Why I hate Tories - with examples

I hate politicians generally. They are careerist, self serving and fundamentally corrupt and corruptable. They all seek first to justify themselves, and this becomes the main driver for all actions.

However this thread is specifically what I hate about modern British Toryism.

Example 1:

Prisoners must work harder for privileges - says minster

Example 2:

Shorter holidays and longer days for pupils - says minister

These last two are linked:
Minister urges rich elderly to hand back free travel passes
Many young people to be made homeless by housing benefit cuts

Now I imagine that the first headline has plenty of orgahs nodding their heads, and the second has a few nodders (probably UK Tories). So what's wrong with them?

Like all Tory statements of this sort they conform to 4 basic rules:

• They punish something
• They generally blame the young
• They sound "tough"
• They have no basis in anything resembling science or research, and have all the hallmarks of being a "big idea" created by committee in order to appeal to voters

Tories and punishing
Tories are at heart, quite primal creations. Their response to the foreign is fear. Their reaction to the new is retrenchment. Their answer to anti-social action is violence. Nothing seems more "right" to a Tory than to hit things and hurt them. If there is something you don't like, a good whacking will sort it out. In this sense they both appeal to, and speak from the base nature of humanity. Both of these example policies are punishing policies. Prisoners need more punishment. Punishing prisoners is always good. Students and children need less fun to make them less lazy. Being harsh with children is always good.

Tories and the young
Tories are, on average, significantly older than non-tories. Look at the conservative conference participants and they are usually in their 60s at least. Many much older. Their natural constituents are also old. One of the features of this demographic is a fear of the young. Young people are essentially seen as a menace that can only be tolerated when strictly controlled. Schools and prisons are full of these young people. In the last two examples with have the two approaches to cutting costs when applied to the old and rich (all voluntary) and young and poor (mandatory)

Sounding tough
Not much to add on this other than to restate it. Policies must "sound tough". Why? I am not really sure. It taps into the human (chimp?) desire to not be cheated. Better that people suffer than we are made to look foolish by helping people who are laughing behind our backs. Hence a high profile campaign against people who work and claim unemployment benefit. Millions were spent on well produced tv adverts with these cheats smirking at us for paying them. Even showing images of their generous friends paying for their rounds in the pubs as they smiled evily to themselves. Elicit fear, distrust and resentment, then offer to punish.

No basis in science or research
The last example of the unemployment benefit cheats is a good one. The actual cost of this problem is fairly minor compared to many other costs the government incur through negligence, mistake or poor planning. However it has a punishment angle, and can be sold to voters. In fact the biggest benefit expense the government by a massive margin is pensions. Why not attack these? See point 2.

Making life harder for prisoners is all very appealing. Flogging and locking up. Generally showing them who's boss. But what's the result? We don't really know. Neither does the minister who came out with the statement. The statement wasn't the rational and reasoned policy stance based on principle. It was a "sound tough" meaningless brain fart designed to appeal to voters and set an agenda. It was branding. It was what modern politics is all about. Likewise the claim that children need less free time and more lessons. Is there any evidence that less free time improves children's education? Well actually there is a pretty good body of evidence to the contrary - but that is irrelevant in this case.

So what's my conclusion? Well all politics and hence government policy comes down to electoral positioning and branding. It is about appealing to the base nature of people. And about reinforcing stereotypes and prejudices that people have. In the case of the Tories, the prejudices of realtively wealthy old people.

Politics and government should be a sober, long term project of improving societal outcomes. Making sacrifices here and there for long term improvement. Perhaps even implementing policies that seem counter intuitive, but are backed up by research. Admitting mistakes and embracing change. Removing the knee-jerk and daring to look bad when things go wrong. Instead we have the kind of politics that generates the above examples.

The problem with the politics of fear is that it works. Further, it simply requires shuffling funding as opposed to proposing something new. New is dangerous.

I could list the evils of socialism but I'm 53 years old and I'd be dead long before I finished.

I also think that the kinds of people able to succeed as politicians are those who have skills in pandering to those above them, and crushing those below them. These people aren't actually that bright.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

I could list the evils of socialism but I'm 53 years old and I'd be dead long before I finished.

---

I was going to predict in the opening post that you would remark along the usual well tramelled adversarial lines. I suppose once you start unpicking the motives of toryism, there is nowhere else to go.

