The Student Room Group

Is it socially acceptable to be right wing in the UK?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Bupdeeboowah
So you just moved left towards the center, but not that far towards the likes of the Green Party?


Yes, that's a fair summary of it. I am emphatically opposed to the Greens, the SWP and in fact to Jeremy Corbyn. I am small-c conservative in some ways (I support an appointed House of Lords, I like public schools, I strongly support the armed forces and the Anglo-American alliance). I support evolutionary, not revolutionary, change along with an inclination to preserve our traditional institutions where they are of benefit. A friend of mine calls me a Burkean Socialist.

Seems very adultish to me.

My whole premise starts out where students believe everything should be free, including tampons, and that they should go on gap year holidays and attend numerous socials, all on debt.


Cheers.

I am a bit conflicted, in that these students will pay the money back as student debt. I don't think only students from a comfortable background should be able to enjoy university as a time of self-discovery, maybe a time to party a bit too.

My objection to the student left is in how hateful and vicious they can be, how the student and far left often support illiberal fascists, that they are inclined to support anyone who is seen to be "anti-imperialist" (which essentially means anyone who points a gun at British or American soldiers).
Original post by SwedishRedhead
Especially among young people? For example if someone at university said they were a Tory would they be looked down on for it?

I am from Sweden which is very liberal, however I am wondering if the UK, being more conservative than us, is more accepting of right wingers. I heard that young people in the UK are mostly left wing though

Most schools no, I'd imagine. At my school if your Labour your a minority (they got 3% of the votes in our mock GE, 50% con 40% UKIP) so I guess it depends where you are and who you hang out with.
Original post by SignFromDog
Yes, that's a fair summary of it. I am emphatically opposed to the Greens, the SWP and in fact to Jeremy Corbyn. I am small-c conservative in some ways (I support an appointed House of Lords, I like public schools, I strongly support the armed forces and the Anglo-American alliance). I support evolutionary, not revolutionary, change along with an inclination to preserve our traditional institutions where they are of benefit. A friend of mine calls me a Burkean Socialist.

Cheers.

I am a bit conflicted, in that these students will pay the money back as student debt. I don't think only students from a comfortable background should be able to enjoy university as a time of self-discovery, maybe a time to party a bit too.

My objection to the student left is in how hateful and vicious they can be, how the student and far left often support illiberal fascists, that they are inclined to support anyone who is seen to be "anti-imperialist" (which essentially means anyone who points a gun at British or American soldiers).
Everything has a cost, and nothing is truly free in life. If students didn't have to take loans to fund their university education and instead received free university education, then in the future they would have to be taxed more. What young people need to do is to prioritise their life better and weigh the costs and benefits of their decisions.

Just because a subject is interesting to me doesn't mean that I should study that at university, when the job prospects in that market isn't very good, and when I'm probably not one of the best in that area of study. Just because my peers eat out and go on holidays and gap years doesn't mean that I should when I know that my I am struggling with my finances; perhaps I could find some other forms of less expensive activities which I can derive enjoyment from the list goes on (and I have painfully experienced the two I just mentioned). You reap what you sow, and screaming that society owes you the luxuries in life (which is are more than just any old thing) is a giant, juvenile cop-out from your responsibilities.

My personal view on leftist students:

When students leave their families, they are suddenly free of parental control, able to do anything without much accountability. They are however not truly agents who are capable of making free choices. Struck by student debt and an uncertain future which, in comparison to what they have done in their short lives, seems to be daunting (for example, it could perhaps take 10 years to save for a deposit for a house, and a further 25 years to pay off the mortgage, almost twice their age), and without the parental support which they used to have, these students seek to exert control over their lives, rebelling against what seems to be unfair "establishments" and "systems" - naturally, what the illiberal left you describe.

So it seems fashionable to oppose something, and their ends justify their means. Whether or not it is down to youthful energy, being mollycoddled and never having been disciplined by their parents, or having always been supervised by elders, this protest turns ugly as these students devote their energy to break down the society both physically and intellectually so as to impose their vision of what they think is right.

They then graduate and hopefully get a job. Saving for that mortgage is hard. They realise nothing is ever free, and start hating taxes, and despise those who choose to exploit the system which they are paying into. And then they become more centrist.
Original post by Bupdeeboowah

Just because a subject is interesting to me doesn't mean that I should study that at university, when the job prospects in that market isn't very good, and when I'm probably not one of the best in that area of study. Just because my peers eat out and go on holidays and gap years doesn't mean that I should when I know that my I am struggling with my finances; perhaps I could find some other forms of less expensive activities which I can derive enjoyment from the list goes on (and I have painfully experienced the two I just mentioned). You reap what you sow, and screaming that society owes you the luxuries in life (which is are more than just any old thing) is a giant, juvenile cop-out from your responsibilities.


