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

Turn us Lefties into Tories. Watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Supersaps)
    Well, that's embarrassing.
    No problem. If you read the post from the start you can see I'm winding the Tories up.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by illegaltobepoor)
    No problem. If you read the post from the start you can see I'm winding the Tories up.
    Conservatism is actually very decent, particularly one nation conservatism which has social mobility and togetherness at its core. When you say Tories though, I assume you mean Thatcherites, which is okay as I don't get along with them much either. Though, if you want a united country, a strong economy, and the most vulnerable being given an opportunity to not be so vulnerable then the Tories are the way to go. I say this as a working class conservative.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lime-man)
    Conservatism is actually very decent, particularly one nation conservatism which has social mobility and togetherness at its core. When you say Tories though, I assume you mean Thatcherites, which is okay as I don't get along with them much either. Though, if you want a united country, a strong economy, and the most vulnerable being given an opportunity to not be so vulnerable then the Tories are the way to go. I say this as a working class conservative.
    This is rubbish. Disabled people cannot just turn their disabilities off. The whole one-nation conservatism is a political ideology that excludes disabled people and uses them as a scapegoat for further austerity cuts.

    I don't want to hear any of your propaganda. Please don't reply to me.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lime-man)
    Conservatism is actually very decent, particularly one nation conservatism which has social mobility and togetherness at its core. When you say Tories though, I assume you mean Thatcherites, which is okay as I don't get along with them much either. Though, if you want a united country, a strong economy, and the most vulnerable being given an opportunity to not be so vulnerable then the Tories are the way to go. I say this as a working class conservative.
    One-nation conservatism doesn't value social-mobility at all. It believes that, as cohabitors in one society, the rich and poor both owe something to each other. The rich kindly keep the poor comfortable and the poor supply labour and doth their caps to their masters in the street. People knew their place and stayed there.

    Thatcher absolutely despised this patronising view. She thought that everyone should have the right to make themselves better - to truly be mobile. She pummelled the upper-class hold of the banking system and brought in the bulshy Essex boys and shook up the rest of society with it.

    It was Thatcherism that challenged the class system far more than One-Nation Conservatism.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by illegaltobepoor)
    This is rubbish. Disabled people cannot just turn their disabilities off. The whole one-nation conservatism is a political ideology that excludes disabled people and uses them as a scapegoat for further austerity cuts.

    I don't want to hear any of your propaganda. Please don't reply to me.
    That's not actually true, because he misappropriated the term 'one-nation'. One-nation conservatism actually does advocate helping everyone in discomfort, it's true.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ibzombie96)
    That's not actually true, because he misappropriated the term 'one-nation'. One-nation conservatism actually does advocate helping everyone in discomfort, it's true.
    Your kidding no 1. That is as bad as trickle down economics.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by illegaltobepoor)
    Your kidding no 1. That is as bad as trickle down economics.
    What? I'm not sure you're getting my point.

    This guy misappropriated the term 'one-nation' - or at the very least you misinterpreted him when you thought he was referring to this government.

    One-nation conservatism is not a theory. It is an ideology rooted in pragmatism. The rich give to the poor. This is just done with taxation. There's no way that can be disputed as effective - if the rich are taxed and the revenue spent on the poor, there is no way anyone can question whether or not the poor benefit in the way one so easily can when talking about trickle-down.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ibzombie96)
    One-nation conservatism doesn't value social-mobility at all. It believes that, as cohabitors in one society, the rich and poor both owe something to each other. The rich kindly keep the poor comfortable and the poor supply labour and doth their caps to their masters in the street. People knew their place and stayed there.

    Thatcher absolutely despised this patronising view. She thought that everyone should have the right to make themselves better - to truly be mobile. She pummelled the upper-class hold of the banking system and brought in the bulshy Essex boys and shook up the rest of society with it.

    It was Thatcherism that challenged the class system far more than One-Nation Conservatism.
    I don't believe that's true. There is a respect that we have for eachother in one-nation toryism that's granted, whether we're rich or poor, no matter our circumstances. And there's no reason why there can't be aspirational capitalism under a one nation conservatism, but Thatcherite corporatism isn't something that I'd consider a good thing. We as a nation must member the obligations we have to each other and move through the classes through merit rather than anything else.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lime-man)
    Conservatism is actually very decent, particularly one nation conservatism which has social mobility and togetherness at its core. When you say Tories though, I assume you mean Thatcherites, which is okay as I don't get along with them much either. Though, if you want a united country, a strong economy, and the most vulnerable being given an opportunity to not be so vulnerable then the Tories are the way to go. I say this as a working class conservative.
    why do you want to promote social mobility anyway? social mobility exists as a result of the class system - and we all know who the class system benefits.
    Spoiler:
    Show
    its the upper class in case that was too subtle
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mangala)
    why do you want to promote social mobility anyway? social mobility exists as a result of the class system - and we all know who the class system benefits.
    Spoiler:
    Show
    its the upper class in case that was too subtle
    Fine then, lets not promote social mobility and keep the class system as it is.