Example 1 is most definitely true. Prisoners should be punished for their crimes. I say that current prisons are far too easy on those inside.
Example 2 is meh. It is not really that bad to extend the hours of teaching students. I am not for it, but I won't kick up a stink if such a thing goes through.
Example 3. I though the left was for means testing entitlements so those who can afford to live without it can and give support to the less fortunate.
Example 4. Just where is the money going to come from? The UK has a rather sizeable debt that will mean if not tackled now it will cause more harm later on for those who are reliant on the money when it eventually runs out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

I was going to predict in the opening post that you would remark along the usual well tramelled adversarial lines. I suppose once you start unpicking the motives of toryism, there is nowhere else to go.

---

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

Listen very carefully.

I. AM. NOT. A. TORY.

We're not so different, Idaho. Your four points represent conservatives in general, not just UK ones.

Points 1&2 are the main reasons I identify as a socialist. Not just coming from politicians, mind you, but also what I observe in everyday life. I hate those attitudes with a passion. Point 3 is a continual source of distaste for conservatism in general. Point 4 is something I discovered as I got educated myself, and is what makes me stay a socialist.

I would expand your second point with a general fear/distaste/hate of difference. Conservatives do not judge the of worth behaviour, preferences, etc on objective criteria, they seem to base it on how much it resembles themselves. Kids should behave as they do, and not go skateboarding on the sidewalks. Drink tea instead!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by classical_hero

Example 1 is most definitely true. Prisoners should be punished for their crimes. I say that current prisons are far too easy on those inside.
Example 2 is meh. It is not really that bad to extend the hours of teaching students. I am not for it, but I won't kick up a stink if such a thing goes through.
Example 3. I though the left was for means testing entitlements so those who can afford to live without it can and give support to the less fortunate.
Example 4. Just where is the money going to come from? The UK has a rather sizeable debt that will mean if not tackled now it will cause more harm later on for those who are reliant on the money when it eventually runs out.

---

Exhibit A: the Tory.

Other than reflecting on your emotional response to the issues and issuing opinion based on that. Do you not think that some rational appraisal and review of the impact of such proposals should be paramount? Or do you trust your knee jerk implicitly?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

I. AM. NOT. A. TORY.

---

I. AM. QUITE. SURPRISED.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

Listen very carefully.

I. AM. NOT. A. TORY.

---

I am surprised as everything you've ever posted screams "tory".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by classical_hero

Example 1 is most definitely true. Prisoners should be punished for their crimes. I say that current prisons are far too easy on those inside.
Example 2 is meh. It is not really that bad to extend the hours of teaching students. I am not for it, but I won't kick up a stink if such a thing goes through.
Example 3. I though the left was for means testing entitlements so those who can afford to live without it can and give support to the less fortunate.
Example 4. Just where is the money going to come from? The UK has a rather sizeable debt that will mean if not tackled now it will cause more harm later on for those who are reliant on the money when it eventually runs out.

---

Since your location is listed as Perth, where I lived for a number of years (I'm currently in Melbourne), do you mind if I ask which Australian party you would identify most with?

I personally view the OP as an entirely reasonable observation on the key problems with current 'right-wing' politics. I am all for sustainable economic policies and a 'fair' system: I just do not see how the British or Australian coalitions are providing that in their track record and advertised policies respectively.

As for my two cents:

1. As to Point 1 I am inclined, although having never visited a prison, to agree with the minister. However, it is not simply enough to punish a prisoner, the cause of crime must be identified. Thus, greater attention must be given to improving the prospects of areas where crime is high, there must be a strong emphasis on rehabilitation (massive carrot and massive stick) and support for inmates upon their release. Nevertheless prison must be a punishment, although it must also be a place where the criminal is reformed into a good citizen.

2. It may be the case that children in Singapore or South Korea have longer school days and shorter holidays, but just because one thing works for a country doesn't mean it does for another. Without empirical evidence and sufficient data to show that East Asian style schooldays would work in the UK such an idea is a lot of hot air. Also, what is the point of providing children with a good education if it means they are restricted in later life by the social mobility of the nation; I can speak for many of my contemporaries, university graduates, technically skilled individuals who find their prospects curtailed by an ingrained class system.

3. Philanthropy is no substitute for state intervention; this was shown to be the case back in the 19th century when rich persons like Lord Rosthchild gave away fortunes to the poor, only for it to be insufficient. This is a call for government means testing, not relying on elderly Britons to become elderly Samaritans.

4. Finally we have a classical case of Conservative hypocrisy. For a party where so many of the most powerful figures were born and raised in social and material luxury, to assume that every child is capable of moving back in with their parents shows just how difficult it is to gauge society from the top of an ivory tower.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

I am surprised as everything you've ever posted screams "tory".

---

Well to be a tory you'd have to either be a member of the Conservative party, like our erstwhile friend English assassin, or vote Conservative. I dont vote tory neither do I belong to the Consevative party.

