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

Turn us Lefties into Tories. Watch

Announcements
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    I would have said New Labour was ideal for that? Ed Miliband's 'kind cpaltiasm'
    Possibly I suppose but they are even less socially conservative than the Tories
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    Possibly I suppose but they are even less socially conservative than the Tories
    Oh yeah. I don;t really think about that since it seems like no brainer that how things are now are magnitudes better in that side of things. I don;t undertand the peter hitchens of this world. Economically though tony blair labour was very compatible with one nation Tory I would have thought.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    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.
    Pretty much in agreement here.

    The most egregious problem with Thatcherism and its descendants is that they didn't and don't enforce equality of opportunity enough. If you think that inequality of outcome is justified - as I do and Thatcherism does - then you must start of with an equality in people's opportunities. To believe in the inequalities of both opportunity and outcome is, after all, simply unfair.

    The reason Thatcherism crushes unions is simply because it follows Adam Smith's argument that the state is needed to keep markets competitive by enforcing the maximum size of economic agents. Just as she cut down monopolies, she cut down the unions.

    And I think it would be hard to argue that Thatcherism did not improve this country hugely. I remember watching an interview with Lord Kinnock in 2000-and-something who, when asked if Thatcher was bad for the country, sat in silence for about a minute before saying 'I could put a case together, yeah' - the Leader of the Opposition!
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    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.
    One nation Tories will vote for the Conservatives just like the Socialists would vote for Labour.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    Possibly I suppose but they are even less socially conservative than the Tories
    This is an important point, I agreed with New Labour massively on the economy, just not on much else. Personally, I'm socially conservative but at the same time quite liberal, for instance I support emphasis on the family, and as such would like to see more British people getting married and less getting divorced, however families are changing and as such I support gay marriage and the right of gay couples to adopt. As well as that, I'd like to curb the decline of Christianity too, by increasing the powers of the CofE, but at the same time I believe that British muslims do contribute to our culture too and as such don't mind seeing new mosques being built and whatnot.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Oh yeah. I don;t really think about that since it seems like no brainer that how things are now are magnitudes better in that side of things. I don;t undertand the peter hitchens of this world. Economically though tony blair labour was very compatible with one nation Tory I would have thought.
    I am a social liberal (so neither Tory nor Labour do it for me socially) but I do understand cogent social conservative arguments like Peter Hitchens does. For example the below:

    (Original post by Lime-man)
    This is an important point, I agreed with New Labour massively on the economy, just not on much else. Personally, I'm socially conservative but at the same time quite liberal, for instance I support emphasis on the family, and as such would like to see more British people getting married and less getting divorced, however families are changing and as such I support gay marriage and the right of gay couples to adopt. As well as that, I'd like to curb the decline of Christianity too, by increasing the powers of the CofE, but at the same time I believe that British muslims do contribute to our culture too and as such don't mind seeing new mosques being built and whatnot.
    sounds pretty good to me.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ibzombie96)
    Pretty much in agreement here.

    The most egregious problem with Thatcherism and its descendants is that they didn't and don't enforce equality of opportunity enough. If you think that inequality of outcome is justified - as I do and Thatcherism does - then you must start of with an equality in people's opportunities. To believe in the inequalities of both opportunity and outcome is, after all, simply unfair.
    I agree with you.
    Although I don't think that even the most ardent of Corbynites believe in absolute equality of outcome.
    Hardly anyone would think a brain surgeon should earn the same as a Costa Coffee worker.

    Equality of outcome could more realistically be seen as 'more equality of outcome.
    While I have no problem with CEO's earning lots of money, I do have a problem with them earning 500 times as much as their staff, while their staff are not paid well at all.

    The closest we came to 'equality of opportunity' was under Blair with things like Tax credits, child support, investment into schools, huge investment into the NHS.

    Not that it was Utopia, but he ensured that to some degree the lowest earners had a chance. Working class parents having middle class children was a great success of New Labour.

    Now every ladder Blair and Brown threw down for the lowest earners and poorest people has been yanked back up firmly by the Coalition and now the Tories.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    I agree with you.
    Although I don't think that even the most ardent of Corbynites believe in absolute equality of outcome.
    Hardly anyone would think a brain surgeon should earn the same as a Costa Coffee worker.

    Equality of outcome could more realistically be seen as 'more equality of outcome.
    While I have no problem with CEO's earning lots of money, I do have a problem with them earning 500 times as much as their staff, while their staff are not paid well at all.

    The closest we came to 'equality of opportunity' was under Blair with things like Tax credits, child support, investment into schools, huge investment into the NHS.

