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

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by St. Brynjar)
    To quote my (totally impartial ) Geography teacher explaining the difference between left-wing and right-wing politics:
    "If you vote left, that means you don't hate people"
    That's really funny. The left are the most hateful of all. Their hatred of anyone who is successful and the envy they hold towards the wealthy is plain to see.

    Even going so far as to cut their noses off to spite their face if it can be seen to be 'punishing the rich'. Setting a bear trap for the Conservatives by pushing up the top rate of tax to 50p, just before the election, even though it had been much lower throughout their time in power, and reaping the political fallout when the Coalition lowered it, harping on about 'tax cuts for the rich' Then the icing on the cake - recent figures showed that by lowering the tax rate, this actually increased the tax take!

    Indeed, it is a little bit ridiculous. What's the point in doing all the 'good stuff' that Labour are promoting - good exam results, good degree, good job, good pay and so on to improve your lot in life and rise higher and higher up the ladder, to be hated by Labour when you reach the goal THEY set?

    Politics of envy then, now and in the future.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by josh_cook)
    Your post is actually laughable because you've failed to come to grips with anything I said. My point is that money is pretty much revered as a religion in our society, and I don't agree with that. If you want to live your life believing that money is the most important thing in life, then you will live a pretty pathetic, unsatisfying existence.

    Let me guess, you're middle-class and sit around ****ing off to your GQ magazine. You are without a doubt the delusional one.
    maybe you should just explain your life philosophy if it is so fascinating, all you've said so far is that you hate economics.

    though if it involves festering in a tent with a bunch of starbucks guzzling iphone fellating hippies ranting about how society is oppressing the poor then i really don't want to know.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thesabbath)
    maybe you should just explain your life philosophy if it is so fascinating, all you've said so far is that you hate economics.

    though if it involves festering in a tent with a bunch of starbucks guzzling iphone fellating hippies ranting about how society is oppressing the poor then i really don't want to know.
    So much hatred just because I don't believe that money is the most important thing in life! I wish I had an interesting life philosophy but sadly I'm not arrogant or naive (or perhaps lucky) enough to believe there is only one way to exist as human beings.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joeman560)
    Could any Labour supporters here tell me why they support it. This isn't a troll thread, I am just curious.
    I vote the lesser evil of the 3 major parties........so if it's labour it would be due to the fact at that moment in time they suit me more and are the lesser evil.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by josh_cook)
    So much hatred just because I don't believe that money is the most important thing in life! I wish I had an interesting life philosophy but sadly I'm not arrogant or naive (or perhaps lucky) enough to believe there is only one way to exist as human beings.
    i'm not sure that any one has said that it is.

    although, in my view, and in defence of money, if you are able in the course of your life to obtain sufficient money to cover your needs without having to think (ie worry) about money, then you have made vast advances at least with respect to peace of mind and therefore happiness/contentment. it is rare to have little money and then not have to think about how this impacts your life. any poll of voters shows that they view the economy as the most important electoral issue (immigration aside). an extension of this, perhaps simpler, is that having money gives you options when pursuing your life's dreams.

    you may wish that society was not dominated by things that cost money, but you don't really have a choice in that, so unless you are willing to retire from society to a private island or farm and live off what you can catch or grow, your options are limited.

    all of this seems far removed from what you believe however, and i would like to know what that is. even things like charity work, however fulfilling, are dominated by money (you're donating your time, and time = money, particularly in terms of opportunity cost)
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thesabbath)
    you may wish that society was not dominated by things that cost money, but you don't really have a choice in that
    Well that pretty much sums up how I feel about it. Things are dominated by money, and it does feel like their is nothing you can do about it - unless as you suggested, you alienate yourself from society. Both are equally unappealing.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    That's really funny. The left are the most hateful of all. Their hatred of anyone who is successful and the envy they hold towards the wealthy is plain to see.

    Even going so far as to cut their noses off to spite their face if it can be seen to be 'punishing the rich'. Setting a bear trap for the Conservatives by pushing up the top rate of tax to 50p, just before the election, even though it had been much lower throughout their time in power, and reaping the political fallout when the Coalition lowered it, harping on about 'tax cuts for the rich' Then the icing on the cake - recent figures showed that by lowering the tax rate, this actually increased the tax take!

    Indeed, it is a little bit ridiculous. What's the point in doing all the 'good stuff' that Labour are promoting - good exam results, good degree, good job, good pay and so on to improve your lot in life and rise higher and higher up the ladder, to be hated by Labour when you reach the goal THEY set?

    Politics of envy then, now and in the future.
    Best post in this thread by a mile.

