Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Wiki Support Team
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    93-03 was the best period for me and much of the credit does go to the Major government (Blair even accepted they'd left a golden economy). Your argument was that they could only stem the bleed, never make things better.

    That's not to say that Labour can't make things better either but your argument was far too polarized.
    My argument was that they struggle to because they don't want to. They want to conserve. My ideological inclinations is more to do with my belief that governments need to be prepared to change the status quo than to a belief that any one ideology has all the answers. Conservatives are too satisfied with inequality and social injustice and too ready to disregard people as unworthy or unambitious. Presiding over brief stints of economic prosperity says little for the conservative ideology imo.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StrangeBanana)
    Okay :yy:

    Basically, all you've said is "I strongly believe in free will." That's fine, but it's not evidence that you're right.
    I knew I would get through to you eventually

    I strongly believe in gravity as well. Doesn't mean gravity exists.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xylas)
    I strongly believe in gravity as well. Doesn't mean gravity exists.
    Indeed. What's your point?
    Offline

    17
    (Original post by Mayhem™)
    I'm conservative because I believe people who earn more money than others should be allowed to keep the difference, not dish it out to the people who can't be bothered to get a job or didn't try at school.
    Keep starry eyed son, if that's what making you work hard in school, then so be it.

    I had that view myself as a sixteen year old and you do eventually look at yourself in disgust for believing such things.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    You mean there's no influential upper class individuals who use government influence to enrich themselves at the expense of others?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Not in the way that Karl Marx wrote about, at least not anymore.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    My argument was that they struggle to because they don't want to. They want to conserve. My ideological inclinations is more to do with my belief that governments need to be prepared to change the status quo than to a belief that any one ideology has all the answers. Conservatives are too satisfied with inequality and social injustice and too ready to disregard people as unworthy or unambitious. Presiding over brief stints of economic prosperity says little for the conservative ideology imo.
    That depends on how narrow you want the sphere to be. If your claim is that the Tories are not radical on the whole then your taking the name far too literally, modern Conservatism and the current cabinet in general is fairly radical and reformist. If your statement only really applies to inequality and social justice then fair enough (albeit the later term while owned by the left effectively is actually somewhat subjective), most Tories however do want equality of opportunity but care little for equality of outcome simply because it's merely a symptom of some individuals succeeding more than others,.

    In terms of disregarding people i'd not go that far but i do think that most probably believe in the concept of a deserving and undeserving poor versus the common view from the left that they are victims of the system ect..
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StrangeBanana)
    Indeed. What's your point?
    I just countered your argument... Unless you tell me you don't believe in the evidence for gravity?

    You're really slow to catch on to things aren't you?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xylas)
    I just countered your argument... Unless you tell me you don't believe in the evidence for gravity?

    You're really slow to catch on to things aren't you?
    Gravity doesn't exist, look up General Relativity

    Ignorant ****
    • Wiki Support Team
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    That depends on how narrow you want the sphere to be. If your claim is that the Tories are not radical on the whole then your taking the name far too literally, modern Conservatism and the current cabinet in general is fairly radical and reformist. If your statement only really applies to inequality and social justice then fair enough (albeit the later term while owned by the left effectively is actually somewhat subjective), most Tories however do want equality of opportunity but care little for equality of outcome simply because it's merely a symptom of some individuals succeeding more than others,.

    In terms of disregarding people i'd not go that far but i do think that most probably believe in the concept of a deserving and undeserving poor versus the common view from the left that they are victims of the system ect..
    I don't even want 'equality of outcome'. Some Tories profess to wanting equality of opportunity but their actions say different. You can praise the economic growth aided improvements in the livelihoods of the working poor during what you consider to be the 'best period' and yet Cameron now oversees increases in child poverty, the number of working poor and rough sleeping.

    But that get's away from the real debate. I accept that there have been Conservative regimes willing to be 'radical' (though not in the direction I would like) - but when it comes to being bold and forward looking they simply don't have it in them. Shrinking the state isn't forward thinking, though it may be controversial.

