Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Why are people so pro-Conservative on here?

Announcements Posted on
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tulley11)
    Actually, the Liberals just put into place some areas of social benefit, the welfare state is attributed to Atlee. Plus, the Tories didn't accept the Post-War Settlement straight away, the consensus came later.
    Yeah, the start of the modern welfare state.
    Ok well I'll admit the welfare state was down to Labour but it is a pretty left wing idea - probably the only one that works ...
    And it's pretty questionable whether it's working now. How is it right that people can be better off on benefits than working?
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by antimilitarist)
    Yep, Labour sure did knock this country down after WW2 with the welfare state and all.
    Look how the post war consensus ended, 1979. Again, Labour ended in 2010 with the economy in a bad way. Labour like to spend money, so long as they don't have to pay it back.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ed-)
    You talk of ignorance ... To me that post is pure ignorance.
    you seem like a traditionalist and i think you enjoy having parties like conservative around which is stupid. maybe you even favour bnp and ukip
    • 36 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by quattro94)
    Look how the post war consensus ended, 1979. Again, Labour ended in 2010 with the economy in a bad way. Labour like to spend money, so long as they don't have to pay it back.
    Yes well Socialists always run out of others peoples' money...
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDonOfUKNo1)
    you seem like a traditionalist and i think you enjoy having parties like conservative around which is stupid. maybe you even favour bnp and ukip
    I would assume I like the Conservative party seeing as I'm a member of the party.
    1st- what's wrong with UKIP? They're a party mainly formed from defected unhappy Eurosceptic Tories
    2nd- how on earth did you get from me being a traditionalist Conservative to supporting UKIP and the BNP?

    You sound like a left-winger, maybe you support anarchism, socialism and communism (!)
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ed-)
    I would assume I like the Conservative party seeing as I'm a member of the party.
    1st- what's wrong with UKIP? They're a party mainly formed from defected unhappy Eurosceptic Tories
    2nd- how on earth did you get from me being a traditionalist Conservative to supporting UKIP and the BNP?

    You sound like a left-winger, maybe you support anarchism, socialism and communism (!)

    Good guess i am a socialist, how are you so clever.
    1st- the problem about UKIP, is that the founder Alan Sked resigned from the party because he said that there was to much RACISM influence in the party. I dont know but I hate racism.
    2nd- Seing as you dont see anything wrong with racism, you probably wouldn't mind both UKIP or BNP. :/
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDonOfUKNo1)
    Good guess i am a socialist, how are you so clever.
    1st- the problem about UKIP, is that the founder Alan Sked resigned from the party because he said that there was to much RACISM influence in the party. I dont know but I hate racism.
    2nd- Seing as you dont see anything wrong with racism, you probably wouldn't mind both UKIP or BNP. :/
    Actually I was making a sweeping generalisation as you did...

    The party was originally set up as a pressure group to oppose EU intergration. That's not racist. If it has a few racist members the party can't help that, as the Tories can't help having a few liberals...
    I feel no need to defend the party as I'm a Tory anyway...
    I don't know where you got the idea that I'm racist, leading me to believe you're making more false assumptions and therefore can't have a rational debate ...
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jadomcp)
    Well, public school students are not alone in their support of fox hunting, in fact the vast majority of rural folk (and indeed the majority of Britain at the last polling) are in favour of it. That it does nothing to control the fox population is a bit of a double-edged sword isn't it? If it doesn't, then that means that they are not catching anything, which means that you should have no problem with it, if however, they are killing foxes, then that is presumably helping, at least, to control the fox population. Yes, I understand the laws on killing animals to eat. But equally, no one eats the foxes, they are vermin, and we are allowed to kill vermin in pretty much any way that we want. Also, the thrill is not in the killing of the animal, as it is not in any blood sport, it is in the chase and the challenges that it throws up. The riding is the fun part of fox hunting, that's why so many people still go out when they hardly ever catch foxes anymore. Also, I would hardly call a fox defenceless, it's pretty vicious and it's got teeth that can do some damage.
    I'm sorry but WHAT?! Foxes are neither vermin nor vicious in any way.
    They kill a lot of foxes slowly and painfully. There is a large population in this country so this is why it does not control populations. Fox hunting is not humane in any way.
    For me, I have no problem with people killing foxes but it is the way in which the foxes are killed that is disgraceful. I can't speak for redferry but from what they have said it is the 'sport' they have the problem with and not the killing of animals in itself.
    If the riding is the fun part why don't they just go riding? Or lay a scent trail?
    Fox teeth are no defence whatsoever against a pack of hounds and rifles. So I would say the fox is entirely defenceless.