Excellent post. There is much truth in what you say. As I said, I am conflicted. But I do think there is a legitimate space for people to pursue a subject that doesn't have good job prospects.

University isn't just about getting a good job at the end; it's about expanding your mind and horizons, growing as a person and coming into your own emotionally, sexually and intellectually. There are plenty of comfortable middle-class students who go and study English, because they love literature, and when they graduate go to work for an investment bank.

I feel like it would be a shame if there's an expectation that working-class students do vocationally-oriented courses, while more financially comfortable students are free to pursue what they're interested in. Of course in this job market everyone has to consider, to some degree, their post-graduation employment prospects.

But as a general rule, I do feel like the university experience as a time to expand your mind and horizons should be available to all. I do feel like society as a whole benefits when people have had an opportunity to study a subject, any subject, at university that broadens their intellectual scope and which teaches them how to think, not what to think.

As I said, there is much truth in your comment. But generally speaking, government subsidies for undergraduates at universities have never been particularly big. As a policy preference, a political choice, I believe that it is a worthy investment for society to provide somewhat generous grants for students during their undergraduate years. I am not opposed to the idea of student loans or a graduate tax at all. But I would be content to have some portion which would be a grant or gift from the state rather than a loan.

It is difficult.. to some degree there may be some benefit to students having to eat 49p noodles and learning a lesson in terms of managing their finances. But equally I feel there is some scope for a grant to less well off students so that their university experience is a little less grim, and so they don't always have to stay in studying while their wealthier classmates are free to hit the town. Am I making any sense or is it just a complete ramble?
im gonna get **** for this but right wing people are either uneducated or just *****. im sorry but anyone who believes they should keep others in poverty regardless of individual situation just so the rich can stay rich are plain selfish.
Reply 45
Original post by thedragonchild
im gonna get **** for this but right wing people are either uneducated or just *****. im sorry but anyone who believes they should keep others in poverty regardless of individual situation just so the rich can stay rich are plain selfish.


An ironic response considering the level of grammar and intelligence used.
Original post by ibzombie96
Isn't an anarchistic society one in which there will inevitably be the outcome that a few would control most resources and could kill or threaten everyone else? Isn't anarchy just the epitome of libertarian, survival-of-the-fittest economics?


Precisely. Whenever I've asked anarchists (many of whom affect left-wing views) specifics about a legal and policing system in their ideal society, they are always incapable of providing a straight answer and it ends up seeming like the possibility an anarchist utopia would work in practice is more akin to religious faith than rational analysis,.

What would happen, in an anarchist system, if you are a local villager and a very wealthy billionaire who lives on a fortified estate with a small militia abducts and rapes your sister, and is keeping her prisoner. As a poor tenant farmer, you weren't able to afford premium "policing insurance", and so your coverage only encompasses the local town or areas where they have an agreement with another police service, and also it only encompasses investigations.

Under the anarchist system, in any case, they would have no right to forcibly enter the estate of the billionaire. He denies the girl is on his property, and says if they want to try to force their way in, he will resist with force (and his militia is well armed). And what legal or moral right do they have to compel him to comply with their views? After all, there is no independent court that could issue a search warrant and there is no independent state which could execute such a warrant.

Sometimes the anarchists say that everyone would just gang up on the billionaire. So basically, by doing that they have just created the embryo of a state militia. Besides, I'm doubtful everyone would gang up on him to free her. He denies that she is on the property, and in the anarchist utopia, people are extremely reluctant to intrude into people's private property.

Personally, I would much rather a system where we have an independent court system which makes decision based on rules which we have all agreed through a representative electoral system, and where we maintain a police force which is sufficient to overcome any private militia. For all its flaws, a system where we have the rule of law and where the application of force derives from democratic legitimacy is far preferable to a system where private might makes right and where there is no independent system to address injustice.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by SwedishRedhead
Especially among young people? For example if someone at university said they were a Tory would they be looked down on for it?

I am from Sweden which is very liberal, however I am wondering if the UK, being more conservative than us, is more accepting of right wingers. I heard that young people in the UK are mostly left wing though


I thought that the right wing parties in Sweden were up and coming.
Original post by SignFromDog
Precisely. Whenever I've asked anarchists (many of whom affect left-wing views) specifics about a legal and policing system in their ideal society, they are always incapable of providing a straight answer and it ends up seeming like the possibility an anarchist utopia would work in practice is more akin to religious faith than rational analysis,.

What would happen, in an anarchist system, if you are a local villager and a very wealthy billionaire who lives on a fortified estate with a small militia abducts and rapes your sister, and is keeping her prisoner. As a poor tenant farmer, you weren't able to afford premium "policing insurance", and so your coverage only encompasses the local town or areas where they have an agreement with another police service, and also it only encompasses investigations.