On the other hand I have common sense. About as rare as rocking horse shit nowadays.

You know, it's shocking how many Tories are bi or even tri-lingual given how scared they are of the foreign.

Socialists are far more afraid of foreigners because they upset the Social Contract, and the working classes tend far more to racism and prejudice than the upper classes.

Now - lets see -

Agree with one, with the proviso that all prisoners should wear uniforms all the time without exception. It's a punishment, it should be unpleasant - and you can cope without TV, missing the footie is exactly the sort of thing you're supposed to experience in prison. Also, it will save money which can go into having fewer prisoners having to poo in buckets, an actual problem (even today)

Disagree with two - quite unhappy about this really, school holidays are for the children to be children. The only issue I have with the current system is that the afternoon break has been generally abolished, I would re-institute it and that would make the day 15 minutes longer. I'd also make lunch at least an hour, in my school after I left it got down to forty minutes and that isn't long enough to get 1,000 children through the canteen. It's also worth point out that the shorter and more intense school day has harmed discipline and that China is not a model for anything.

Agree with three - Germane Greer needs neither a bus pass nor a fuel allowance, nor does Lord Sugar. As a policy this one clearly runs counter to Idaho's argument because it will impact on traditional Tory voters (as he defines them).

Mixed feels about four - when I was 25 and I lost my job I went home and lived with my parents for a year, and never has a young man had greater motivation to find a job. It's true that not all young people can do this, but it's also true that many can and choose to live on the streets instead out of some miss-placed belief that their parents won't take them back. This is the most Tory policy, because it assumes the best of the parents, that they will look after their children because they love them. This policy is interesting because it's an example of a general theory which is obviously right but which would fail when applied to realy, nasty, people.

The tories are missing the point. Yes you agree or disagree with the statements. However you are doing so from an emotional position. The statements are designed to be emotive and divisive.

And from this same emotional and tribal core comes the attempted counterstrike to the perceived "socialist" opponent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

Well to be a tory you'd have to either be a member of the Conservative party, like our erstwhile friend English assassin, or vote Conservative. I dont vote tory neither do I belong to the Consevative party.

On the other hand I have common sense. About as rare as rocking horse shit nowadays.

---

Sorry to break it to you but UKIP are uber-Tories IA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

Listen very carefully.

I. AM. NOT. A. TORY.

---

I feel your pain

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

On the other hand I have common sense. About as rare as rocking horse shit nowadays.

---

But then it's not common.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Agree with three - Germane Greer needs neither a bus pass nor a fuel allowance, nor does Lord Sugar. As a policy this one clearly runs counter to Idaho's argument because it will impact on traditional Tory voters (as he defines them).

---

I think you have missed the point here - the point is they are ENCOURAGING the well off elderly to give up their entitlements - not FORCING them - they are offering the Rich a choice while forcing the poor to do as they say - that is the issue not the actual content

"Common sense" in politics is code for "my unchallenged prejudices".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Moody

I think you have missed the point here - the point is they are ENCOURAGING the well off elderly to give up their entitlements - not FORCING them - they are offering the Rich a choice while forcing the poor to do as they say - that is the issue not the actual content

---

Quite so. The same is true on taxes. The Cameron family wealth was built on creating offshore tax dodging funds.

"The whole world cries out, peace, freedom and a few less fat bastards eating all the pie."

-Edmund Blackadder

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

Sorry to break it to you but UKIP are uber-Tories IA.

---

No they're not. They're libertarian lite.

I remember meeting Jennie Lee in 1974. She turned up in this big black limousine, dripping in gold bling and being cheered to the rafters by all these raggy-arsed scousers who were telling me what a great man her husband was. I looked at these people who obviously didn't have a bean. Scuffed shoes, unkempt hair, holes in their trousers and then looked at Baroness Leee with her perfect hair/teeth/nails and Channel Couture clothing.

They were telling me how she was of the people, from the people and for the people. I looked at Mrs. Bevan again and even I as a 14 year old schoolboy could see something wasn't quite right here.

BTW this was long before Thatcher and those scousers are still raggy-arsed and poor.

Socialism is the biggest con ever perpetrated on the working classes.

Almost a big a con as capitalism. Particularly trickle down economics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

I could list the evils of socialism but I'm 53 years old and I'd be dead long before I finished.

---

Lazy, or empty, the world will never know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

No they're not. They're libertarian lite.

I remember meeting Jennie Lee in 1974. She turned up in this big black limousine, dripping in gold bling and being cheered to the rafters by all these raggy-arsed scousers who were telling me what a great man her husband was. I looked at these people who obviously didn't have a bean. Scuffed shoes, unkempt hair, holes in their trousers and then looked at Baroness Leee with her perfect hair/teeth/nails and Channel Couture clothing.