    Perhaps there are some poor who are 'undeserving'. There are certainly plenty of rich who are just as, if not more, undeserving.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    I don't even want 'equality of outcome'. Some Tories profess to wanting equality of opportunity but their actions say different. You can praise the economic growth aided improvements in the livelihoods of the working poor during what you consider to be the 'best period' and yet Cameron now oversees increases in child poverty, the number of working poor and rough sleeping.

    But that get's away from the real debate. I accept that there have been Conservative regimes willing to be 'radical' (though not in the direction I would like) - but when it comes to being bold and forward looking they simply don't have it in them. Shrinking the state isn't forward thinking, though it may be controversial.

    Perhaps there are some poor who are 'undeserving'. There are certainly plenty of rich who are just as, if not more, undeserving.
    Some, sure. We're evaluating things at the aggregate level though. Relative poverty is not real poverty and i say that as somebody who grew up in an unemployed household. Your only real point there is rough sleeping. Certainly we are far from the 93-03 goal though right now.

    That's an entirely spurious and subjective statement relying on me accepting your definition of 'forward thinking'.

    Sure and that's an issue for equality of opportunity (inheritance in the main) but it does not detract from the overall point which is that your initial assertion that Conservatives can never make society better relies heavily on the acceptance of your own subjective definitions.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    To be honest I have no idea if the majority of Tory mps are bad or its just the current generation, growing up my local MP was Conservative and had been there until the 1997 changes and by that time he was in his late 70s.

    He had such a kind heart, came from nothing worked his way up and even went out of his way so much so even his Labour opponents liked him and thought of him as a good man, I remember that time I had my shoulder broken, he and his wife arrived one day and wanted a glass of alcohol literally kicked their shoes off and told us we had a lovely home (the same home that was damp, rotting and full of mould) and offered to take me on a trip to the funfair which was like 40 miles away!

    He also protested factory closures and such.

    Probably as he was from a small town and came from nothing he actually experienced the real world unlike most MPS who had a spoon shoved up their backside.

    (Original post by Rakas21)
    , most Tories however do want equality of opportunity but care little for equality of outcome simply because it's merely a symptom of some individuals succeeding more than others.
    Is that a way of them saying, if I can't have it you can't or why should you get extra even if you need it as that is unfair on others? Or another way of saying survival of the fittest?

    I remember at university one of my lecturers flat out refused to give me my support needs saying it was unfair on other students and was just me being weak(I am autistic and get confused)

    I personally believe in a system where they weed out the real chancers who play the system (be that a benefit claimaint, MP, business owner) and get them to pay their own way that will have a huge impact on how much money we have then the systems we already have in place for things like health and education to be more efficiently run so money is not wasted.

    Money is wasted on things like prescriptions for paracetemol/asprin whilst others are getting money for breast implants, people with serious mental health issues have their money cut, social work cut (it effected me but many others) and left to rot which ends up costing the government more in the long run, if that was better run less money would be wasted.

    So the wrong people get the most impacted with cuts because they are easy targets and can be lumped together with the bad.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by drbluebox)


    Is that a way of them saying, if I can't have it you can't or why should you get extra even if you need it as that is unfair on others? Or another way of saying survival of the fittest?
    No, it's saying that it's okay if inequality gets higher as long as there is raised living standards for the masses. If the CEO of my company gets a 10% pay rise and I get a 5% pay rise it doesn't matter because I get paid more, however, if he earns less and I earn the same, yes inequality decreases but I then have a real terms wage cut.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lime-man)
    No, it's saying that it's okay if inequality gets higher as long as there is raised living standards for the masses. If the CEO of my company gets a 10% pay rise and I get a 5% pay rise it doesn't matter because I get paid more, however, if he earns less and I earn the same, yes inequality decreases but I then have a real terms wage cut.
    Couldn't it then be argued that the poor have it too good or is that what MP's want to happen? People complain when the poor have tvs and pcs and have any luxury be it a take out now and again saying they should live on basics like bread/

    Appearances can be deceiving. hence why things like benefit amounts can't be an indicator, if you live in a area that is cheap to live and has very cheap available food then that will give you a better standard of life by living terms than someone with high rent in a area with little to no cheap places to buy food.