    That is generally all that labours politics are about. Oh they're rich, lets tax them because I'm not as rich, heaven forbid someone earns a lot of money... Interesting to note though that some of their front bench are multi millionaires...

    Labour in the past three years have been shoddy at best. Their politics are so cheap and see through that the general public are starting to catch on... Take for example benefits. Everyone in the country can see that the Tories are right to clamp down on benefits, even benefit claimants! Yet labour, for what looks like the sheer sake of opposing start on some rhetoric that makes no sense and would actually increase welfare spending. Their so our of touch its unreal. Their time as opposition has simply been spent disagreeing with every single decision the coalition has made. What a joke. Their job is to oppose, correct, but their job is also to have the best of the nation at heart, and by being tosspots about some of the good decisions the coalition have made, like benefits, their true colours are starting to show.

    Labour have never been so unelectable in my opinion. Cheap politics, no policies, no research, not in the real world, no big hitters, no personalities, no front bench. Shambles from start to finish.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Because they let all of the foreigner in.

    And hopefully they cut university fees when they come back in.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexandrTheGreat)

    The Conservatives are going to borrow more from 2010 to 2015 than Labour in their 13 years of government.
    Well, i think you will find that the deficit that Labour, left the country with has been reduced, however i will admit that overall spending has increased, this does not necessarily correspond to increased borrowing.

    Thank you for disgracing yourself and your country.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by uktotalgamer)
    Best post in this thread by a mile.

    That is generally all that labours politics are about. Oh they're rich, lets tax them because I'm not as rich, heaven forbid someone earns a lot of money... Interesting to note though that some of their front bench are multi millionaires...

    Labour in the past three years have been shoddy at best. Their politics are so cheap and see through that the general public are starting to catch on... Take for example benefits. Everyone in the country can see that the Tories are right to clamp down on benefits, even benefit claimants! Yet labour, for what looks like the sheer sake of opposing start on some rhetoric that makes no sense and would actually increase welfare spending. Their so our of touch its unreal. Their time as opposition has simply been spent disagreeing with every single decision the coalition has made. What a joke. Their job is to oppose, correct, but their job is also to have the best of the nation at heart, and by being tosspots about some of the good decisions the coalition have made, like benefits, their true colours are starting to show.

    Labour have never been so unelectable in my opinion. Cheap politics, no policies, no research, not in the real world, no big hitters, no personalities, no front bench. Shambles from start to finish.
    And yet they'll still go on to win in 2015!


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by markfrancos)
    Well, i think you will find that the deficit that Labour, left the country with has been reduced, however i will admit that overall spending has increased, this does not necessarily correspond to increased borrowing.

    Thank you for disgracing yourself and your country.
    No you're right; the government borrowed around £300m less than it did last year... Borrowing should have been down to about £80bn by now, but because of this government's failed economic policy meaning we've virtually had no growth since they came to office, it's still at about £120bn... George's deficit reduction strategy is really working... Or not.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by euphful)
    No you're right; the government borrowed around £300m less than it did last year... Borrowing should have been down to about £80bn by now, but because of this government's failed economic policy meaning we've virtually had no growth since they came to office, it's still at about £120bn... George's deficit reduction strategy is really working... Or not.
    These are all cuts to planned spending increases put in place before the election, not cuts to actual spending.

    You notice how Labour keep banging on anbout how everything the Coalition is doing is wrong, yet fail to offer any realistic options themselves?

    What would you do? And that has to be plausible, and there has to be money in place to pay for it?

    Some would say that Osborne has not cut enough. The national debt mountain continues to climb.

    It's all very simple. So simple it amazes me that people just don't get it since they surely have experiences of the real world?

    As Mr Micawber said "Annual income £20, annual expenditure £19 19s 6d, result happiness. Annual income £20, annual expenditure £20 0s 6d, result misery."

    If you or I spend more than we received over any cycle of time, we would be in trouble. A business would go bust. Why is the state any different?

    Of course there are politicians (Labour ones) who will convince people (usually the feckless who are in the situation they are in because they are unable to manage their own finances) that we can continue to live beyond our means in perpetuity, but common experience teaches us differently.

    Perhaps its more palatable that those people (who love to spend other people's money) believe what they want to believe and we can escape our debts by simply sticking our heads in the sand and ignoring them, but that doesn't make it so.

    It may well be that our creditors will not be hot on our heels, but sure as hell eventually they will turn off the tap on us. Then reality will raise its ugly head and we shall have no control over the situation. You won't be able to give government paper away.

    If there were a lever in Downing St maked 'Growth', do you not think the government would have pulled it a long time ago? It would guarantee their election in 2015 and their credibility for years afterwards.