They were telling me how she was of the people, from the people and for the people. I looked at Mrs. Bevan again and even I as a 14 year old schoolboy could see something wasn't quite right here.

BTW this was long before Thatcher and those scousers are still raggy-arsed and poor.

Socialism is the biggest con ever perpetrated on the working classes.

---

Can you get back on topic? This is about the emotive statement school of politics. Not a free run for random drive by bon mottes on socialism.

Capitalism a con? The very thing that has lifted billions out of poverty in the third world.

Or maybe your getting it confused with corporatism, which is not the same thing.

As Karl Marx noted, no other social or economic system before capitalism had done as much to break the bonds of slavery and raise people out of poverty...

...now, on topic. The problem is the Tories take such a revolutionary system and use it to establish and entrench themselves at the top of the social spectrum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

Capitalism a con? The very thing that has lifted billions out of poverty in the third world.

Or maybe your getting it confused with corporatism, which is not the same thing.

---

I don't think you understand the topic. Perhaps you would be kind enough to start your own capitalism versus socialism thread and stop derailing this one?

OP is almost enough to make me want to vote Labour. But I still won't do that, you won't catch me voting yet.

The policy on prisons is the most moronic. Idaho is spot on that the emotional response the Tories are plugging into has nothing to do with what the facts show. In fact, here's a quote from the Daily Mail of all sources, lol:

"And yet, an extensive new study undertaken by researchers across all the Nordic countries reveals that the reoffending average across Europe is about 70-75 per cent. In Denmark, Sweden and Finland, the average is 30 per cent. In Norway it is 20 per cent. Thus Bastoy [the most 'progressive' prison], at just 16 per cent, has the lowest reoffending rate in Europe."

Overcrowding and a lack of activities has caused UK prisons to start to resemble those in America. Combine this with the socioeconomic disadvantages of certain groups, and we're starting to see them being taken divided along ethnic and religious lines. In Scotland and Northern Ireland, you have the loyalist and republican gangs. In England, you have whites, blacks, and Islamist gangs.

Petty criminals are thrown in with the worst kinds, and have to become like them unless they are going to be victimised. What exactly do the authorities expect to happen when you throw a bunch of young guys, many with a history of violence, into an overcrowded space with absolutely nothing to do?

I cannot think of a more unproductive way to treat criminals. You may as well beg to have them completely fail to integrate with society and stay in the prison system, costing that precious taxpayer money, their whole lives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

Or maybe your getting it confused with corporatism, which is not the same thing.

---

The problem is that corporatism is an inevitable consequence of capitalism.

Capitalism is great at the 'small, independent business' stage. The problem is a few businesses start to eat up the competition, and then you're on the way to corporatism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

Capitalism a con? The very thing that has lifted billions out of poverty in the third world.

---

...What history have you learnt? Capitalism did jack squat for most of those billions. Minimum wage,the main reason most of those billions are above the poverty line, that came about only because of socialist movements, capitalists most certainly didn't agree to pay more than bare minimum without being forced. Safety standards, that's socialist, capitalists didn't want to pay extra to preserve a notoriously replaceable resource. Sane working hours, that's socialist.

Want to see what happens when capitalism runs without limits of socialism look at the victorian period, the 1800's. At it's purest capitalism was so bad those billions considered stalinist russia as a marked improvement.

Anyway, back on topic. The tories are the guys we get to pay our debts, arrogant ruthless gits though they may be they can make a buck (or did until recently) for everything else we go with Labour who at least pretend to give a spit about anything other than themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

OP is almost enough to make me want to vote Labour. But I still won't do that, you won't catch me voting yet.

---

Please don't do that. Labour have learnt from tory electoral success in that they also just try to speak to the heart and ignore the head. The labour twist is that instead of the Tory "flog 'em and control' em" message, they go for some kind of positive feel good, shampoo advert pretty images and pseudo science nonsense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

At it's purest capitalism was so bad those billions considered stalinist russia as a marked improvement.

---

Can I borrow that? :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

instead of the Tory "flog 'em and control' em" message, they go for some kind of positive feel good, shampoo advert pretty images and pseudo science nonsense.

---

"With its unique pre-distribution formula and aromatic union overtones, Labour leaves your nation looking more redolent and feeling better than ever"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HopAlongBunny

Can I borrow that? :)

---

Sure.

Yea, Tori was pretty bad. I'm not sure about all the fuss though, not like we had to see much of her.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother,...with_Danger%3F

Quote:

---

No basis in science or research
The last example of the unemployment benefit cheats is a good one. The actual cost of this problem is fairly minor compared to many other costs the government incur through negligence, mistake or poor planning.