    Ftr, I don't think that social class is necessarily a bad thing, and I say that as a working class person, I can move up the social classes by getting a decent education and getting a decent job and getting a decent home and having a decent family. As long as there's a Government that truly believes and works towards a one nation ideology there's no reason that everyone in this country can't benefit from it.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lime-man)
    Fine then, lets not promote social mobility and keep the class system as it is.

    Ftr, I don't think that social class is necessarily a bad thing, and I say that as a working class person, I can move up the social classes by getting a decent education and getting a decent job and getting a decent home and having a decent family. As long as there's a Government that truly believes and works towards a one nation ideology there's no reason that everyone in this country can't benefit from it.
    within the class system of course social mobility is good, but the class system doesn't have to exist.

    socialism mate its the way forwards, **** the rich
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mangala)
    within the class system of course social mobility is good, but the class system doesn't have to exist.

    socialism mate its the way forwards, **** the rich
    Socialism is the politics of envy, "**** the rich because I'm not rich".

    If you want to be rich then work for it, and the nation will stand by you and support you as needed.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lime-man)
    Socialism is the politics of envy, "**** the rich because I'm not rich".

    If you want to be rich then work for it, and the nation will stand by you and support you as needed.
    nah its bants when i say **** the rich

    ive got nothing against wealth, but i have everything against people who maintain the class system and other such oppressive things (((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( (((((((((((((bourgeois)
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    why is the title "turn us lefties into tories"? why not "turn us lefties into righties"?
    anyway: rightie will turn you lefties into righties:
    do you think that it is wrong to force people to do things they don't want which only involves themselves? (e.g. gay marriage, drug legality, euthanasia, prostitution, etc)? basically, "are you a civil libertarian?"
    do you think that the government shouldn't be trying to guess how best to rule other people's lives when they're just a bunch of fellow adult citizens just like everyone else with a special badge called "democracy" that may look flashy but means very little objectively? do you think it's dumb that the government should be telling you hat is best for you, without leaving you to decide this question for yourselves?

    then I don't know how you don't use this liberal logic to argue for less taxation and less economic parentality - liberty implies responsibility, and responsibility implies independence (e.g. from a government hand) - that's right wing economics, as much as it is "left wing" liberties of the individual.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lime-man)
    Socialism is the politics of envy, "**** the rich because I'm not rich".

    If you want to be rich then work for it, and the nation will stand by you and support you as needed.
    Nonsense. "Jealousy" and "envy" are used time and again to discredit any legitimate criticism, it's merely an ad hominem.

    "Work for it" is also an insufficient response used repeatedly, but it doesn't carry much weight. Let's take the retail environment for example. I have a friend who has spent a decade of his life in retail, working his way from assistant to a managerial position. He regularly works over his designated hours, manages an understaffed department and assumes responsibility warehouse and staff training. Outside of his job he runs a scouts section for the local community, which is a weekly commitment with paperwork on top of that. He has to share a small flat.

    In contrast, the CEO of his company had an £850,000 yearly salary, a one million pound bonus and despite presiding over huge losses and store closures, the CEO was paid three million by the company after losing his job.

    The CEO has already earned far more money than my friend is likely to earn in his life time despite damaging the company and putting jobs and livelihoods at risk.

    That's "fair" by conservative standards.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Buonaparte)
    Nonsense. "Jealousy" and "envy" are used time and again to discredit any legitimate criticism, it's merely an ad hominem.

    "Work for it" is also an insufficient response used repeatedly, but it doesn't carry much weight. Let's take the retail environment for example. I have a friend who has spent a decade of his life in retail, working his way from assistant to a managerial position. He regularly works over his designated hours, manages an understaffed department and assumes responsibility warehouse and staff training. Outside of his job he runs a scouts section for the local community, which is a weekly commitment with paperwork on top of that. He has to share a small flat.