    Not that it was Utopia, but he ensured that to some degree the lowest earners had a chance. Working class parents having middle class children was a great success of New Labour.

    Now every ladder Blair and Brown threw down for the lowest earners and poorest people has been yanked back up firmly by the Coalition and now the Tories.
    Yeah, completely agree that things were best under Blair in that regard.

    But Gove's education reform was incredibly important for helping poor bright kids (like Gove himself) and he should have been allowed to finish the job.

    And Corbynites are happy for people to earn well only when they like the jobs. Doctors and teachers deserve heaps, but people employed in the dirty and baser businesses of oil, energy and finance are fair game for attacks.

    Why shouldn't a CEO earn hundreds of times what the average employee earns? What is actually wrong with that? It's easy to balk at the statistic at first, but it is much harder to actually articulate a strong principle to attack it. The board of directors can pay their CEO what they want - no one else should have a say.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ibzombie96)

    Why shouldn't a CEO earn hundreds of times what the average employee earns? What is actually wrong with that? It's easy to balk at the statistic at first, but it is much harder to actually articulate a strong principle to attack it. The board of directors can pay their CEO what they want - no one else should have a say.
    I can only tell you my current position, I don't speak for 'the left' and don't intend to.
    I don't oppose CEO's earning lots of money if two basic conditions are fulfilled:

    1.) They pay their staff a living wage, not a starvation wage.
    2.) They pay their taxes.

    If they do those two I have no problem. It is when companies pay their workers so little, that it means the taxpayer has to subsidize their low pay. It's effectively paying benefits to the ultra wealthy.
    On top of that they then tend to avoid tax.

    That's the problem I have. Not that they are paid alot. But that they are paid huge amounts and they pay no tax and pay their workers a starvation wage.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    I can only tell you my current position, I don't speak for 'the left' and don't intend to.
    I don't oppose CEO's earning lots of money if two basic conditions are fulfilled:

    1.) They pay their staff a living wage, not a starvation wage.
    2.) They pay their taxes.

    If they do those two I have no problem. It is when companies pay their workers so little, that it means the taxpayer has to subsidize their low pay. It's effectively paying benefits to the ultra wealthy.
    On top of that they then tend to avoid tax.

    That's the problem I have. Not that they are paid alot. But that they are paid huge amounts and they pay no tax and pay their workers a starvation wage.
    That's perfectly fine. You want the bottom level to be lifted rather than the top and bottom to simply converge. That is perfectly acceptable. What is not acceptable is people who argue that inequality is, in itself, a bad thing.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ibzombie96)
    That's perfectly fine. You want the bottom level to be lifted rather than the top and bottom to simply converge. That is perfectly acceptable. What is not acceptable is people who argue that inequality is, in itself, a bad thing.
    No question about that. I won't disagree either that there are people who want the rich to be made worse off than the poor better off.

    The tory leadership however seem to want to make the rich better off, and while I won't say they actively want the poor to be worse off, they don't care at all if they do.
    This week the Lords had to stop the tories effectively redefining child poverty to make their statistics look better.


    Out of interest, who do you want to be the next tory leader by the way? What are your views on Osbourne?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    No question about that. I won't disagree either that there are people who want the rich to be made worse off than the poor better off.

    The tory leadership however seem to want to make the rich better off, and while I won't say they actively want the poor to be worse off, they don't care at all if they do.
    This week the Lords had to stop the tories effectively redefining child poverty to make their statistics look better.


    Out of interest, who do you want to be the next tory leader by the way? What are your views on Osborne?
    Dunno. I used to be very keen on Osborne, but I'm not so sure any more. His strategising is, almost objectively, admirable but it's starting to grate. For example, take his assault on middle class pensioners - it's clever as he knows they have nowhere to go, but it's all a little bit scheming.

    On the other hand, Johnson is a walking cluster**** who, I'm pretty sure, has a particularly worrying sense of self-importance behind closed doors. I'm not sure he will play well in the North, whereas Osborne may do a little better (?).

    Basically, neither are very good. Cameron is a clear leader and it was obvious from the outset that he was and has proven himself to be the right sort of chap to be PM. Whereas Cameron is arguably a statesman, Osborne hasn't the heart of a statesman and Johnson has mere pretensions to it.

    As I write this, though, I can't help but feel Osborne is owed the leadership. He is a very good thinker and arguably rescued the country from financial turmoil by working out the coalition agreement so quickly as well as injecting confidence into the economy at the sacrifice of his own political capital. Sure, his capital has risen hugely with the recovery, but he has taken a lot of hits on behalf of his government's programme.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Break up or unrequited love?
    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.