    Then we have things like transport links, transport prices and other such factors so there is no one way of looking at it.

    I personally go to supermarkets late and have a disabled bus pass so I can have money left over at end of week but people have said I live better than them before but then I get zero social work support and don't leave the house sometimes for a week or more due to depression as no councelling as people look at it in terms of pure money, I could spend some of what I "save" on support but then I would still have to live off that 9p loaf of bread or 15p pie to do so and even then not get much for my money.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lime-man)
    No, it's saying that it's okay if inequality gets higher as long as there is raised living standards for the masses. If the CEO of my company gets a 10% pay rise and I get a 5% pay rise it doesn't matter because I get paid more, however, if he earns less and I earn the same, yes inequality decreases but I then have a real terms wage cut.
    You can use that argument to justify slavery and that argument was indeed used.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by drbluebox)
    Couldn't it then be argued that the poor have it too good or is that what MP's want to happen? People complain when the poor have tvs and pcs and have any luxury be it a take out now and again saying they should live on basics like bread
    As someone who is working class, having a single parent and growing up on the breadline, I can tell you that I don't complain ever that the poor have it too good. As Rakas said before though, I do have a belief in a deserving and an undeserving poor, and my stance on inheritance is that even if I have a harder time growing up poor, if I can be in a position to give my children a slightly easier life then I should be able to. You notice in people that they tend to be for higher wealth taxes and such when they themselves have had nothing to inherit and nothing to pass on, however, as they grow up they tend to become more (small c) conservative when it comes to these things. I say tend because obviously there are plenty of exceptions to this, but generally it's what tends to be the case.

    Appearances can be deceiving. hence why things like benefit amounts can't be an indicator, if you live in a area that is cheap to live and has very cheap available food then that will give you a better standard of life by living terms than someone with high rent in a area with little to no cheap places to buy food.

    Then we have things like transport links, transport prices and other such factors so there is no one way of looking at it.

    I personally go to supermarkets late and have a disabled bus pass so I can have money left over at end of week but people have said I live better than them before but then I get zero social work support and don't leave the house sometimes for a week or more due to depression as no councelling as people look at it in terms of pure money, I could spend some of what I "save" on support but then I would still have to live off that 9p loaf of bread or 15p pie to do so and even then not get much for my money.

    This is actually part of the reason I, as a conservative, disagree with having a benefit cap.

    I agree with making benefits harder to claim if you're fully capable, and I don't even call it an "incentive" to work, it's literally just the belief that I have which is anyone who can work, should work. I think that for people who are affected by un-controllables, they should be supported adequately by the state, and a strong economy is the best way to achieve that support.

    But when you speak to the "pragmatic right", you get a different response on these issues than when you speak to the privileged student who thinks the sun shines out of his backside, and it's not even that it depends on the background, I share a lot of my views with David Cameron and we're polar opposites in terms of our background. Conservatism, for me, is a belief that we are a "nation of one" to paraphrase Disraeli, and we should share our successes as well as our burdens and we shouldn't be tied down by our backgrounds or our class.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    You can use that argument to justify slavery and that argument was indeed used.
    You can use a lot of different arguments in a lot of different contexts, if you offer an argument in favour of your ideology I could just as easily find it arguing in favour of fascism or any other horrid thing. The point still stands though, inequality is only inherently bad if you believe it to be, I used to, however, I'm much less phased by it now so long as it doesn't have a quantifiablly negative effect on society.