Under the anarchist system, in any case, they would have no right to forcibly enter the estate of the billionaire. He denies the girl is on his property, and says if they want to try to force their way in, he will resist with force (and his militia is well armed). And what legal or moral right do they have to compel him to comply with their views? After all, there is no independent court that could issue a search warrant and there is no independent state which could execute such a warrant.

Sometimes the anarchists say that everyone would just gang up on the billionaire. So basically, by doing that they have just created the embryo of a state militia. Besides, I'm doubtful everyone would gang up on him to free her. He denies that she is on the property, and in the anarchist utopia, people are extremely reluctant to intrude into people's private property.


I'm just as confused as you are. That's how it seems to me - without a state, inequity will just increase and the poor will have even less support. Having said that, left-libertarianism is certainly a 'thing', and I should probably read some Chomsky to work the whole thing out. But to be perfectly honest, I'm not sure I'm interested enough. I read 'Occupy' and wasn't particularly impressed given he's heralded as a fantastic advocate.
Original post by ibzombie96
I'm just as confused as you are. That's how it seems to me - without a state, inequity will just increase and the poor will have even less support. Having said that, left-libertarianism is certainly a 'thing', and I should probably read some Chomsky to work the whole thing out. But to be perfectly honest, I'm not sure I'm interested enough. I read 'Occupy' and wasn't particularly impressed given he's heralded as a fantastic advocate.


I personally find Chomsky quite obnoxious. Actually, in terms of left anarchists, I found Proudhon to be extremely interesting (the "Property is Theft" guy). As I understand it, he's actually in favour of a system of overlapping mutualism which seems quite interesting.

A really good example for me is that in Australia, they have a legal requirement called Compulsory Superannuation (superannuation is basically a pension). In the 1990s, the government saw that the baby boom generation would create ever-increasing costs to the government for welfare, pensions and so on.

So they implemented a system where each employer has to contribute 12.5% of an employee's gross wage, on top of their wage, into a superannuation fund of their choice. They introduced it slowly (increasing by 1% a year) and in order to pay for it, the trade unions agreed that they would forego pay increases and also agreed to productivity increases. The restriction is that you cannot touch any of the money until you are 65.

Instead of paying into pension funds which guarantee you a certain amount of money (final salary pensions... they tend to be ludicrously expensive), instead the money goes into a pot which is invested, and you can see your nest egg growing thanks to the markets. It has been calculated that, thanks to compound interest and asset price growth, if the average worker invests 15% of their gross income into a superannuation fund, by the time they retire they will receive a pension approximately 60% of their weekly average earnings over their career. For a retiree that is pretty good, and as the employer already contributes 12.5%, the average employee really only needs to kick in another 2.5% (they don't have to, but it's sensible). iirc the average worker will have over a million dollars in superannuation by the time they retire.

Essentially, everyone has a pension nest egg when they retire, and the only people who receive the state pension are those who do not have enough superannuation.

The best bit of this is that most of the superannuation funds are run by trade unions (though of course they are owned by their members). These are called industry funds. They have actually found that these industry funds, managed by Australian equivalents of UNISON, Unite etc, actually have larger returns than the retail funds which are offered by banks and investment funds (particularly because the industry funds don't need to take any money out for profit for the fund manager). I find that to be a brilliant merger of labour and capital. You no longer have a division between the owners and the workers, because everyone is invested in the stock market / property market / stocks and bonds.

It also means that every pay day, you have billions being ploughed into infrastructure investment funds, into productive businesses. As a result of this, Australia's citizens have more in pension funds than Britain (even though the UK has three times as many people). And business loves it because it frees up so much capital.

That is the kind of mutualism I support, where workers co-operate and take advantage of economies of scale, but they take advantage of the power of the market to achieve those equitable outcomes.
(edited 8 years ago)
It's an interesting one, I depends entirely on who you are talking to, and I wouldn't say it is generally unacceptable, whilst out quite a lot of people know that I am a very right wing Tory, primarily because I met them through one of the other Tories, and most people happily look over that fact, or reserve judgement until they know what I actually believe (it's slightly unbelievable how many people have started drunk political discussions with me recently).
Original post by Reue
An ironic response considering the level of grammar and intelligence used.


1. my grammar is fine. it's the internet, im not going to go out of my way to add apostrophes everywhere and make my grammar perfect.
2. even if my grammar was awful why does that away from my point? why does grammar always equal intelligence? let me answer that for you: it doesn't.
3. not to show off or anything but im considered preetttyyy intelligent, seeing as how y'know i go to one of the top schools in the country
4. at the end of the day, it's my opinion (one that i feel very strongly about, yes) but still an opinion. if you want a debate on this topic, feel free to engage me in one, but insulting my grammar (with no basis too) isn't going to get anywhere.
Reply 52
Original post by thedragonchild
x


Spare me.

