The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Original post by stac4321
If money was a direct result of hard work, every woman in Africa would be a ****ing millionaire.


Why did you only mention the women in Africa ?
Although a RL Tory, I believe that the party needs to look at how it plans to represent the people of the UK when half of them have never even been to a council estate
Reply 142
Original post by EffieFlowers
Because labour care about the individual, the Tories only care about the demographics, the nation as a whole.


Wrong.
Original post by Like a BAWS
Why did you only mention the women in Africa ?


There's some sort of myth that if you're rich it's because you work hard and if you're not you're a slacker. It's incredibly stupid. My mum's a teacher, she works hard. She's not rich no but we get by. Does the fact she's not rich mean she's a slacker? Of course not.
Original post by badbabysitter
Exactly! I don't understand how people who want lower taxes can complain about the public services we receive!!


He can't even see his own hypocracy as you say. In the same post he criticizes the standard of public services and then advocates for lower taxes.

Well what does he think funds public services?
What an idiot.
Reply 145
Original post by Bornblue
There's some sort of myth that if you're rich it's because you work hard and if you're not you're a slacker. It's incredibly stupid. My mum's a teacher, she works hard. She's not rich no but we get by. Does the fact she's not rich mean she's a slacker? Of course not.


Some rich people work in incredibly stressful jobs.

I agree with you that some poor people do work hard though.
Reply 146
Because Labour is the lesser of the two evils.
Original post by Radradrad
What I hate about Labour is that they swan about with all these ideas about how they want a small state and think the state shouldn't intervene in the lives of subjects and then once they get a tiny bit of power decide that they want to stop certain groups getting married and have the right to arbitrarily read email's and social media. Thank god we don't live in a nanny state like that anymore!

Seriously though, I vote Labour because I believe in what I see as some of their core values; non-profit and non marketised front-line services, social justice and equality and the need for progressive taxation. Although these ideas are different from the modern Labour Party so I will just moan about them whilst voting for them anyway.


ok
Reply 148
Original post by Alofleicester
Wait - do you have an issue with my opinion that people should actually have a say on how the country they live in is run? :lolwut:


Yes, yes I do.

They must meet that requirement first.
Original post by billydisco
I do, people who do not contribute to it but they have the physical/mental ability to should be stopped from voting.

Why?
Everyone who lives in the country will be affected by what the government does, obviously children will be sheltered somewhat by being under the care of an adult, but all those of working age will be affected by what the government does and should be able to have their say on what sort of government should be running the country (which is also why I advocate lowering the voting age to 16).
Original post by Iron Lady
Some rich people work in incredibly stressful jobs.

I agree with you that some poor people do work hard though.


I'm sure they do.
You get hard working rich people, hardworking poor people, lazy rich people and lazy poor people.

It's a stupid argument to suggest as some do that the rich are rich because they work hard.

Plenty of people are born with a silver spoon in their mouth.

To suggest someone isn't rich because they don't work hard is frankly offensive.
Reply 151
Original post by Bornblue
To suggest someone isn't rich because they don't work hard is frankly offensive.


As long as they survive, why does it matter if they're not 'rich'?
Original post by Iron Lady
As long as they survive, why does it matter if they're not 'rich'?


Those who aren't rich sometimes need help from the state to survive. Child benefits, EMA and other benefits can be incredibly helpful for the less fortunate in society.

Yet Tories assume anyone who recieves help from the state is a scrounger.
Original post by Tahooper
It used to be a Tory paper, now it's more of a UKIP/Populist paper (which is a shame really, I quite like UKIP, but I despise the Daily Mail).


Yeah. Even so, to suggest that the Mail is even remotely left wing is ridiculous!
Reply 154
Original post by muddywaters51
ok


Really do not see the clash. Equality of tax would only be possible if people were born completely equally into equal socio-economic backgrounds with the same opportunities for everyone, this clearly doesn't exist. It would also need to exist in a world where there was no hereditary wealth and it would be impossible and downright mental.
Reply 155
Original post by Elwyn
'clueless morons' have just the same right to decide who rules the country as 'intellectuals'.