    Sounds to me like you have been brainwashed by the media. Foxes don't even eat rubbish, and are only pests in the respect that they eat chickens (which we put in their territory so who can blame them?), it is all a media myth.

    I'm not sure standing up for inhumane blood sports is helping your case much.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alces_alces)
    Sounds to me like you have been brainwashed by the media.
    Is that the same media that is anti-fox hunting?
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    I have to quote this for posterity.
    Instead of just sneering why don't you mount an argument. Economics is full of paradoxes. Personal debt and government debt are not the same thing. Government spending is not debt, it is liquidity. When you stick your cashpoint card in the wall what comes spewing out is government debt. Your problem is philosophical. Conservative economics is based on utilitarianism - the idea that if each person maximises their pleasure, then everyone will be better off at the aggregate level. One of the greatest intellectual discoveries in the social sciences is the discovery that this is not always true, and in fact is most often wrong. Very often a person maximising their own personal good in the short term produces adverse effects at the aggregate level. A good example is having a car. At the personal level having a car means you can move more quickly, have freedom, etc. But at the aggregate level the result is a traffic jam, no movement, pollution and all sort of dis-benefits. Like I say you a basic training in economic concepts and methods before you sound off. You are making basic errors saying that government spending is 'debt' just like personal debt. I do not wish to be rude but at a very deep and profound level you do not know what you are talking about.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ed-)
    And it's pretty questionable whether it's working now. How is it right that people can be better off on benefits than working?
    It is not right - wage levels should be higher. Wage rates are too low in the UK in some sectors (such as the service industry) due to lack of unionisation; they are too high in other areas (such as senior management) because of the lack of regulation. Growing income inequality is one of the fundamentals of the current economic problems - there needs to be a re-distribution of income within organisations with less for the more highly paid, and more for the lower paid. This is not a moral imperative, but a technical one - relatively poor people spend a higher proportion of their income and this boosts aggregate demand which is what is needed at a time of recession to promote full employment, a good tax yield and in turn a stimulous to house building and investment. Poor economic performance is linked to high income inequality (eg Mexico, India) and good economic performance correlates with income equality (eg Scandinavia).
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Martyn*)
    Most of these pro-Cons are aged between 19-25. They are incredibly naieve.
    I wish people would stop acting like they are the be-all and end-all of everything, with the "correct" opinions. (Not just you, your post just stood out at the beginning of the thread).

    Virtually everyone, supporting any political party, is incredibly naive... There is no "right" party to support. If it was possible to come to such a conclusion, it would be published and everyone would just vote for them every time.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OptimisticJourno)
    It is not right - wage levels should be higher. Wage rates are too low in the UK in some sectors (such as the service industry) due to lack of unionisation; they are too high in other areas (such as senior management) because of the lack of regulation. Growing income inequality is one of the fundamentals of the current economic problems - there needs to be a re-distribution of income within organisations with less for the more highly paid, and more for the lower paid. This is not a moral imperative, but a technical one - relatively poor people spend a higher proportion of their income and this boosts aggregate demand which is what is needed at a time of recession to promote full employment, a good tax yield and in turn a stimulous to house building and investment. Poor economic performance is linked to high income inequality (eg Mexico, India) and good economic performance correlates with income equality (eg Scandinavia).
    Does it really mean that, or are the wildly different living costs in each country (i.e. dirt cheap in Mexico/India, ridiculously expensive in Scandinavia) not hugely relevant here? If living costs are very low, then more people will get by on low incomes - and the gulf between them and the rich will be higher. If living costs are very high, then the poorest in the country need relatively high incomes to get by, making the gulf between them and the richest comparatively lower. A smaller gulf on paper doesn't necessarily mean a fairer society in reality.

    (Though I am no economic expert, so have no idea to what extent that will effect wealth equality in each individual country - it's just something that needs to be factored in).
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alces_alces)
    I'm sorry but WHAT?! Foxes are neither vermin nor vicious in any way.
    They kill a lot of foxes slowly and painfully. There is a large population in this country so this is why it does not control populations. Fox hunting is not humane in any way.
    For me, I have no problem with people killing foxes but it is the way in which the foxes are killed that is disgraceful. I can't speak for redferry but from what they have said it is the 'sport' they have the problem with and not the killing of animals in itself.
    If the riding is the fun part why don't they just go riding? Or lay a scent trail?
    Fox teeth are no defence whatsoever against a pack of hounds and rifles. So I would say the fox is entirely defenceless.

    Sounds to me like you have been brainwashed by the media. Foxes don't even eat rubbish, and are only pests in the respect that they eat chickens (which we put in their territory so who can blame them?), it is all a media myth.