---

and this has no basis in human behaviour.

we assent to collective action via taxation and benefit distribution because helping the less fortunate is fair.

if that assent is eroded through misuse of the colleective action then the very basis for soical welfare evaporates in anger.

Point one: Tories want their friends to make money: prisoners work for almost free… I got an example when working for a big well known international company. Prisoners were working on cleaning the wheelchairs, and big company was presenting bills to NHS.
But, prisoners can't use sharp tools and some glue are forbidden, so the restrictions are so big (plus poorly paid prisoners didn’t really worked hard), so scheme was abandoned.
So this idea is just for the show.

Point two: Shorter holidays for teachers: Good old Tories trick to please populations who never forgave their teachers to be smatter than them… Then you’ve got a problem for recruitment, then you complain about the fall of education. Then privatise (like NHS).

For the two others, plain Tories policy, nothing to worry: Rich richer, poor poorer and usual myth about riches providing jobs for the poor. Eh, they need people for factories; it is how theiry ancestors became rich…

Capitalism is responsible for nothing more than the consumer culture and the narcissism that follows it.

I shouldn't be able to buy a big mac in Lagos

Imperialism by any other name....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

and this has no basis in human behaviour.

we assent to collective action via taxation and benefit distribution because helping the less fortunate is fair.

if that assent is eroded through misuse of the colleective action then the very basis for soical welfare evaporates in anger.

---

And what if the misuse is no more or less than it has always been (fractional and insignificant) but that the issue is raised to boiling point by those with an interest in redirecting public anger about the misuse of public funds (banks)? How does your purist Lockian view look then?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

...What history have you learnt? Capitalism did jack squat for most of those billions. Minimum wage,the main reason most of those billions are above the poverty line, ...

Want to see what happens when capitalism runs without limits of socialism look at the victorian period, the 1800's. At it's purest capitalism was so bad those billions considered stalinist russia as a marked improvement.

Anyway, back on topic. The tories are the guys we get to pay our debts, arrogant ruthless gits though they may be they can make a buck (or did until recently) for everything else we go with Labour who at least pretend to give a spit about anything other than themselves.

---

Exactly when did human life span start extending?
Where did it occur first?
When did human populations start rapidly increasing?
When did we start getting surplus resources to our needs?
When did the concept of leisure time appear?
Romantic love?
Schools for the children of workers?

That bane of the earth capitalism is weft and warped within industrialization.

Industrialization whilst portrayed as the mother of all evils is quite a different beast.

=][=
As for the OP

Travel passes could be means tested. People are living longer, well beyond retirement age and they are forming a larger wedge of the pie. So all I'd do is make the travel pass off peak.

Longer school hours... would it make any difference to kids at boarding school? It would mean rather then dual income families paying for after school care it would be free or more time covered. Make longer lunch and breaks, add in more sport and music and art... It might mean better educated, socialized and fitter kids.

Or you could stop taxing to buggery high income earners so one parent can stay at home and raise their own children rather then the state...

As for prisons... punish and reform. Much cheaper to reform rather then create career criminals.

Quote:

---

Exactly when did human life span start extending?
Where did it occur first?
When did human populations start rapidly increasing?
When did we start getting surplus resources to our needs?
When did the concept of leisure time appear?
Romantic love?
Schools for the children of workers?

That bane of the earth capitalism is weft and warped within industrialization.

Industrialization whilst portrayed as the mother of all evils is quite a different beast.

---

Sir, I salute you. :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

"Common sense" in politics is code for "my unchallenged prejudices".

---

Why don't you go the whole hog and call me racist? After all that's what the left do to stifle debate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Longer school hours... would it make any difference to kids at boarding school? It would mean rather then dual income families paying for after school care it would be free or more time covered. Make longer lunch and breaks, add in more sport and music and art... It might mean better educated, socialized and fitter kids.

---

That assumes that the level of quality of education would not suffer from an extended school day or that extended hours in the company of other students would be better for the social skills of a child. This proposal requires testing before we can begin to conclude what benefits it may bring. I fear that when a Tory suggests such a reform, it is done more from their own (likely very beneficial) experiences of the Public School system, rather than from empirical observations.


OT Capitalism has been an incredibly beneficial economic model for humanity on the whole, the challenge now is to reform it, to develop a successor model of economics which maintains the same level of productivity and oppulence but is both sustainable and prevents the excesses of capitalism being transformed from personal wealth into political power.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Or you could stop taxing to buggery high income earners so one parent can stay at home and raise their own children rather then the state...

