Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

Why are so many people left-wing? Watch

  • View Poll Results: Do you generally identify yourself as...
    right wing?
    149
    40.93%
    left wing?
    215
    59.07%

    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a729)
    Partly due to Maggie
    Explain how Maggie made the Labour party abandon it's position on the left and move close to the conservatives on the right.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Izzyeviel)
    Explain how Maggie made the Labour party abandon it's position on the left and move close to the conservatives on the right.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...ew-Labour.html


    They kept a lot of her policies and even invited her over to no.10

    Tbh if she was of good health I'd vote for her then Ed anyday!

    Labour didn't undo Maggie's good work in putting the unions in their place
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a729)
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...ew-Labour.html


    They kept a lot of her policies and even invited her over to no.10

    Tbh if she was of good health I'd vote for her then Ed anyday!

    Labour didn't undo Maggie's good work in putting the unions in their place
    So all your talk of Labour being evil because they're on the left is bull**** then because they're actually on the right? Why are you so against them then?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Izzyeviel)
    So all your talk of Labour being evil because they're on the left is bull**** then because they're actually on the right? Why are you so against them then?
    They still increase the government and government spending

    and they are creating the 'not-working class'
    i.e
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...y-useless.html
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a729)
    and they are creating the 'not-working class'
    i.e
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...y-useless.html
    But that's what the Tories do as well... Neo liberalist policies have brought a lot of unemployment to this country. Without those policies there would be more people in jobs.

    Maggie/Reagan = Neo Liberal
    New Labour = Neo Liberal.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Izzyeviel)
    But that's what the Tories do as well... Neo liberalist policies have brought a lot of unemployment to this country. Without those policies there would be more people in jobs.

    Maggie/Reagan = Neo Liberal
    New Labour = Neo Liberal.
    hmmm it's time for a real chnage..UKIP

    Maggie was good but she seemed to lack compassion to the social effects of her policies
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tea-Party)
    How can anyone who is decently intelligent and who has a fair amount of life experience be left wing? I mean ok if I d be poor I would be the FIRST person to be left wing, because it would mean that I would get more. Thats called self interest, aka human nature. But its funny to see how lefties then twist and turn every arguement just to justifiy their self interest and jealousy towards those that are more succesful. Everyone that believes that the majority of lefties vote the left because they lovee each other so much is just, whats the word stupid.

    I mean its a no brainer. Think about it. And all those *******s that want the rich to pay more taxes are criminals. Its stealing from someone else, I mean nowadays in communist europe successful people work 6 months only for the governemtn and lazy poor people!!! 6 months, and these high incomes are almost always linked to 80h+ of work each week. Thats not justice.
    Because it is easy and lazy to scream "Tax the rich!!!" Then realise that political parties like Labour think everyone who is working is rich. Lefties are all in favour of tax rises when it is someone else who has to pay, but less so when they themselves are taxed to the hilt. Absolute hypocrites.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a729)
    Exactly!

    these people will probably change to right-wingers if they get rich lool!

    It's the politics of envy at play here!
    You know I used to be reluctant to call up socialists on the politics of envy card - I was sure that their arguments must surely be more sophisticated than that.

    However, the more I learn the more I agree with you - it really is the politics of envy. First port of call for many socialists I know is class war - they've got more than you so you need to hate them.
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a729)
    It's more about imposing legislation and regulations which harm economic growth

    We have the WTO

    so don't need a EUSSR
    Comparing the EU to the USSR is just daft. For one it isn't borne out of a single ideology and neither is it totalitarian or mass murdering.

    The WTO is like the UN, everyone ignores it whenever they don't like what it says and I'm sure your aware of this.

    The EU aims to treat the economies of the nations in it as one, same as the American government treats the economies of Arkansas and New York the same when it passes economic legislation or Russia Vladivostok and Moscow, and thus there is generally an overall net benefit across the EU economically, which feeds back in and boosts the whole EU in time.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a729)
    They still increase the government and government spending

    and they are creating the 'not-working class'
    i.e
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...y-useless.html
    What happened to government spending under Thatcher? What happened to unemployment?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Scots King)
    You know I used to be reluctant to call up socialists on the politics of envy card - I was sure that their arguments must surely be more sophisticated than that.

    However, the more I learn the more I agree with you - it really is the politics of envy. First port of call for many socialists I know is class war - they've got more than you so you need to hate them.
    If class war isn't real, then why are working class people being made to pay for the financial crisis? Why does class broadly determine health outcomes? Why do we have a government of millionaires?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Class war is an antagonistic device used by those on the left to rile up the working class. It is pure envy and nothing more.

    Each point in turn:

    Why are working class people being made to pay for the financial crisis? Well, first of all the bank should have been allowed to fail - we have grown far too dependent on this corrupt model of fractional reserve banking. The middle class is also feeling the pinch as well. But the working class in any event are being taxed too much - imagine how much more money they would have to spend without being taxed as highly as they are. Income tax threshold is still too low, national insurance contributions threshold is too low. That is a massive hit on your income for a start. Why force low-income workers to rely on working tax-credits? Don't tax them so much in the bloody first place.

    Why does class broadly determine health outcomes? Poorer education on health (thanks to the lack of grammar schools, equal misery for the poorest. Labour refusing to introduce grammar schools, yet strangely enough refusing to allow their own children to attend a state school) Hating on the rich isn't a way to solve this.

    Why do we have a government of millionaires? This is more of a Parliament-wide problem and I don't think many would applaud the arrival of the career politician. Labour aren't much better, for all they try to vaunt Ed Miliband's apparently "normal" background. It does create a basic credibility issue though - what do they know about the man on the street's problems.

