Why are people Conservative?

93-03 was the best period for me and much of the credit does go to the Major government (Blair even accepted they'd left a golden economy). Your argument was that they could only stem the bleed, never make things better.

That's not to say that Labour can't make things better either but your argument was far too polarized.

Okay

Basically, all you've said is "I strongly believe in free will." That's fine, but it's not evidence that you're right.

I strongly believe in gravity as well. Doesn't mean gravity exists.

I'm conservative because I believe people who earn more money than others should be allowed to keep the difference, not dish it out to the people who can't be bothered to get a job or didn't try at school.

You mean there's no influential upper class individuals who use government influence to enrich themselves at the expense of others?

Posted from TSR Mobile

My argument was that they struggle to because they don't want to. They want to conserve. My ideological inclinations is more to do with my belief that governments need to be prepared to change the status quo than to a belief that any one ideology has all the answers. Conservatives are too satisfied with inequality and social injustice and too ready to disregard people as unworthy or unambitious. Presiding over brief stints of economic prosperity says little for the conservative ideology imo.

Indeed. What's your point?

I just countered your argument... Unless you tell me you don't believe in the evidence for gravity?

You're really slow to catch on to things aren't you?

That depends on how narrow you want the sphere to be. If your claim is that the Tories are not radical on the whole then your taking the name far too literally, modern Conservatism and the current cabinet in general is fairly radical and reformist. If your statement only really applies to inequality and social justice then fair enough (albeit the later term while owned by the left effectively is actually somewhat subjective), most Tories however do want equality of opportunity but care little for equality of outcome simply because it's merely a symptom of some individuals succeeding more than others,.

In terms of disregarding people i'd not go that far but i do think that most probably believe in the concept of a deserving and undeserving poor versus the common view from the left that they are victims of the system ect..

I don't even want 'equality of outcome'. Some Tories profess to wanting equality of opportunity but their actions say different. You can praise the economic growth aided improvements in the livelihoods of the working poor during what you consider to be the 'best period' and yet Cameron now oversees increases in child poverty, the number of working poor and rough sleeping.

But that get's away from the real debate. I accept that there have been Conservative regimes willing to be 'radical' (though not in the direction I would like) - but when it comes to being bold and forward looking they simply don't have it in them. Shrinking the state isn't forward thinking, though it may be controversial.

Perhaps there are some poor who are 'undeserving'. There are certainly plenty of rich who are just as, if not more, undeserving.

, most Tories however do want equality of opportunity but care little for equality of outcome simply because it's merely a symptom of some individuals succeeding more than others.

Is that a way of them saying, if I can't have it you can't or why should you get extra even if you need it as that is unfair on others? Or another way of saying survival of the fittest?

No, it's saying that it's okay if inequality gets higher as long as there is raised living standards for the masses. If the CEO of my company gets a 10% pay rise and I get a 5% pay rise it doesn't matter because I get paid more, however, if he earns less and I earn the same, yes inequality decreases but I then have a real terms wage cut.

No, it's saying that it's okay if inequality gets higher as long as there is raised living standards for the masses. If the CEO of my company gets a 10% pay rise and I get a 5% pay rise it doesn't matter because I get paid more, however, if he earns less and I earn the same, yes inequality decreases but I then have a real terms wage cut.

Couldn't it then be argued that the poor have it too good or is that what MP's want to happen? People complain when the poor have tvs and pcs and have any luxury be it a take out now and again saying they should live on basics like bread

Appearances can be deceiving. hence why things like benefit amounts can't be an indicator, if you live in a area that is cheap to live and has very cheap available food then that will give you a better standard of life by living terms than someone with high rent in a area with little to no cheap places to buy food.

Then we have things like transport links, transport prices and other such factors so there is no one way of looking at it.

I personally go to supermarkets late and have a disabled bus pass so I can have money left over at end of week but people have said I live better than them before but then I get zero social work support and don't leave the house sometimes for a week or more due to depression as no councelling as people look at it in terms of pure money, I could spend some of what I "save" on support but then I would still have to live off that 9p loaf of bread or 15p pie to do so and even then not get much for my money.

You can use that argument to justify slavery and that argument was indeed used.

As someone who is working class, having a single parent and growing up on the breadline, I can tell you that I don't complain ever that the poor have it too good. As Rakas said before though, I do have a belief in a deserving and an undeserving poor, and my stance on inheritance is that even if I have a harder time growing up poor, if I can be in a position to give my children a slightly easier life then I should be able to. You notice in people that they tend to be for higher wealth taxes and such when they themselves have had nothing to inherit and nothing to pass on, however, as they grow up they tend to become more (small c) conservative when it comes to these things. I say tend because obviously there are plenty of exceptions to this, but generally it's what tends to be the case.




This is actually part of the reason I, as a conservative, disagree with having a benefit cap.

I agree with making benefits harder to claim if you're fully capable, and I don't even call it an "incentive" to work, it's literally just the belief that I have which is anyone who can work, should work. I think that for people who are affected by un-controllables, they should be supported adequately by the state, and a strong economy is the best way to achieve that support.

But when you speak to the "pragmatic right", you get a different response on these issues than when you speak to the privileged student who thinks the sun shines out of his backside, and it's not even that it depends on the background, I share a lot of my views with David Cameron and we're polar opposites in terms of our background. Conservatism, for me, is a belief that we are a "nation of one" to paraphrase Disraeli, and we should share our successes as well as our burdens and we shouldn't be tied down by our backgrounds or our class.

Gravity doesn't exist, look up General Relativity

Ignorant ****

Well done you're an idiot.