    I once asked the tories when I was otherwise inclined, "if inequality leads to poverty and poverty leads to crime, is violence truly inherent in the system?". Now, I remember not long ago, John Major was talking about inequality on Andrew Marr, and he said that there wasn't enough being done about it. Now, I know that we're going to disagree on some things, but I don't necassarily feel bitter about some people earning more than me, nor do I feel bitter about some people having an easier life than me, and as such, if inequality increases, if it leads to bad things happening (like a housing crisis, or increased crime rates) then yes, something should be done, however, inequality in itself I don't believe is inherently a bad thing.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lime-man)
    As someone who is working class, having a single parent and growing up on the breadline, I can tell you that I don't complain ever that the poor have it too good. As Rakas said before though, I do have a belief in a deserving and an undeserving poor, and my stance on inheritance is that even if I have a harder time growing up poor, if I can be in a position to give my children a slightly easier life then I should be able to. You notice in people that they tend to be for higher wealth taxes and such when they themselves have had nothing to inherit and nothing to pass on, however, as they grow up they tend to become more (small c) conservative when it comes to these things. I say tend because obviously there are plenty of exceptions to this, but generally it's what tends to be the case.




    This is actually part of the reason I, as a conservative, disagree with having a benefit cap.

    I agree with making benefits harder to claim if you're fully capable, and I don't even call it an "incentive" to work, it's literally just the belief that I have which is anyone who can work, should work. I think that for people who are affected by un-controllables, they should be supported adequately by the state, and a strong economy is the best way to achieve that support.

    But when you speak to the "pragmatic right", you get a different response on these issues than when you speak to the privileged student who thinks the sun shines out of his backside, and it's not even that it depends on the background, I share a lot of my views with David Cameron and we're polar opposites in terms of our background. Conservatism, for me, is a belief that we are a "nation of one" to paraphrase Disraeli, and we should share our successes as well as our burdens and we shouldn't be tied down by our backgrounds or our class.
    I believe in work for everyone (or just about) in the snese if I am capable and want to work then I should not be punished due to background but everything affects things different, I am a very hard worker for example but burn out after a while due to mental health reasons, in the period I do work though I am praised for going above and beyond by every job I had bar one where I was bullied by a boss (just for being male as she was recently divorced and picked on the male staff)

    I believe in true equality for everyone regardless of gender, ethnicity or whatever and people have accused me of things like sexism and racism before because of that when in fact I beleive one type of person should not be punished and another be left out i.e a male from a poor family in a area of high unemployment should be helped more than the middle class female who has lead a sheltered life but then complains about having it hard for being female but only as far as pure equality, if the poor person lacks the actual potential then you shouldn't help them just because, if they have it but need help to show it and want to then they should get the help to get the same opportunities, that may include whilst at university support to stay there since that poor person may have more to prove.

    I know from experience how hard I had to fight, I would of succeded too had individual setbacks not occured, at college I did well but had low self esteem due to earlier bullying which made social development occur at a much slower rate so by time I felt like doing things like going on a nght out I was already in my twenties, got my first proper job aged 21 but aged 22 had the family murder and no support to overcome it, it has taken me 10 years to only recover in last few months iof that and still have the long term effects and yes I get ESA but called for an assessment so probably fail that too and even if I can appeal I will worry, as it may take months or more to get the appeal and that will put my mental heath bad again
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StrangeBanana)
    Gravity doesn't exist, look up General Relativity

    Ignorant ****
    Well done you're an idiot.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xylas)
    Well done you're an idiot.
    >says something incorrect
    >gets corrected
    >resorts to insults

    honestly, are you twelve years old?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I believe it has a lot to do with your income and social status. I think anyone with an income over £40.000 would probably vote tory because they lower the higher tax payer threshold, but if they work in a public authority and earn over £40,000 i still think they will go for Labour ( this is the only exception IMO) due to job security. By social status i mean who they socalise with and their family, for example if you have been private schooled and come from a family of millionaires , your probably going to be a tory. Corporations prefer tory rule as they have to pay less corporation tax ( I believe they want it down to 20% by the start of next Parliament.) and they attempt to reduce employee rights (right to strike .etc) A lot of people are swayed by the media who spin stories in favour of the economical right. A lot of old school BNP go for tory when Labour would be of more economical benefit for them due to the wages they earn, and camerons tories are quite liberal when it comes to foreign policy when compared to Thatcher. I am not a conservative but this is my assesment.
 
 
 
  • 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
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    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.