most vulnerable in society. Brexit is a complete shambles but it's still a choice to support cruelty. The same could be said about people who voted for Labour last time. Tony Blair says hi. I'm no fan of Blair buy I don't recall him initiating policies that deliberately targeted the worst off in society, could you provide some examples? You act as if it's a binary choice, why not help both? We can afford it as a country but we have a government that chose austerity, which failed, then it doubled down on a policy which had failed despite how much it was hurting the least well off and marginalised. You act like we have infinite money and time. In case you didn't know, the country is already under lot of debt.We make these kind of choices every day only without making moral judgement. I am pretty sure you have space in your house for a homeless person to sleep. I am pretty sure you can skip a holiday to donate money and feed other people. We don't do it because we value our self interest first. Actually no, I have no spare rooms in my house, and I give to several charities monthly. You value your self interest first, don't assume everyone else shares your morality. Also, again, it's not a binary choice, you can both look after yourself and help others. That you think it's the case is very revealing though. Austerity did not fail. We took a route completely opposite to austerity during covid, which is what failed and caused the inflationary mess. When Austerity began the country was £1.03 Trillion in debt, in March 2020 (pre Covid spending) it was £1.8 Trillion in debt. Austerity policies directly caused 148,000 deaths. Cutting public spending reduced demand in the economy, which constrained tax revenues and increased demand on the public sector. Yet people are happy to see refugees shipped off to a country that our own supreme court has declared unsafe, rather than allow a genuine decision be made in this country. The UK takes a miniscule amount of refugees in, far fewer than much poorer countries, yet we act like they are some kind of plague. They are not, they are humans and deserve to be treated with kindness and respect. That's because too many people are taking advantage of the pressure on the asylum system to just show up here. The way you say, it sounds like people who already live in Rwanda voluntarily are not humans. 63% of people who apply for asylum in the UK are accepted, this rises to 75% on appeal. Also, what that I said makes it sound like I think Rwandans aren't human? You seem to be taking this very personally, don't. You have your morality and I have mine. If people choose not to fuck me because of my political views then I don't see it as an attack, they just have different moral priorities to those I feel are important. I haven't said anything about anyone being evil, just that I won't fuck them. People can do whatever they want, and I can choose to fuck them or not, it doesn't mean they are evil, it just means I don't find them attractive. You can't call people selfish and run run away from it by saying "that's just my morality". The better way to put it is "I won't fuck Tories because they have different opinion compared to mine". When you make statements like "They are selfish" or "They see regugees as less than humans", you are not making a relativistic statement. You are passing an absolute judgement of someone's character. You have the right to judge and you have the right to sleep with whoever you want. Others have the right to call it BS. selfish /'s?lf??/ adjective (of a person, action, or motive) lacking consideration for other people; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure. You said: "We don't do it because we value our self interest first." You are literally the dictionary definition of selfish, you just assume everyone else is like you. You say I have no right to judge yet you make the judgment that people are taking advantage of the backlog in the immigration system (caused by the Tories btw). Have you considered decaf? I like to have it with milk. But someone told me I am selfish for drinking milk from animals. You really should try decaf. That old chestnut, I’ve no spare room! Make some room, split a room, share a room, or you could move out for a while, donate money to build some rooms locally, be socialist or not as it suits
In a true socialist world, everyone would have property according to their need, so no need to split rooms
You need to start somewhere and at sometime comrade, why not now?
Line up, excuse number 238: If we tax.....
On another note:
I'm interested in this comment
"everyone would have property according to their need"
I would need at least 5 bedrooms, all on-suite, Kitchen with bi-folds and enough island space for 14 people, large games room is a must with access to the pool and a secure garage to house 5 cars.
Outdoors, I would need separation from others and approx 10 acres for the dogs and enough clearance from roads and others for my guns.
I will make do with the rest.
Where do I sign up?
It’s ok, you could have typed ‘I don’t understand socialism’ and saved some characters
Don't start back tracking now! Or are you telling me things would be rather grim with a one size fits all?