    No of course as usual, being in opposition, Labour have all the answers.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by euphful)
    And yet they'll still go on to win in 2015!
    The Labour strategy in tatters, of sitting back and letting the Tories do all the dirty work, making them unpopular enough to lose next time has produced a ten or eleven point mid term lead for Labour.

    Even Neil Kinnock (who just two weeks ago blamed Scargill for Labour's demise) managed twenty two points when Thatcher was at her most unpopular, and we all know how that election turned out.

    Labour's idea of 'credible' economic policy is to point at the Tories and shout "the opposite of what *they* are doing" and their dimwitted supporters lap it up.

    I don't know why they don't go on and rename themselves "Not the Tories" since their entire manifesto seems to be built on why people shouldn't vote Tory rather than why they should vote Labour.

    Unfortunately, voting Labour seems to be a lifestyle choice rather than an intelligent appraisal of their policies.

    For most Labour voters, the fact that Labour aren't Tories seems to be a good enough reason to vote for them and bugger the consequences.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    The Labour strategy in tatters, of sitting back and letting the Tories do all the dirty work, making them unpopular enough to lose next time has produced a ten or eleven point mid term lead for Labour.

    Even Neil Kinnock (who just two weeks ago blamed Scargill for Labour's demise) managed twenty two points when Thatcher was at her most unpopular, and we all know how that election turned out.

    Labour's idea of 'credible' economic policy is to point at the Tories and shout "the opposite of what *they* are doing" and their dimwitted supporters lap it up.

    I don't know why they don't go on and rename themselves "Not the Tories" since their entire manifesto seems to be built on why people shouldn't vote Tory rather than why they should vote Labour.

    Unfortunately, voting Labour seems to be a lifestyle choice rather than an intelligent appraisal of their policies.

    For most Labour voters, the fact that Labour aren't Tories seems to be a good enough reason to vote for them and bugger the consequences.
    So you think that Cameron can go from a pretty average performance in 2010 against a pretty much discredited and hated Gordon Brown, unable to even win an election in those circumstances, to actually increasing his vote share in 2015? Even Obama, who has had moderate successes in office, couldn't even increase his vote share in the US. What makes you think Cameron can?

    One failure of Cameron's was to fix parliament by law until 2015. It meant there was, rightly, no rush for Labour to start banging out half-baked policies in case the coalition collapsed and an election called- that could still happen now but there is a general 'locked in' sense amongst the coalition parties which will prevent this, because of fixed term parliament. So I have no doubt that as we get closer to the election we will start to hear more about what Labour will do- why do they need to provide a total alternative narrative now, with two years to go? I don't think so.

    Finally, the one decent thing Clegg has managed to do is totally sink the Conservative boundary changes, which means the next election will be fought near enough on 2010 boundaries, meaning the Tories won't capitalise as they were expected to do so.

    So whilst I agree Labour have work to do, the foundations for victory, or at the very least being the largest party, are there. The simple fact is Dave needs a majority of around 6% of the vote share nationally to gain a majority. I genuinely can't see that happening, unless Argentina invades the Falklands again. So at the moment, with the economy as it is, with joblessness on the up and living standards in decline, the stage is set for a return to Labour rule in 2015- and I can't wait frankly!




    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by euphful)
    And yet they'll still go on to win in 2015!


    Posted from TSR Mobile

    (Original post by marcusfox)
    The Labour strategy in tatters, of sitting back and letting the Tories do all the dirty work, making them unpopular enough to lose next time has produced a ten or eleven point mid term lead for Labour.

    Even Neil Kinnock (who just two weeks ago blamed Scargill for Labour's demise) managed twenty two points when Thatcher was at her most unpopular, and we all know how that election turned out.

    Labour's idea of 'credible' economic policy is to point at the Tories and shout "the opposite of what *they* are doing" and their dimwitted supporters lap it up.

    I don't know why they don't go on and rename themselves "Not the Tories" since their entire manifesto seems to be built on why people shouldn't vote Tory rather than why they should vote Labour.

    Unfortunately, voting Labour seems to be a lifestyle choice rather than an intelligent appraisal of their policies.

    For most Labour voters, the fact that Labour aren't Tories seems to be a good enough reason to vote for them and bugger the consequences.
    Euphful, I've quoted Marcus' answer as my answer. If you think labour have a chance your delusional. Even their own hardcore supporters, such as the union thugs and the benefit claimants are starting to see through their cheap politics of "your wrong, we're right."
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by euphful)
    So you think that Cameron can go from a pretty average performance in 2010 against a pretty much discredited and hated Gordon Brown, unable to even win an election in those circumstances, to actually increasing his vote share in 2015? Even Obama, who has had moderate successes in office, couldn't even increase his vote share in the US. What makes you think Cameron can?

