Why are the Conservatives stuck in the 1800s?

was there free education, free health care, disability benefits, child benefit and job-seeker's allowance in the 1800s?

Reply 2

username878267

15

Original post by zippity.doodah

was there free education, free health care, disability benefits, child benefit and job-seeker's allowance in the 1800s?

Actually education was made free in the 1800's :wink:

The 1870's Forster Act to be precise.
Point of information.

Reply 3

zippity.doodah

Original post by Bornblue

Actually education was made free in the 1800's :wink:

The 1870's Forster Act to be precise.
Point of information.

until what age?

Reply 4

SHallowvale

14

Was there gay marriage back in the 1800s?

Reply 5

The_Mighty_Bush

There can be no doubt that governments have got much bigger than they were in 1800s but you are just praising the intentions of these policies and not the consequences. The reality is that the welfare state hasn't really gotten rid of poverty at all, it's even created new forms of poverty and dependence which is very lethal when combined with other policies (the war against drugs and education policies).

Government over the past century has largely crowded out charitable giving and mutual aid societies which was the older way of helping the poor. I'm not convinced that state action is a suprerior way of helping the poor than charity. If we had the levels of charitable giving of the 1800s with current resources, I would argue that people would be better off.

We've gone from the state being 10% of the economy to it being 45% and to some people this isn't anywhere near enough.

Reply 6

username878267

15

Original post by zippity.doodah

until what age?

It's actually quite an interesting bit of history. In 1899 the legislation extended it to all children until the age of 12 but bear in mind people didn't live as long and children didn't go to school for as long.

Reply 7

The_Mighty_Bush

Original post by Bornblue

It's actually quite an interesting bit of history. In 1899 the legislation extended it to all children until the age of 12 but bear in mind people didn't live as long and children didn't go to school for as long.

And private provision of education was good and cheap.

Reply 8

OP

Original post by Bornblue

It's actually quite an interesting bit of history. In 1899 the legislation extended it to all children until the age of 12 but bear in mind people didn't live as long and children didn't go to school for as long.

It was mainly unnecessary as well, only a few universities existed and even very wealthy businessmen sometimes preferred to send their children elsewhere (usually on practical business trips) to be educated.

Reply 9

OP

Original post by SHallowvale

Was there gay marriage back in the 1800s?

On voting intention, 73% Liberal Democrats, 64% Labour voters and 53% Conservatives agreed that gay couples should have the right to marry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_Kingdom

Shocking really.

Reply 10

MatureStudent36

5

Original post by whorace

Is that four letter word TRUE?

The Conservatives are planning budget cuts that scream of 30s laissez-faire policy. 1830s that is.

Would those be the 30s style policies that resulted in the UK recovering from the Great Depression more quickly and more strongly than any other country?

There's a lot of rubbish posts like this coming out recently.

I've yet to see a backward policy been promoted by the conservative policy, but please feel free to give me examples.

Reply 11

OP

Original post by MatureStudent36

Would those be the 30s style policies that resulted in the UK recovering from the Great Depression more quickly and more strongly than any other country?

There's a lot of rubbish posts like this coming out recently.

I've yet to see a backward policy been promoted by the conservative policy, but please feel free to give me examples.

The response to the Great Depression was the exact opposite response of the current coalition policy, the Conservative governed used Keynesian policy to recover. They are taking money out of the economy with the cuts but putting nothing back in, no long term investment. Just a quick sell off.

Reply 12

MatureStudent36

5

Original post by whorace

The response to the Great Depression was the exact opposite response of the current coalition policy, the Conservative governed used Keynesian policy to recover. They are taking money out of the economy with the cuts but putting nothing back in, no long term investment. Just a quick sell off.

Errrr. No they didn't.

The Americans did and called it the New Deal. It gave the impression of improving things but it actually stifled the economy.

Here's a historian to explain.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GSd_Ld6X6O8

Reply 13

OP

Original post by MatureStudent36

Errrr. No they didn't.

The Americans did and called it the New Deal. It gave the impression of improving things but it actually stifled the economy.

Here's a historian to explain.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GSd_Ld6X6O8

http://glencoe.mheducation.com/sites/0012122005/student_view0/chapter24/where_historians_disagree.html

Actual credible views not from some second rate historian stuck in the 70s.

Reply 14

Infraspecies

16

Original post by whorace

The response to the Great Depression was the exact opposite response of the current coalition policy, the Conservative governed used Keynesian policy to recover. They are taking money out of the economy with the cuts but putting nothing back in, no long term investment. Just a quick sell off.

I guess they want to cut the deficit.
Which is fair, isn't it?

The sooner it's cut, the smaller national debt will be.

Reply 15

OP

Original post by Infraspecies

I guess they want to cut the deficit.
Which is fair, isn't it?

The sooner it's cut, the smaller national debt will be.

Which way will cut debt quicker. Investing in services that produce profit and jobs, or cutting the budget and giving the money to your friends who hoard it and use it to invest abroad?

Reply 16

Infraspecies

16

Original post by whorace

Which way will cut debt quicker. Investing in services that produce profit and jobs, or cutting the budget and giving the money to your friends who hoard it and use it to invest abroad?

Whose friends? Also, giving my money to them?

Also, "investing in" is another way of saying "borrowing more money that we'll have to pay back, but not during this government". The very definition of leaving a mess for someone else to clear up.

Reply 17

OP

Original post by Infraspecies

Whose friends? Also, giving my money to them?

Also, "investing in" is another way of saying "borrowing more money that we'll have to pay back, but not during this government". The very definition of leaving a mess for someone else to clear up.

Governments have always ran debts, it's the extent of the debt that is the problem. I ask you again, how is cutting services going to tackle the debt? It'd be far better to invest in services that can produce a surplus and thus creating jobs in the process.

Reply 18

Infraspecies

16

Original post by whorace

Governments have always ran debts, it's the extent of the debt that is the problem. I ask you again, how is cutting services going to tackle the debt? It'd be far better to invest in services that can produce a surplus and thus creating jobs in the process.

Just because "It's always been done" doesn't make it acceptable. Being in debt is bad- if you're not paying off debt, then you're failing.

Cutting services definitely tackles debt, if you don't see how then I'm not sure how to explain it to you.

Reply 19

OP