You’re still demonstrating a lack of understanding, aren’t you?
Clearly, but to be fair you are not really helping me understand what the country would look like from this comment that I assume is accurate: "everyone would have property according to their need, so no need to split rooms".
How does this work and what does it mean to the country?
You appeared to claim that your ‘need’ would be a mansion with masses of land, did you not?
You demonstrated the failure of socialism - greed. That’s why socialism is an interesting and worthy theoretical discussion and nothing more.
But of course you see someone mention socialism and instantly assume they’re advocating for it and singing The Red Flag. "The point I believe he's trying to make is who defines need? And if that's what he needs to live a happy and comfortable life why are those needs not valid? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" It’s ok, you could have typed ‘I don’t understand socialism’ and saved some characters
Maybe you should tell us what you mean by socialism. All I see is you jumping around and moving goal posts saying "But that's not the socialism I am talking about", something which most other champagne socialists do.
You do seem to have trouble understanding simple language, it’s quite bizarre.
Just because I have mentioned socialism, doesn’t mean that I am defending, promoting or making any claim about socialism working/failing etc.
If you’d paid any attention around here, you’d know that I define myself as a soc-dem (which is a very different thing indeed).
I just happen to have read some Marx and other writings, and don’t base my knowledge of socialism on what mouthy capitalist tell me it is…
Don't we already live in a Soc-Dem country?
Sort of. Not to the same extent of some countries (eg Scandinavia), but certainly better balanced than others."Partner the problem I've found with Social Democracy (only from reading small bits) is that Soc-Dems all have different ideals. You're proof of that. You just said "sort of". Plenty here have asked what exactly do you mean and you haven't explained. This is why you get the argument of "it's not proper socialism" (sarcasm), because no one ever states what they're ideals are. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Maybe people did, but they still voted for a party which actively pursues policies that are cruel to the most vulnerable in society. Brexit is a complete shambles but it's still a choice to support cruelty. The same could be said about people who voted for Labour last time. Tony Blair says hi. I'm no fan of Blair buy I don't recall him initiating policies that deliberately targeted the worst off in society, could you provide some examples? You act as if it's a binary choice, why not help both? We can afford it as a country but we have a government that chose austerity, which failed, then it doubled down on a policy which had failed despite how much it was hurting the least well off and marginalised. You act like we have infinite money and time. In case you didn't know, the country is already under lot of debt.We make these kind of choices every day only without making moral judgement. I am pretty sure you have space in your house for a homeless person to sleep. I am pretty sure you can skip a holiday to donate money and feed other people. We don't do it because we value our self interest first. Actually no, I have no spare rooms in my house, and I give to several charities monthly. You value your self interest first, don't assume everyone else shares your morality. Also, again, it's not a binary choice, you can both look after yourself and help others. That you think it's the case is very revealing though. Austerity did not fail. We took a route completely opposite to austerity during covid, which is what failed and caused the inflationary mess. When Austerity began the country was £1.03 Trillion in debt, in March 2020 (pre Covid spending) it was £1.8 Trillion in debt. Austerity policies directly caused 148,000 deaths. Cutting public spending reduced demand in the economy, which constrained tax revenues and increased demand on the public sector. Yet people are happy to see refugees shipped off to a country that our own supreme court has declared unsafe, rather than allow a genuine decision be made in this country. The UK takes a miniscule amount of refugees in, far fewer than much poorer countries, yet we act like they are some kind of plague. They are not, they are humans and deserve to be treated with kindness and respect. That's because too many people are taking advantage of the pressure on the asylum system to just show up here. The way you say, it sounds like people who already live in Rwanda voluntarily are not humans. 