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

I fancy someone on TSR Watch

Announcements
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    My sister voted for the Conservative candidate in our constituency in the general election and she was making less than £20 000 per annum then. :beard: She's not a boy, though. xD
    I think there's a difference between voting someone in a safe seat in and aligning yourself with Tory ideologies.

    Most voters stick with what they know in their constituency and I would say only the minority stick to their ideological guns.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Ethereal World)
    I think there's a difference between voting someone in a safe seat in and aligning yourself with Tory ideologies.
    We don't live in a Conservative safe seat though. It's a Lib Dem/Labour marginal. The seat had been held by a Lib Dem MP since 2005 but was lost to Labour in May. :3

    She voted for ideological reasons, although I think she's a bit naive about politics and tends to take it at face value.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    We don't live in a Conservative safe seat though. It's a Lib Dem/Labour marginal. The seat had been held by a Lib Dem MP since 2005 but was lost to Labour in May. :3

    She voted for ideological reasons, although I think she's a bit naive about politics and tends to take it at face value.
    Where du live?

    Also the tory's swayed a lot of people with anti-SNP rhetoric and unfulfilled pre-election promises eg tax credits.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Ethereal World)
    Where du live?

    Also the tory's swayed a lot of people with anti-SNP rhetoric and unfulfilled pre-election promises eg tax credits.
    Cardiff.

    Yeah, that wasn't it, either. xD She's basically not all that well-versed in politics and thinks that people should be less reliant on the state.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    Cardiff.

    Yeah, that wasn't it, either. xD She's basically not all that well-versed in politics and thinks that people should be less reliant on the state.
    If she wants people to be less reliant on the state then the necessary action is to stop the growth of inequality and exploitation by the rich, which, coincidentally, is not really in line with Tory ideology.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ivy.98)
    I bet my money that you're a pre-pubescent boy :indiff:
    :rofl:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ethereal World)
    If she wants people to be less reliant on the state then the necessary action is to stop the growth of inequality and exploitation by the rich, which, coincidentally, is not really in line with Tory ideology.
    ith you agen. herro. :wavey:
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mango peeler)
    ith you agen. herro. :wavey:
    Stfu and peel some mangoes for me will you.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Ethereal World)
    If she wants people to be less reliant on the state then the necessary action is to stop the growth of inequality and exploitation by the rich, which, coincidentally, is not really in line with Tory ideology.
    Like I said: naive. :beard: Also, she doesn't really care all that much about inequality, I don't think. She's definitely not on the left in that respect and, although I haven't asked her about this explicitly, I'd hazard a guess and say that she doesn't hold the negative view of inheritance that many leftists do.

    Anyway, I think we're kind of derailing the thread.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    Like I said: naive. :beard: Also, she doesn't really care all that much about inequality, I don't think. She's definitely not on the left in that respect and, although I haven't asked her about this explicitly, I'd hazard a guess and say that she doesn't hold the negative of inheritance that many leftists do.

    Anyway, I think we're kind of derailing the thread.
    But this is the hypocrisy. People don't care about inequality yet they moan about people living off the state and don't think they should? And inequality will start to affect more people if the current trajectory continues. We won't be able to afford the super-rich.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ethereal World)
    Stfu and peel some mangoes for me will you.
    what would you like me to use the mangoes for...

    (Original post by Hydeman)
    Like I said: naive. :beard: Also, she doesn't really care all that much about inequality, I don't think. She's definitely not on the left in that respect and, although I haven't asked her about this explicitly, I'd hazard a guess and say that she doesn't hold the negative view of inheritance that many leftists do.

    Anyway, I think we're kind of derailing the thread.
    yes I was starting to think I'm in the wrong thread lol
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Ethereal World)
    But this is the hypocrisy. People don't care about inequality yet they moan about people living off the state and don't think they should? And inequality will start to affect more people if the current trajectory continues. We won't be able to afford the super-rich.
    I think it's a fair, if slightly misguided, view. The left, as Thatcher correctly pointed out, is abnormally obsessed with the gap rather than the actual wealth of people. Although that's not an endorsement of the current state of affairs.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    I think it's a fair, if slightly misguided, view. The left, as Thatcher correctly pointed out, is abnormally obsessed with the gap rather than the actual wealth of people. Although that's not an endorsement of the current state of affairs.
    Because the gap creates the problems with state dependency and the best way to stop people needing the state is to reduce the gap and create jobs.