You were the one who started your point by making a sweeping generalisation and insulting the intelligence of others. The irony is that you did so whilst making clear mistakes yourself.

Original post by thedragonchild
3. not to show off or anything but im considered preetttyyy intelligent, seeing as how y'know i go to one of the top schools in the country


Pathetic.
Original post by Reue
Spare me.

You were the one who started your point by making a sweeping generalisation and insulting the intelligence of others. The irony is that you did so whilst making clear mistakes yourself.



Pathetic.


There are different types of intelligence. One can be an academic genius but have no understanding of human emotions. Or you can just be plain ol' selfish.

But, as I said, if you want to have a debate about something other than what you think my grammar is like, go ahead. But im not arguing with you over how intelligent you think I am.
Original post by SignFromDog
Excellent post. There is much truth in what you say. As I said, I am conflicted. But I do think there is a legitimate space for people to pursue a subject that doesn't have good job prospects.

University isn't just about getting a good job at the end; it's about expanding your mind and horizons, growing as a person and coming into your own emotionally, sexually and intellectually. There are plenty of comfortable middle-class students who go and study English, because they love literature, and when they graduate go to work for an investment bank.

I feel like it would be a shame if there's an expectation that working-class students do vocationally-oriented courses, while more financially comfortable students are free to pursue what they're interested in. Of course in this job market everyone has to consider, to some degree, their post-graduation employment prospects.

But as a general rule, I do feel like the university experience as a time to expand your mind and horizons should be available to all. I do feel like society as a whole benefits when people have had an opportunity to study a subject, any subject, at university that broadens their intellectual scope and which teaches them how to think, not what to think.

As I said, there is much truth in your comment. But generally speaking, government subsidies for undergraduates at universities have never been particularly big. As a policy preference, a political choice, I believe that it is a worthy investment for society to provide somewhat generous grants for students during their undergraduate years. I am not opposed to the idea of student loans or a graduate tax at all. But I would be content to have some portion which would be a grant or gift from the state rather than a loan.

It is difficult.. to some degree there may be some benefit to students having to eat 49p noodles and learning a lesson in terms of managing their finances. But equally I feel there is some scope for a grant to less well off students so that their university experience is a little less grim, and so they don't always have to stay in studying while their wealthier classmates are free to hit the town. Am I making any sense or is it just a complete ramble?
Thank you!

I understand the conflict you state - indeed, it would do well for society and young people to allow everyone to attend university and pursue whatever they were interested in, without the costs or the likelihood of excelling in the course being a concern. Very much like the whole reason why the liberal arts education movement in the US began.

The problem of indiscriminate distribution of grants I feel is that, the education sector will just exploit this and use it as a means to continue expanding and enriching themselves, at the expense of both the taxpayer and the misled student. Universities in the UK have been deflating their grade entry requirements (or rather is it the A Level grading is becoming easier?), and this lowering of the bar to entry in turn means that they have to dumb down the syllabus (I'm not even going to bother going on about David Beckham studies) which then results in students getting useless degrees. Everyone loses out.

While I don't think every student should receive a government maintenance grant for the very fact that they are a university student, I think we can both agree that there needs to be more means-tested scholarships available for outstanding, needy students. This would prevent university education from being seen as a rite of passage meant to be dallied away, instead rewarding those who truly would do well in what they are interested in, and who really need it.

What should really be done is the moving of goalposts. University education is ridiculously expensive, with low student/staff ratios and students often having to rent their accommodation. Instead, I think it is far better for more effort should be focused into pre-university education, to help students develop the crucial life and thinking skills which you mentioned. At the same time, (entertainment) expenses would be far cheaper for the student and his family. This way an impractical university education is no longer a necessity to succeed in life.
At my school it's okay, for example I'm right wing, but I'm not so right wing on certain issues.
Hi there, is there anyone who studies politics and International relations or has more knowledge about it?
I kinda need help with this question: Colonialism was instrumental in the development or underdevelopment of the third world. Do you agree with this proposition? I'm kinda confused with the question!

Kind regards
Laila :smile:
Original post by ChickenMadness
Well if you hung out with the rich kids then it'd be socially unacceptable to be Labour or any non tory supporter tbf.


not really - labour is full of millionaires/oxbridge-types
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by sleepysnooze
not really - labour is full of millionaires/oxbridge-types


Exactly
Champagne socialists who pretend to care about others well being while sitting on piles of cash and laughing at them!


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by owenj4
People are a lot more likely to admit they vote labour, especially amongst young people. But depends on the type of people you hang out with


Posted from TSR Mobile


Then why did the conservatives win a majority?


Posted from TSR Mobile

Quick Reply

Latest