Why I hate Tories - with examples

[Greyblades]

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.

[Idaho]

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.

[HopAlongBunny]

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

Can I borrow that? :)

[Brennus]

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"

[Greyblades]

Can I borrow that? :)

Sure.

[The Lurker Below]

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

[Furunculus]

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.

[Brenus]

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…

[Strike For The South]

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....

[Idaho]

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?

[Papewaio]

...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.

[InsaneApache]

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.

[InsaneApache]

"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.

[Brennus]

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.

[Husar]

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...

[HoreTore]

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.

[a completely inoffensive name]

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.

[a completely inoffensive name]

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.

[Greyblades]

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.

[Papewaio]

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.

[Greyblades]

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.

[Papewaio]

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.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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

[Idaho]

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.

[Idaho]

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.

[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...

[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...

[Ironside]

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.

[Idaho]

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.

[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.