    In contrast, the CEO of his company had an £850,000 yearly salary, a one million pound bonus and despite presiding over huge losses and store closures, the CEO was paid three million by the company after losing his job.

    The CEO has already earned far more money than my friend is likely to earn in his life time despite damaging the company and putting jobs and livelihoods at risk.

    That's "fair" by conservative standards.
    It's life though, no amount of socialism will cure that injustice. That sort of thing gets my goat as well, and I say that as a conservative. I believe in aspirational capitalism though, and as such people should be given the support that they need in order to succeed. It may take a few generations to move up the social class ladder, and your friend is well on the way, so I wish him the best of luck.

    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    why is the title "turn us lefties into tories"? why not "turn us lefties into righties"?
    anyway: rightie will turn you lefties into righties:
    do you think that it is wrong to force people to do things they don't want which only involves themselves? (e.g. gay marriage, drug legality, euthanasia, prostitution, etc)? basically, "are you a civil libertarian?"
    do you think that the government shouldn't be trying to guess how best to rule other people's lives when they're just a bunch of fellow adult citizens just like everyone else with a special badge called "democracy" that may look flashy but means very little objectively? do you think it's dumb that the government should be telling you hat is best for you, without leaving you to decide this question for yourselves?

    then I don't know how you don't use this liberal logic to argue for less taxation and less economic parentality - liberty implies responsibility, and responsibility implies independence (e.g. from a government hand) - that's right wing economics, as much as it is "left wing" liberties of the individual.
    There are obligations that we all have, if the richest in our society maintain their wealth using the labour of the poor then the rich have an obligation to the poor via taxation. We are one nation and as such we are all in this together.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    This almost did it. What the guy says about democracy and accountability of power fits will with my left wing politics. He is the sort of person that I would have been allied with during the cold war. Like Orwell said “The real division is not between conservatives and revolutionaries but between authoritarians and libertarians.”




    KimKallstrom, that's the guy who resigned from a high position in the Telegraph over the relationship the paper had with HSBC which created a scandalous conflicting of interest.


    He's a prominent conservative commentator and descried Corbyn as a breath of thresh air in this vid.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ibzombie96)
    One-nation conservatism doesn't value social-mobility at all. It believes that, as cohabitors in one society, the rich and poor both owe something to each other. The rich kindly keep the poor comfortable and the poor supply labour and doth their caps to their masters in the street. People knew their place and stayed there.

    Thatcher absolutely despised this patronising view. She thought that everyone should have the right to make themselves better - to truly be mobile. She pummelled the upper-class hold of the banking system and brought in the bulshy Essex boys and shook up the rest of society with it.

    It was Thatcherism that challenged the class system far more than One-Nation Conservatism.
    I actually agree with that. Sort of.

    It;s also "the road serfdom" critique of socialism. It leads to something like the soviet union which is incredibly class based and rigid. Or the top down statist nationalization.The relationship between workers and state bureaucrats if almost feudalistic, like knights and serfs.

    I don;t think it works as well as it says does in practice however. I think it has a tendencies to create a race to the bottom and creates otehr problems. Like it's all well and good have the possibility to reach the the top but that doesn't make it ok to not look after anyone else. Or to reject any notion of equality of outcome of certain resources and services. It also very none libertarian when it comes to unions.

    I also don't think it is that great for equality of opportunity either, despite what it says on the tin. Plus after decades of it there is pretty strong empirical evidence that some of it's core ideas do not work how they are supposed to, or haven't at least in real existing captlaism of today.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lime-man)
    I don't believe that's true. There is a respect that we have for eachother in one-nation toryism that's granted, whether we're rich or poor, no matter our circumstances. And there's no reason why there can't be aspirational capitalism under a one nation conservatism, but Thatcherite corporatism isn't something that I'd consider a good thing. We as a nation must member the obligations we have to each other and move through the classes through merit rather than anything else.
    The thing is I don't know why you would vote for the Conservative Party if you have this view. Just as there is (or was until Corbyn at least) no party for socialists to vote for, there is no party for social conservatives/one nation Tories to vote for. Even UKIP are ultra-Thatcherites.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    The thing is I don't know why you would vote for the Conservative Party if you have this view. Just as there is (or was until Corbyn at least) no party for socialists to vote for, there is no party for social conservatives/one nation Tories to vote for. Even UKIP are ultra-Thatcherites.
    I would have said New Labour was ideal for that? Ed Miliband's 'kind cpaltiasm'
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Should Spain allow Catalonia to declare independence?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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.