Why should they? By allowing a huge % of the country to base their politcal decisions on nothing more than emotion and habit, we jeopardise the future of our country.
In my opinion, your reaction is typical of how democratic politics centres around the idealisms of democracy rather than how best to improve the standard of living for everyone.
I would like to know what you think about the realities of democracy like the fact that there is no legal obligatition for political parties to fulfil the promises made in their manifesto. We pretty much lose control of what goes on once they're elected. Finally; the houses of parliament is not even a centre for rational discussion, people just throw their utterly biased and preconceived opinions around at each other and when possible rip the s**t out of each other when they tell a fallacy.
(edited 11 years ago)
Reply 156
Original post by Elwyn
I should have been more clear. It's right that they have the same rights.
The goverent should be decided by those who live here, not a select few who think they're better than the rest.

No, they don't think they're better than the rest, they are better than the rest. We could bring in a voting eligability exam to prove it. Anyway, whats your problem with some people being better than other people at understanding objectively the issues in hand. For the most part our lives revolve around what grades we get at gcse, a-level and degree level. The world isn't that simple or ideal.
Original post by Seb B
No, they don't think they're better than the rest, they are better than the rest. We could bring in a voting eligability exam to prove it. Anyway, whats your problem with some people being better than other people at understanding objectively the issues in hand. For the most part our lives revolve around what grades we get at gcse, a-level and degree level. The world isn't that simple or ideal.


The only good version of a voting exam I've heard is one where you select your candidate, and then there are 3 multiple choice questions on that candidate's policies, and you have to get at least 2 right for your vote to be registered.
Like with any other political party, different people will have varying reasons for voting for a particular party. Very often they feel that X Party will benefit their lifestyle and ambition. I must admit that a number of years ago if I was asked to picture a Labour supporter, the picture would not be too pleasant. But after maturing and opening my mind a tad, I've realised that both the Conservative Party and the Labour Party have flaws and a ranging supporter-base.

What doesn't help matters is the out-dated, meaningless stereotypes thrown around. Ignorant comments implying that the Conservative Party only seeks to represent the privileged few of society, or on the other side, suggesting that the Labour Party represents the 'idle' do very little to add to the political debate.

Now to answer your question OP, in my experience, there have been different Labour supporters. A number of people my own age are drawn to the Labour Party merely for the state benefits. Beforehand, they failed to name the leader of the Opposition before the coalition came to power in May 2010, then they complained that the Conservatives and Lib-Dems were removing 'their' EMA. Additionally, they tend to be more left wing as they have a heavy influence from their parents. I'm from the South, so I very rarely hear any comments criticising the Conservatives due to the deindustrialisation in the 1980s. I do hear people saying that the high income earners should be taxed even more than the crippling tax rates as they 'deserve it' or their parents have worse jobs, which leaves me appalled and speechless.

Alternatively, they could support them just because they agree with their policies and ideology. Nowadays it is difficult to detect what their core-principles are, and I suppose the results from yesterday were partly a rejection towards the current government and a mere protest vote. Just as you cannot imply that all Conservatives are elitist, not all Labour supporters are working class as some very middle class people I know support them.

My point is, both snobbery and inverted snobbery do not add anything to the political debate, other than making both sides look rather foolish. Although at times I cannot understand the Labour Party either, you cannot generalise an entire demographic as people are individuals with individual beliefs.
Original post by Sheikh {/} Nykaa
under the tories:
-taxes have gone up
-More people can not afford to go to uni
-NHS has not improved...and I doubt these new reforms will do much good
-Immigration is tougher meaning that British universities will lose money as international students struggle to obtain visas
-in regards to the lower sentences under labour...there are teenagers going to jail for 2 years for stealing t-shirts during the riot...so perhaps in those cases, more lenient sentences wouldn't be such a bad thing....
-No change in laws, regulation and liberty.

I would say that the conservatives are good for rebuilding the Nation's wealth...but apart from that, its VERY easy to see why people vote labour.


OP was not referring to petty crimes - and those harsh sentences are to teach others a lesson, don't riot and cause havoc

Latest

Trending

Trending