    The way not to do it is to impose austerity measures on the poor to 'force' them to work, whilst continuing to allow big companies and the super-rich to run around laughing, and not creating enough jobs for the unemployed. That's just a way to perpetuate the system and to kill people.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Ethereal World)
    Because the gap creates the problems with state dependency and the best way to stop people needing the state is to reduce the gap
    Disagree with this bit.

    The way not to do it is to impose austerity measures on the poor to 'force' them to work, whilst continuing to allow big companies and the super-rich to run around laughing, and not creating enough jobs for the unemployed. That's just a way to perpetuate the system and to kill people.
    Agree with this bit.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    Disagree with this bit.



    Agree with this bit.
    Well that's because you don't want to agree with the top bit. But it's true. and is the only alternative to the part you agreed with.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Ethereal World)
    Well that's because you don't want to agree with the top bit. But it's true. and is the only alternative to the part you agreed with.
    It's a bit long so I'll put it in a spoiler.

    Spoiler:
    Show
    It might be shown that extreme inequality positively correlates with state dependency, but I don't think it's accurate to say that inequality causes state dependency. :beard: If we take 'state dependency' to mean relying on the state for your everyday needs, and the prices of these needs to be more or less constant relative to the median wage over time, then it follows that it's the absolute, rather than the relative wealth, that matters here. It's not as if every increase in inequality is followed by an increase in the prices of essential goods and services, after all.

    And I don't see how my agreement with the second bit only follows if I also agree with the first. I think most people who aren't dyed in the wool Tories recognise that the current government (and the coalition before it) has gone about solving the post-2008 economic problems in the most illiterate way possible, investing most effort in areas likely to yield the least amount in savings/revenue.

    I happen to agree that they should first go after collecting taxes from corporations and higher rate taxpayers and then, if there's still an unmanageable deficit, go to the middle class, and then the working class. That's just prioritising and looking at it in terms of cost and potential benefit rather than the natural conclusion of believing that state dependency is caused by wealth inequality. :dontknow:
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andy98)
    Doesn't matter

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    So confused!!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    It's a bit long so I'll put it in a spoiler.
    Spoiler:
    Show


    It might be shown that extreme inequality positively correlates with state dependency, but I don't think it's accurate to say that inequality causes state dependency. :beard: If we take 'state dependency' to mean relying on the state for your everyday needs, and the prices of these needs to be more or less constant relative to the median wage over time, then it follows that it's the absolute, rather than the relative wealth, that matters here. It's not as if every increase in inequality is followed by an increase in the prices of essential goods and services, after all.
    These things happen so insidiously though. I.e. prices of essential goods, the cost of LIVING is increasing and has increased. A real problem is job provision.

    And I don't see how my agreement with the second bit only follows if I also agree with the first. I think most people who aren't dyed in the wool Tories recognise that the current government (and the coalition before it) has gone about solving the post-2008 economic problems in the most illiterate way possible, investing most effort in areas likely to yield the least amount in savings/revenue.
    Okay, I agree that you can agree and disagree with the two separate parts. My bad

    I happen to agree that they should first go after collecting taxes from corporations and higher rate taxpayers and then, if there's still an unmanageable deficit, go to the middle class, and then the working class. That's just prioritising and looking at it in terms of cost and potential benefit rather than the natural conclusion of believing that state dependency is caused by wealth inequality. :dontknow:
    Agreed. :hugs:
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ZuluK)
    -_- you say such nice things. Are you like this in real life because this is too perfect?

    😭😭😭😭 you're so sweet
    Nah, I'm actually evil IRL
    Spoiler:
    Show


    Thank you! :hugs:
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ethereal World)

    The way not to do it is to impose austerity measures on the poor to 'force' them to work, whilst continuing to allow big companies and the super-rich to run around laughing, and not creating enough jobs for the unemployed. That's just a way to perpetuate the system and to kill people.
    The rich and big companies don't create jobs by charity. They do it because they need employees to earn more money. It's a basic capitalist rule.

    If you want the unemployed to have jobs, stop importing low skilled migrants that compete with them, and reduce taxation on salaries (especially the NI contribution).
    The rich are greedy, but this is how the system works, we have never found something better.
 
 
 
  • 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
    AtCTs

    Ask the Community Team

    Got a question about the site content or our moderation? Ask here.

    Welcome Lounge

    Welcome Lounge

    We're a friendly bunch. Post here if you're new to TSR.

    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.