63% of people who apply for asylum in the UK are accepted, this rises to 75% on appeal. Also, what that I said makes it sound like I think Rwandans aren't human? You seem to be taking this very personally, don't. You have your morality and I have mine. If people choose not to fuck me because of my political views then I don't see it as an attack, they just have different moral priorities to those I feel are important. I haven't said anything about anyone being evil, just that I won't fuck them. People can do whatever they want, and I can choose to fuck them or not, it doesn't mean they are evil, it just means I don't find them attractive. You can't call people selfish and run run away from it by saying "that's just my morality". The better way to put it is "I won't fuck Tories because they have different opinion compared to mine". When you make statements like "They are selfish" or "They see regugees as less than humans", you are not making a relativistic statement. You are passing an absolute judgement of someone's character. You have the right to judge and you have the right to sleep with whoever you want. Others have the right to call it BS. selfish /'s?lf??/ adjective (of a person, action, or motive) lacking consideration for other people; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure. You said: "We don't do it because we value our self interest first." You are literally the dictionary definition of selfish, you just assume everyone else is like you. You say I have no right to judge yet you make the judgment that people are taking advantage of the backlog in the immigration system (caused by the Tories btw). Have you considered decaf? I like to have it with milk. But someone told me I am selfish for drinking milk from animals. You really should try decaf. That old chestnut, I’ve no spare room! Make some room, split a room, share a room, or you could move out for a while, donate money to build some rooms locally, be socialist or not as it suits
In a true socialist world, everyone would have property according to their need, so no need to split rooms
You need to start somewhere and at sometime comrade, why not now?
Line up, excuse number 238: If we tax.....
On another note:
I'm interested in this comment
"everyone would have property according to their need"
I would need at least 5 bedrooms, all on-suite, Kitchen with bi-folds and enough island space for 14 people, large games room is a must with access to the pool and a secure garage to house 5 cars.
Outdoors, I would need separation from others and approx 10 acres for the dogs and enough clearance from roads and others for my guns.
I will make do with the rest.
Where do I sign up?
It’s ok, you could have typed ‘I don’t understand socialism’ and saved some characters
Don't start back tracking now! Or are you telling me things would be rather grim with a one size fits all?
You’re still demonstrating a lack of understanding, aren’t you?
Clearly, but to be fair you are not really helping me understand what the country would look like from this comment that I assume is accurate: "everyone would have property according to their need, so no need to split rooms".
How does this work and what does it mean to the country?
You appeared to claim that your ‘need’ would be a mansion with masses of land, did you not?
You demonstrated the failure of socialism - greed. That’s why socialism is an interesting and worthy theoretical discussion and nothing more.
But of course you see someone mention socialism and instantly assume they’re advocating for it and singing The Red Flag.
The point I believe he's trying to make is who defines need? And if that's what he needs to live a happy and comfortable life why are those needs not valid?"In theoretical socialism, nobody owns property. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" It’s ok, you could have typed ‘I don’t understand socialism’ and saved some characters
Maybe you should tell us what you mean by socialism. All I see is you jumping around and moving goal posts saying "But that's not the socialism I am talking about", something which most other champagne socialists do.
You do seem to have trouble understanding simple language, it’s quite bizarre.
Just because I have mentioned socialism, doesn’t mean that I am defending, promoting or making any claim about socialism working/failing etc.
If you’d paid any attention around here, you’d know that I define myself as a soc-dem (which is a very different thing indeed).
I just happen to have read some Marx and other writings, and don’t base my knowledge of socialism on what mouthy capitalist tell me it is…
Don't we already live in a Soc-Dem country?
Sort of. Not to the same extent of some countries (eg Scandinavia), but certainly better balanced than others.
Partner the problem I've found with Social Democracy (only from reading small bits) is that Soc-Dems all have different ideals.
You're proof of that. You just said "sort of".
Plenty here have asked what exactly do you mean and you haven't explained. This is why you get the argument of "it's not proper socialism" (sarcasm), because no one ever states what they're ideals are. "I’ve always argued that we should adopt more of the Scandinavian systems - such as linking the pay between highest and lowest earners in a business. Soc-dem is not socialism though. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" It’s ok, you could have typed ‘I don’t understand socialism’ and saved some characters
Maybe you should tell us what you mean by socialism. All I see is you jumping around and moving goal posts saying "But that's not the socialism I am talking about", something which most other champagne socialists do.