---

That sounds lovely, except that the amount of tax you'd have to take from them would be way more than what is going into the child care system. So at the same time you'd take away money from infrastructure, military and other things funded by these taxes. Taking away the 30$ a month or so that go into child care would not really replace a 2nd wage.

Apart from that, high income earners still have a lot more left after taxes than low income earners so unless they spend all the money on luxuries, they can much easier afford to have one parent stay at home than low income earners. And if they do spend the money on luxuries, who is going to make sure they spend the tax reduction on their child instead of getting more luxuries? Will you just ban them from putting their child into daycare and force one parent to stay at home? Then you're destroying careers and incentivize them not to get any children if they want to keep both their careers.


As for Capitalism vs. Socialism, it's like the light side and the dark side of the force, you need to maintain a balance or humanity and civilization will vanish...
Most of the political bickering nowadays is just about where that balance is and whenever it shifts too far to either side you get a crisis of some sort. If it shifts too far, people die...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brennus

That assumes that the level of quality of education would not suffer from an extended school day or that extended hours in the company of other students would be better for the social skills of a child. This proposal requires testing before we can begin to conclude what benefits it may bring. I fear that when a Tory suggests such a reform, it is done more from their own (likely very beneficial) experiences of the Public School system, rather than from empirical observations.

---

There is no science available which points to extending school time equals more learning. In fact, what we do know is that what a student learns from in the last hour of day is significantly less than what they learn from the first hour. This isn't exclusive to education though, we also know that job productivity goes down with each passing hour.

Now, we also know that the big summer break is a problem, as the students productivity is lower after than it was before. Removing it altogether isn't the answer, however.


Few politicians ever listen to what educational scientists have to say, and almost none of the those who do are conservatives. Thus, it is no surprise that their "ideas" are utter garbage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

Why don't you go the whole hog and call me racist? After all that's what the left do to stifle debate.

---

I don't understand what you are trying to get at here IP. Idaho claims that the right wing relies too much on emotional responses as a basis for policy, and all you have done is get inflamed and make emotive statements. It's as if you just read the title and are just assuming that the whole OP is a big attack on you personally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Now, we also know that the big summer break is a problem, as the students productivity is lower after than it was before. Removing it altogether isn't the answer, however.

Few politicians ever listen to what educational scientists have to say, and almost none of the those who do are conservatives. Thus, it is no surprise that their "ideas" are utter garbage.

---

I agree with everything here. I never understood why we let student proceed to forget 25% of what they learned the year before because we give them 3 months of little to no mental exercise. A better way to go about it would be spreading out the time off across the year. Give the kids a week off every now and then and keep the education consistently coming all year round.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Exactly when did human life span start extending?
Where did it occur first?
When did human populations start rapidly increasing?
When did we start getting surplus resources to our needs?
When did the concept of leisure time appear?
Romantic love?
Schools for the children of workers?

That bane of the earth capitalism is weft and warped within industrialization.

Industrialization whilst portrayed as the mother of all evils is quite a different beast.

=][=

---

I note that the concept of leisure time and romantic love did not originate from capitalism, the rapid expansion of population is not all a good thing and the increase in life span just meant that people spent more years in abject poverty, which was adressed through socialistic measures. However I do retract the statement saying that capitalism had no benefit to the poor, I still maintain that if socialism is a con it is a shell game compared to to capitalism's pyramid scheme.

Right.

The abject poverty of riots by social media.
Smart phones, TV, Internet, time to watch football, excess wealth to spend on team colours.

Maybe read a little about what life was like before the industrial revolution.

The average person was illiterate, had no extra clothes, the concept of watching sport and having disposable income to spend was non existent for the masses.

Our poor in the first world are richer in many ways then the wealthiest pre industrial monarchs. Health, length of life, mobility, access to information, have all dramatically increased.

A pyramid scheme is a zero sum game redistributing profits from the bottom to the top.

The industrial revolution allowed massive productivity gains. This allowed people to have a cloth surplus, to sell more, to widen the availability of fashion. To increase free time, to have leisure, to increase the percolation of romantic love, to increase life spans and quality of life. It was not a zero sum game. Yes, some at the top earned a lot of money out of it. But it also created a powerful middle class based on knowledge and ability not peerage and land holdings.

It also illustrated the perils of Luddites, protectionism and how patents both allowed a boom and also throttled innovation. The increased productivity was attacked by workers afraid of losing their jobs. Protectionism against cotton by wool special interests held back productivity. The first patents allowed inventors to earn money for their inventions, but each time the patents ran out there was a boom in productivity as more people gained access to the inventions at cheaper rates.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Snip.