    I'm not sure standing up for inhumane blood sports is helping your case much.
    I didn't come in here to have an argument about fox-hunting, but since you insist, I shall show you exactly why you have no leg to stand on.

    1. Have you ever been fox hunting? Do you know anyone who fox hunts? Have you ever even witnessed fox hunting?

    2. Foxes are vermin, I never said that they eat rubbish (although there is fairly compelling evidence that they are a pest in our cities), but rather was referring to the fact that they eat chickens, as you so kindly pointed out to me. You claim that we cannot blame them for this as we put them on their territory, and yet when other animals, for instance, eat our crops (that we have put on 'their territory'), we deem them pests and kill them, so you don't really have a leg to stand on there...

    3. People don't carry rifles when fox hunting. This displays perfectly your complete ignorance.

    4. I read the Guardian. Pretty sure I haven't been brainwashed into loving fox hunting by the media.

    5. It wasn't intended to help my case, but merely persuade people that believing that fox hunting is not wrong does not make you inherently evil person and that the vast majority of the rural community support it, not just those at public schools. It was merely a passing point and has sort of been blown massively out of proportion.

    6. Clearly if they kill a 'lot of foxes' then they are controlling the population, at least in their area. The problem is that there aren't many other ways to kill foxes that are humane, so if you can suggest a viable alternative, by all means, do.

    7. The reason that they do not just lay a trail is because the whole excitement is in the fact that you do not know where you are going next, where your horse will take you, that is why people love it and do it as a sport. If you just go riding, there is not the excitement of the chase and of the unknown.

    Please take a little time to learn a bit more about fox hunting before you attack it so vehemently again, your ignorance is plain to see to anyone who knows about fox hunting, so at the end of the day, none of your points really stand up anyway, as you have clearly displayed a complete lack of knowledge about the subject about which you are talking.Please feel free to reply to any of my points that you feel are unfair or unjust, I would be interested in your opinion.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OptimisticJourno)
    Instead of just sneering why don't you mount an argument. Economics is full of paradoxes. Personal debt and government debt are not the same thing. Government spending is not debt, it is liquidity. When you stick your cashpoint card in the wall what comes spewing out is government debt. Your problem is philosophical. Conservative economics is based on utilitarianism - the idea that if each person maximises their pleasure, then everyone will be better off at the aggregate level. One of the greatest intellectual discoveries in the social sciences is the discovery that this is not always true, and in fact is most often wrong. Very often a person maximising their own personal good in the short term produces adverse effects at the aggregate level. A good example is having a car. At the personal level having a car means you can move more quickly, have freedom, etc. But at the aggregate level the result is a traffic jam, no movement, pollution and all sort of dis-benefits. Like I say you a basic training in economic concepts and methods before you sound off. You are making basic errors saying that government spending is 'debt' just like personal debt. I do not wish to be rude but at a very deep and profound level you do not know what you are talking about.
    I never said that government debt is just like personal debt, don't put words in my mouth.

    I was laughing at the irony of a Labour supporter making a broad statement that Conservative supporters don't understand economics.

    Of course, Labour supporters are all economic geniuses, every one of them.

    That's why they all look at Gordon Brown's economic genius that has left the country in the way it is, and after that they can still go right ahead and say that he did the right thing for the country.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Generally, I like Labour and their policies, but they always seem to have a stupid buffoon as their leader which is incredibly annoying.
    • 7 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Maybe because many of them assume they'll be rich bankers, and want the system to be in their favour?
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    That's why they all look at Gordon Brown's economic genius that has left the country in the way it is.
    I find Conservatives are all too ready to point to finger at the opposing parties as part of their "policy", but without knowing what kind of state the Conservatives would have left the country in, it's hard to tell really. My estimate is they would have done equally as much damage, if not more.

    This country is in the way it is because it is being affected by outside economies. Gordon Brown was fighting fires really. I doubt the Tories would have done any better.
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Skip_Snip)
    Maybe because many of them assume they'll be rich bankers, and want the system to be in their favour?
    Probably this ^
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ed-)
    How is it right that people can be better off on benefits than working?
    It's not that benefits are too low, it's that employers are little scrooges and wages aren't high enough. This is down to the companies concerned, not so much the Government.

    I mean, how are wages like 15 grand and 17 grand gonna get anyone anywhere? Look at the cost of living. While the company directors rake in their little bonuses and perks.

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?

    this is what you'll be called on TSR

  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?

    never shared and never spammed

  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide the button to the right to create your account

    Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: May 27, 2012
New on TSR

Get ready for SQA results day

Share your grade expectations for Tuesday 5 August

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.