    One failure of Cameron's was to fix parliament by law until 2015. It meant there was, rightly, no rush for Labour to start banging out half-baked policies in case the coalition collapsed and an election called- that could still happen now but there is a general 'locked in' sense amongst the coalition parties which will prevent this, because of fixed term parliament. So I have no doubt that as we get closer to the election we will start to hear more about what Labour will do- why do they need to provide a total alternative narrative now, with two years to go? I don't think so.

    Finally, the one decent thing Clegg has managed to do is totally sink the Conservative boundary changes, which means the next election will be fought near enough on 2010 boundaries, meaning the Tories won't capitalise as they were expected to do so.

    So whilst I agree Labour have work to do, the foundations for victory, or at the very least being the largest party, are there. The simple fact is Dave needs a majority of around 6% of the vote share nationally to gain a majority. I genuinely can't see that happening, unless Argentina invades the Falklands again. So at the moment, with the economy as it is, with joblessness on the up and living standards in decline, the stage is set for a return to Labour rule in 2015- and I can't wait frankly!
    Like I said, mid term polls mean very little.

    Of course Labour should be coming up with some concrete alternatives as to what they are going to do if they are going to continue attacking the Coalition as being wrong, either come up with an alternative plan as to how the country should be run or shut the hell up.

    All they have got at the moment is 'the opposite of what the Tories do'. Probably because they don't have anything else.

    I think when it comes down to it though, the Conservatives will do better than Labour simply because of the fact that although Cameron isn't a great PM, Miliband is even worse...
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by euphful)
    So you think that Cameron can go from a pretty average performance in 2010 against a pretty much discredited and hated Gordon Brown, unable to even win an election in those circumstances, to actually increasing his vote share in 2015? Even Obama, who has had moderate successes in office, couldn't even increase his vote share in the US. What makes you think Cameron can?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    One of the reasons (amongst many) that Cameron didn't win outright was because it need him to be 8% ahead JUST to get majority of 1. And this will be one (amongst many) reasons that Cameron will not win in 2015.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by meenu89)
    One of the reasons (amongst many) that Cameron didn't win outright was because it need him to be 8% ahead JUST to get majority of 1. And this will be one (amongst many) reasons that Cameron will not win in 2015.
    I agree, he had a mountain to climb, but the fact he fell far short of it, definitely shorter than his party wanted or expected, is a disappointment. Indeed, it's only the chaos of trying to form a government in the immediate aftermath of the election that prevented the Conservatives from asking the questions as to why they didn't do as well as they expected, especially in the marginals, especially when Ashcroft had pumped millions in to the campaign.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    Like I said, mid term polls mean very little.

    Of course Labour should be coming up with some concrete alternatives as to what they are going to do if they are going to continue attacking the Coalition as being wrong, either come up with an alternative plan as to how the country should be run or shut the hell up.

    All they have got at the moment is 'the opposite of what the Tories do'. Probably because they don't have anything else.

    I think when it comes down to it though, the Conservatives will do better than Labour simply because of the fact that although Cameron isn't a great PM, Miliband is even worse...
    Why should they, when there isn't an election for another two years? What possible purpose is served by dishing out policies in the middle of a parliament that we know is going to go on until may 2015? I'm not being silly; I really don't understand why you think they as a party should be committing themselves to policies when the reality in two years time may be far far different.

    The job of opposition is to oppose. Labour has supported the government on issues such as workfare, public sector pay restraint and Gay marriage, and opposed on issues they feel that are important to the people who elected them- That's what politicians are for. Indeed, on some issues Cameron has had far more opposition from his own benches than from the Labour Party (gay marriage, Europe)! It would be totally stupid of Labour to set out a full manifesto of committments at this stage in the cycle when there's absolutely nothing to be gained from it, by anyone.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by uktotalgamer)
    Euphful, I've quoted Marcus' answer as my answer. If you think labour have a chance your delusional. Even their own hardcore supporters, such as the union thugs and the benefit claimants are starting to see through their cheap politics of "your wrong, we're right."
    Some of Tony Blair's most vocal critics were the unions; he went on to win three elections.

    I'm pretty hardcore in my support for Labour; not blindly so, but I see first hand every day Thatcherite policies did to areas like where I'm from. I work full time, and do lots of overtime, pay a fair amount of tax and NI, contribute to my pension etc. Never relied on benefits, worked since I was 18. I just have a social conscience, hence my support for the Labour Party.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.