---

Okay then.
I agree, capitalism has good parts, I still maintain that if socialism is a con then capitalism is a bigger con.
I dont see any deciet in socialism that compares to the deception of capitalism: where the lower classes shore up the rich, even to thier own detriment, because they beleive one day they'll get rich themselves and enjoy the benefits, even though the chances of such are impossible save for miniscule amount who get lucky.

Capitalism and socialism are not either end of a scale. They can be mixed and optimized. It's just best to get through the rhetoric and see which benefits we can ransack from both.

I'm a socialist first, taxes in Australia make it impossible not to be.

Thread Content: Idaho complains about Tories using emotive politics, thread title "why I hate Tories" still refuses to run for Office.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

Why don't you go the whole hog and call me racist? After all that's what the left do to stifle debate.

---

I create a thread attacking the tory fact-free policy-on the hoof approach. Your response is to leap to their defence and make a few random, off topic stabs, whilst claiming to not be a tory. Then out of thin air your declare that you have been accused of racism. I can see why Ukip appeals to you. Their rambling incoherence must make you feel right at home.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Thread Content: Idaho complains about Tories using emotive politics, thread title "why I hate Tories" still refuses to run for Office.

---

I don't even know where to begin with this. I tell you what, you put up the deposit, and I will run.

Using Swedish data:

Exactly when did human life span start extending? -Fair enough, during the industrialism.
When did human populations start rapidly increasing? -1750. The industrialism enabled to population growth to continue, but some agricultural reforms like potatoes, warmer climate and the stop of constant plagues and generally less epidemics did start it.
When did we start getting surplus resources to our needs? - Depends on defintion. The industrialism did increase the production that true, but it took much longer for the worker to reap benefits from it. Both during the induvidual's lifetime (marriage age increased drastically for example) and on a more general scale.
When did the concept of leisure time appear? -1936, after the socialist means of vacation and 8-hour days. You have to have time off from your factory to have it. Peasants had it when they could get away with it, often in the form of holidays. Peasants became much more devout when the times were well.
Romantic love? - 1600-ish. Shakespeare's works are at the end of an era. Now it didn't become common until quite a bit later.
Schools for the children of workers? - Illiteracy became illegal 1723 (or to be accurate. If your child didn't know how to read, you payed a fine). Full schooling didn't come until 1842 though, so partially correct there.

Sure, the industrialism and capitalism were gamechangers, but that list... :no:

Didn't life expectancy take a dip during the first industrial revolution?

Also, on the leisure time, "primitive" societies only work for 10-15 hours per week. Plenty of leisure time there...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Didn't life expectancy take a dip during the first industrial revolution?

Also, on the leisure time, "primitive" societies only work for 10-15 hours per week. Plenty of leisure time there...

---

Yup, but only for a decade (1851-1860) and with only about 1,5 years for the Swedish data. The surrounding increase is much larger.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Didn't life expectancy take a dip during the first industrial revolution?

Also, on the leisure time, "primitive" societies only work for 10-15 hours per week. Plenty of leisure time there...

---

Life expectancy rose before industrialisation due to the agricultural revolution. It then took a steep dip in the early industrial phase.

There is also a seesaw effect on the relative life expectancy of rural and urban people. Pre industrialisation, urban dwellers outlive their rural counterparts. This is reversed in the first 50 years of industrialisation, and then once again tips back in favour of urban people later on.

I don't even know where to begin with this. I tell you what, you put up the deposit, and I will run.
........................................................................

I will promise you at least one vote if your willing to run for my seat. In fairness my mum has had interaction with our local MP and he is apparently a good MP in her view but I cannot bring myself to vote Labour, in fact in the other thread I was complaining about my lack of voting options.

An independent I could believe in with no chance to win is the perfect solution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly

I don't even know where to begin with this. I tell you what, you put up the deposit, and I will run.
........................................................................

I will promise you at least one vote if your willing to run for my seat. In fairness my mum has had interaction with our local MP and he is apparently a good MP in her view but I cannot bring myself to vote Labour, in fact in the other thread I was complaining about my lack of voting options.

An independent I could believe in with no chance to win is the perfect solution.

---

Our process is heavily weighted against independents. The only ones who succeed are those with a very strong popular agenda, national news exposure and a very unpopular incumbent.

By definition you would need to be a popularist and not be about the kind of measured, long term structural approach that I am interested in.

There is only one or two that I can think off, Galloway and I cannot even remember the other guys name who was the standing Labour candidate and had health problems.

Can't help but thinking the political parties are a terrible part of our democracy, if every MP was beholden to no party and amongst them elected a leader. You could still have groupings but based on an issue to issue basis rather than a party line... just some random thinking.