    Class war isn't the way to resolve our problems. And I say that as a former class warrior.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    If class war isn't real, then why are working class people being made to pay for the financial crisis? Why does class broadly determine health outcomes? Why do we have a government of millionaires?
    Sorry I forgot to quote you, I've replied to you above
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Oh dear, where to start? We were 24 hours away from there being no money in cash machines? What would have happened if the banks had been allowed to fail, do you think?

    Yes, I agree, working class people are taxed too heavily. Over the past 30 years or so, we have seen a shift away from direct taxation to indirect taxation, which places the burden more heavily on the lower waged. We have seen direct taxation on the rich reduced. What else is this, except for class war being waged? Social services, benefits and the NHS are being cut to pay for the financial crisis, what else is this but class war? Why do poorer people receive worse education than rich people?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Btw, I agree with you about labour. They are a pro-capitalist party too. They all are.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a729)
    USSR= Union of Socialist Soviet Republics

    how do you figure that?

    baring in mind communism and socialism are both cut from the same deranged cloth

    Anyhow the USSR was undeniably left-wing and FAILED miserably and cost millions of lives (especially in the 1930s)
    Yeah and North Korea calls itself the Democratic People's Republic of Korea

    How do you figure that?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    Oh dear, where to start? We were 24 hours away from there being no money in cash machines? What would have happened if the banks had been allowed to fail, do you think?

    Yes, I agree, working class people are taxed too heavily. Over the past 30 years or so, we have seen a shift away from direct taxation to indirect taxation, which places the burden more heavily on the lower waged. We have seen direct taxation on the rich reduced. What else is this, except for class war being waged? Social services, benefits and the NHS are being cut to pay for the financial crisis, what else is this but class war? Why do poorer people receive worse education than rich people?
    Had the banks failed, the government would have had to pay under the Financial Services Compensation Scheme. Currently this scheme guarantees £85,000 per saver. This is designed to protect savers against the kind of scenario we almost had - a run on the banks. Because we all know banks do not have anything like the reserves they should have, they just sell debt. This would have hurt the government, but would have been far less costly than the full bank bailout.

    Who would have lost out? The majority of people in Britain would not - only the "rich" - who you seem to hate so much - would have lost their savings, and even then only those above that covered by the Compensation Scheme.

    If anything I thought you'd have been in favour of letting banks fail!

    And if we had let them fail, with any luck we would have been left with the more sensible banks that do keep enough in reserve.

    I agree with you about the banking crisis btw, the wrong people are being made to pay for it - should have just let the banks go, let the bankers suffer the loss.

    Although it seems counter-intuitive, I am in favour of tax cuts as it can actually help workers if it brings jobs and investment. Pursuing the corporations can actually be counter-productive. e.g. making Starbucks pay a token £20 million in corporation tax. What was their response? They threatened not to invest any more in the UK, when they were planning to create 5,000 jobs, and also they are now making employees taking unpaid lunch hours. And for what? So they are paying their "fair share." It's taking one step forward and two steps back, because if they were to create those jobs they would be helping more people become economically active, they would be paying employer's NI contributions etc. In other words, contributing far more in the long term.

    Social services and NHS cuts unquestionably hit the poorest most, but most cuts are unnecessary - the public sector is managed inefficiently. This is an NHS at which we throw ever more money and still have increasing waiting list times, and a poorer quality of service. Why do we need so many bloody managers in the NHS? Would it not make more sense to use that money for more doctors and nurses, who are chronically over-worked as it is?

    Social services - in my constituency, my local council has just delivered an atrocious budget which will deliver swingeing cuts so that it can build up a war-chest and be able to afford a council tax freeze before the next election - perhaps if they left the politicking we wouldn't need to bear the brunt of the cuts so much. And again on social services, most of the cuts so far haven't really been thought through - redundancy payments, etc, these actually cost in the short term, it is only in the very long term that any real savings will be made.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The compensation scheme only guarantees it per banking group. This is not the point though. If the banks had failed, no one would have been paid, no one could have bought anything in shops. What would the consequences of this been?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    The compensation scheme only guarantees it per banking group. This is not the point though. If the banks had failed, no one would have been paid, no one could have bought anything in shops. What would the consequences of this been?
    They wouldn't all have failed - only the big ones like RBS

    I'm quite sure the Bank of England would have coped - they currently print money to sit in bank's reserves as it is (QE), in the interim money could have been printed by the Bank of England and distributed. This would only be necessary until the Government paid out under the compensation scheme.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    Social services, benefits and the NHS are being cut to pay for the financial crisis, what else is this but class war? Why do poorer people receive worse education than rich people?
    The NHS is not being cut; its budget has not decreased from the 2008 level. Look at the budget reports. The Social Protection budget also jumped massively following the financial crisis. Most of the "cuts" are cuts in projected increases in spending which relied in the assumption of ~3% growth per year.

    Why do poor people receive worse education? They are less politically active, there is little competition between state schools, and there's no consequence for failure in the education system. Also, much of the budget for improving schools went into fancy new buildings instead of improving teaching.

    Finally it isn't "class war" because "the rich" aren't some monolithic, static class. Aside from the fact that most people in the top 1% don't stay there for very long, they aren't all bankers and they didn't all benefit from the banking bailout - some banks didn't even benefit from the bailout because it meant they were paying for their competitors screw ups.
 
 
 
Poll
Which web browser do you use?
General election 2017 on TSR
Register to vote

Registering to vote?

Check out our guide for everything you need to know

Manifesto snapshots

Manifesto Snapshots

All you need to know about the 2017 party manifestos

Party Leader questions

Party Leader Q&A

Ask political party leaders your questions

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

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