You do seem to have trouble understanding simple language, it’s quite bizarre.
Just because I have mentioned socialism, doesn’t mean that I am defending, promoting or making any claim about socialism working/failing etc.
If you’d paid any attention around here, you’d know that I define myself as a soc-dem (which is a very different thing indeed).
I just happen to have read some Marx and other writings, and don’t base my knowledge of socialism on what mouthy capitalist tell me it is…
Don't we already live in a Soc-Dem country?
Sort of. Not to the same extent of some countries (eg Scandinavia), but certainly better balanced than others.
Partner the problem I've found with Social Democracy (only from reading small bits) is that Soc-Dems all have different ideals.
You're proof of that. You just said "sort of".
Plenty here have asked what exactly do you mean and you haven't explained. This is why you get the argument of "it's not proper socialism" (sarcasm), because no one ever states what they're ideals are.
I’ve always argued that we should adopt more of the Scandinavian systems - such as linking the pay between highest and lowest earners in a business. Soc-dem is not socialism though. "That may be what you argue but it isn't what others argue. Tbf, it's a good argument, do away with minimum wage and set collective bargaining laws. The problem is that wouldn't work in this country. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Maybe people did, but they still voted for a party which actively pursues policies that are cruel to the most vulnerable in society. Brexit is a complete shambles but it's still a choice to support cruelty. The same could be said about people who voted for Labour last time. Tony Blair says hi. I'm no fan of Blair buy I don't recall him initiating policies that deliberately targeted the worst off in society, could you provide some examples? You act as if it's a binary choice, why not help both? We can afford it as a country but we have a government that chose austerity, which failed, then it doubled down on a policy which had failed despite how much it was hurting the least well off and marginalised. You act like we have infinite money and time. In case you didn't know, the country is already under lot of debt.We make these kind of choices every day only without making moral judgement. I am pretty sure you have space in your house for a homeless person to sleep. I am pretty sure you can skip a holiday to donate money and feed other people. We don't do it because we value our self interest first. Actually no, I have no spare rooms in my house, and I give to several charities monthly. You value your self interest first, don't assume everyone else shares your morality. Also, again, it's not a binary choice, you can both look after yourself and help others. That you think it's the case is very revealing though. Austerity did not fail. We took a route completely opposite to austerity during covid, which is what failed and caused the inflationary mess. When Austerity began the country was £1.03 Trillion in debt, in March 2020 (pre Covid spending) it was £1.8 Trillion in debt. Austerity policies directly caused 148,000 deaths. Cutting public spending reduced demand in the economy, which constrained tax revenues and increased demand on the public sector. Yet people are happy to see refugees shipped off to a country that our own supreme court has declared unsafe, rather than allow a genuine decision be made in this country. The UK takes a miniscule amount of refugees in, far fewer than much poorer countries, yet we act like they are some kind of plague. They are not, they are humans and deserve to be treated with kindness and respect. That's because too many people are taking advantage of the pressure on the asylum system to just show up here. The way you say, it sounds like people who already live in Rwanda voluntarily are not humans. 63% of people who apply for asylum in the UK are accepted, this rises to 75% on appeal. Also, what that I said makes it sound like I think Rwandans aren't human? You seem to be taking this very personally, don't. You have your morality and I have mine. If people choose not to fuck me because of my political views then I don't see it as an attack, they just have different moral priorities to those I feel are important. I haven't said anything about anyone being evil, just that I won't fuck them. People can do whatever they want, and I can choose to fuck them or not, it doesn't mean they are evil, it just means I don't find them attractive. You can't call people selfish and run run away from it by saying "that's just my morality". The better way to put it is "I won't fuck Tories because they have different opinion compared to mine". When you make statements like "They are selfish" or "They see regugees as less than humans", you are not making a relativistic statement. You are passing an absolute judgement of someone's character. You have the right to judge and you have the right to sleep with whoever you want. Others have the right to call it BS. selfish /'s?lf??/ adjective (of a person, action, or motive) lacking consideration for other people; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure. You said: "We don't do it because we value our self interest first." You are literally the dictionary definition of selfish, you just assume everyone else is like you. You say I have no right to judge yet you make the judgment that people are taking advantage of the backlog in the immigration system (caused by the Tories btw). Have you considered decaf? I like to have it with milk. But someone told me I am selfish for drinking milk from animals. You really should try decaf. That old chestnut, I’ve no spare room! Make some room, split a room, share a room, or you could move out for a while, donate money to build some rooms locally, be socialist or not as it suits
In a true socialist world, everyone would have property according to their need, so no need to split rooms
You need to start somewhere and at sometime comrade, why not now?