On the original topic I always had the impression when I was younger that the tory's were more prone to simplistic emotional response.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

Using Swedish data:

Exactly when did human life span start extending? -Fair enough, during the industrialism.
When did human populations start rapidly increasing? -1750. The industrialism enabled to population growth to continue, but some agricultural reforms like potatoes, warmer climate and the stop of constant plagues and generally less epidemics did start it.
When did we start getting surplus resources to our needs? - Depends on defintion. The industrialism did increase the production that true, but it took much longer for the worker to reap benefits from it. Both during the induvidual's lifetime (marriage age increased drastically for example) and on a more general scale.
When did the concept of leisure time appear? -1936, after the socialist means of vacation and 8-hour days. You have to have time off from your factory to have it. Peasants had it when they could get away with it, often in the form of holidays. Peasants became much more devout when the times were well.
Romantic love? - 1600-ish. Shakespeare's works are at the end of an era. Now it didn't become common until quite a bit later.
Schools for the children of workers? - Illiteracy became illegal 1723 (or to be accurate. If your child didn't know how to read, you payed a fine). Full schooling didn't come until 1842 though, so partially correct there.

Sure, the industrialism and capitalism were gamechangers, but that list... :no:

---

The agricultural reforms are really the precursors to the industrial revolution. The ability to farm more food with less labour is a key requirement as it freed up both people and capital for other investments beyond subsistence.

Schooling was not uniform throughout Britain until after the industrial revolution had come into full flight.

Leisure time became possible as productivity increased from subsistence to abundance.

These are all long term results of capitalism and industrialisation. It needs to be balanced by social responsibility and equal opportunity. One is the engine, the other the steering wheel.

As for primitive societies, the life expectancy is much shorter, decision making is generally by a chieftain class. Bullying is rife. As is rape, incest and anything else that the powerful choose. And no one is equal in front of the law. They were far from idyllic and they are not ideal, although they are idealised.

=][=
One of the few things that the industrial revolution shows, is that patents held back progress... something we should learn from today.

One of the few things that the industrial revolution shows, is that patents held back progress... something we should learn from today.
.......................................

Surely in a capitalist society it is the drive to improve yourself (wealth and lots of it) that drives such innovation making the patent process an essential part of progress?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Schooling was not uniform throughout Britain until after the industrial revolution had come into full flight.

Leisure time became possible as productivity increased from subsistence to abundance.

---

Both of these came almost 100 years after the advent of the industrial revolution. Mandatory half time schooling up to the age of 10 was enacted in the 1880s. It's only after WW1 that compulsory education up to 14 was enacted. That's as little as 100 years ago, 14 year olds were sent out to work. The age limit was raised to 16 in the 60s.

As for leisure time - Sunday was the only holiday for most of the 19th c. And then is mainly for religious observance. Halfday holiday on Saturday was much later in the 19th C.

Actually free-to-choose days off didn't appear until the 20thc.

I'd forgotten about the seed drill and Jethro Tull. I must be living in the past.

Ba boom tish! :drummer:












https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsCyC1dZiN8

That explains why you advocate ukip. Badum tish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

I'd forgotten about the seed drill and Jethro Tull. I must be living in the past.

Ba boom tish! :drummer:












https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsCyC1dZiN8

---

I think the problem is that you are thick as a brick ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

That explains why you advocate ukip. Badum tish.

---

Perhaps its because I left school 37 years ago.

Quote:

---

I think the problem is that you are thick as a brick ;)

---

LOL

I prefer to think of myself as Minstrel in the Gallery.

Might break out a bit of the Tull this weekend.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

Might break out a bit of the Tull this weekend.

---

Aqualung FTW :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

And what if the misuse is no more or less than it has always been (fractional and insignificant) but that the issue is raised to boiling point by those with an interest in redirecting public anger about the misuse of public funds (banks)? How does your purist Lockian view look then?

---

i dunno, it's not my problem to defend a welfare state that is losing favour with the electorate. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly

One of the few things that the industrial revolution shows, is that patents held back progress... something we should learn from today.
.......................................

Surely in a capitalist society it is the drive to improve yourself (wealth and lots of it) that drives such innovation making the patent process an essential part of progress?

---

1) Even in the industrial revolution there were entrepreneurs who paid others to invent and then the entrepreneurs patented that work.
2) Every time a patent was expiring an abundance of new technologies, improvements and cheaper versions came out (much like generic drugs and 3D printers today).

Personally I think there should not only be a maximum time for a patent, but a maximum profit amount/ or percentage.
25 year patent or once 25 million in profit... after research costs included... Unless they were used for a tax break.