Line up, excuse number 238: If we tax.....
On another note:
I'm interested in this comment
"everyone would have property according to their need"
I would need at least 5 bedrooms, all on-suite, Kitchen with bi-folds and enough island space for 14 people, large games room is a must with access to the pool and a secure garage to house 5 cars.
Outdoors, I would need separation from others and approx 10 acres for the dogs and enough clearance from roads and others for my guns.
I will make do with the rest.
Where do I sign up?
It’s ok, you could have typed ‘I don’t understand socialism’ and saved some characters
Don't start back tracking now! Or are you telling me things would be rather grim with a one size fits all?
You’re still demonstrating a lack of understanding, aren’t you?
Clearly, but to be fair you are not really helping me understand what the country would look like from this comment that I assume is accurate: "everyone would have property according to their need, so no need to split rooms".
How does this work and what does it mean to the country?
You appeared to claim that your ‘need’ would be a mansion with masses of land, did you not?
You demonstrated the failure of socialism - greed. That’s why socialism is an interesting and worthy theoretical discussion and nothing more.
But of course you see someone mention socialism and instantly assume they’re advocating for it and singing The Red Flag.
The point I believe he's trying to make is who defines need? And if that's what he needs to live a happy and comfortable life why are those needs not valid?
In theoretical socialism, nobody owns property."all your needs are provided for your toil including housing, transport, food at the supermarket and a burial at the end, that type of socialism.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" It’s ok, you could have typed ‘I don’t understand socialism’ and saved some characters
Maybe you should tell us what you mean by socialism. All I see is you jumping around and moving goal posts saying "But that's not the socialism I am talking about", something which most other champagne socialists do.
You do seem to have trouble understanding simple language, it’s quite bizarre.
Just because I have mentioned socialism, doesn’t mean that I am defending, promoting or making any claim about socialism working/failing etc.
If you’d paid any attention around here, you’d know that I define myself as a soc-dem (which is a very different thing indeed).
I just happen to have read some Marx and other writings, and don’t base my knowledge of socialism on what mouthy capitalist tell me it is…"Anyone who actually read socialism know that the word is loaded and different people mean different things when they say it. For someone who talks repeatedly about socialism, it's bizarre that you don't even realise this. You are the one who repeatedly used the word "socialism" and tried defending it when we criticised it. Now you are moving goal posts and telling us that all you wanted was Scandinavian model and that's not socialism at all. In another post, you mentioned theoretical socialism and dismantling the concept of private property. So what exactly do you want? You read Marx? Tell is more about it. Do you agree with Marxism or not? And you still haven't answered my question about why socialists donate more until their socialist ideals are reached if selflessness is the basis for their ideals. Hell, we live in a free country. You can get all other socialists and form a socialist society within this country. All your property will be owned by your society. All your earnings will go to a common bank account. It looks like sociaists can actually do a lot of things to live their ideals and prove to people that it actually works. But no one ever does that. Instead, all we hear is posturing and virtue signalling on the internet. I wonder why? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
