[Closed] Anyone had their political views changed after the age of 25?

Binners. Where would you like me to start?

For a brief moment he was the most powerful person in British politics. Then he climbed into bed with Call Me Dave. After Dave had finished with him he didn't even have the stones to ask Dave to finish him off.

I know Wikipedia isn't perfect, but leaving that aside, here's a list of past and present states that have elected socialist governments, something that many people profess they wold love to see here.

Perhaps you'd like to tell us which of these is a better place to live than Britain.

[URL] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_states [/URL]

Er, no it isn't. I don't think "elected" enters into it for many of those listed. It is a list of countries which have declared themselves to be "Socialist States". That's quite different.

Fair point. Elected maybe wasn't the best word to use for some of them. My essential point stands though.

I'm happy to admit that many left wing views are well intentioned, and are often driven by quit altruistic motives, however the harsh facts of life (or human nature) are that socialist governments almost always end up with lower standards of living than centre right (or centre left sometimes; Scandanavia is an interesting case).

I guess that depends on how you measure "standard of living"...

Rachel

[quote=kennyp ]I'm happy to admit that many left wing views are well intentioned, and are often driven by quit altruistic motives, however the harsh facts of life (or human nature) are that socialist governments almost always end up with lower standards of living than centre right (or centre left sometimes; Scandanavia is an interesting case).

That's an interesting way of looking at the correlation. Of course it could just as well be that countries with lower standards of living are more likely to declare themselves to be socialist.

I guess that depends on how you measure "standard of living"...

It's a subjective measurement I agree, but putting it another way, there's not one socialist country I can think of where I think the average person would have a better life than they do here.

Britain isn't perfect, but I can't think of many more places I would like to live.

Indeed and you would also need to compare the country before socialism and after rather than compare it with the UK and control for many other factors.

As we are a G7 country of course most other countries are worse than us economically. Most would be even if we really screwed up the economy with say centre right policies related to liberal banking conditions. However it does not prove what you think as you are comparing chalk and cheese and reaching a non sequitur as a result.

however the harsh facts of life (or human nature) are that socialist governments almost always end up with lower standards of living than centre right

Basically you dont like soclialism

Of course it could just as well be that countries with lower standards of living are more likely to declare themselves to be socialist.

In some cases I suspect that is true, however take East and West Germany for example. Both started from the same base point, one capitalist and the other socialist. Which was the better place to live?

Again over simplification

take the north and South of Britain for example. Both started from the same base point, one capitalist and the other capitalist. They must be exactly the same in terms of SoL then as only system matters

FWIW i think you are saying SoL but you mean GDP

You may wish to read this link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index

RW/LW/socialist this/ socialist that.....so what?

These labels bear little resemblance to what is going on in reality. Some of the socialist governments in Europe are implementing more radical RW policies than the Right of centre parties and vice versa. We even had the SNP quoting extreme policies out of the Hayek notebook (in that case more because they were confused though)

Major parties have to deal with the unpleasant reality of the global deleveraging cycle. There are no easy answers to this and the adjustment phases can be very prolonged eg Japan and Europe now. This makes them unpopular as the populations hate going cold turkey.

So folk search for panaceas among the:

Extreme parties - UKIP
Fluffy utopians - Greens
Snake oil salesman - SNP (Sturgeon today!!!!!)

As those rather nice purple in yellow and sandles showed recently, the fluffy stuff spoon disappears when you actually have power and have to do things. Why? Because there are few alternatives. No parties have quick fix solutions to the issues that we face. Why not? Because they don't exist.

So, simple solution is vote for the MP who best addresses you local issues. That is one area where he/she might just make a difference.

[img] [/img]

There are so many factors at play that it's virtually impossible to do direct comparisons of any countries. That's why I generalised. I don't claim to know much about global economics, however I do know that countries which have tried socialism as a form of government generally seem to me to end up worse off.

You mention about Britain being one of the G7. Indeed, but how did we end up being one of the G7.

This claim is so weak you dont even seem certain of what it is you are saying so
you claim almost always

I said "almost" always because I'm well aware that "almost" every rule has an exception to it. That doesn't weaken my general point. Not everything is completely true or false, though true and false aren't really the terms I'd use in that case.

Also, I wasn't advocating pursuing wealth above everything else. What I would say though is that the things we all want (good health, education, housing, trail centres 🙂 etc) do tend to require a country to be wealthy in the first place.

I don't claim to be 100% correct, and am happy for someone to disprove my claim. it is, to be honest, basically a gut feeling more than scientific research. Also, I was actually more drawing a distinction between socialism and the centre right/left, than between right and left per se. Much as my own views do tend to be right of centre, as I said, countries such as Norway, Sweden etc do give me a lot of food for thought.

FWIW i think you are saying SoL but you mean GDP

You may wish to read this link

I actually meant a general, fuzzy, ill-defined "would I be happy living there" sort of thing to be honest. Interesting link though and it does confirm my view that there aren't many places in the world I'd prefer to stay other than Britain (14th out of 187).

I'd also like to say that I agree with pretty much everything in teamhurtmore's post. I know it's the done thing to rubbish politicians of every party, but, at the risk of sounding controversial, over the decades I think they've generally done a great job of making this country a great place to live.

This claim is so weak...

My claim essentially is that socialism doesn't work. As you say that it's a very weak claim is it safe to say you believe socialism does work? If so some evidence please. Ta.

I think the LD bashing is way OTT. So they renagde on tuition fees - no shit Sherlock - always a non-starter, and they have Vince in the a team along with a bunch of people they don't agree with. Oh and they were dealt a pretty shitty hand to play.

Yes the coalition have made mistakes, but despite all of the above and our inexperience re making coalitions work, they haven't done too badly. And the LDs should take some credit, but instead they are slaughtered because they give up on the fluff,

Tough life....who are the next lambs to the slaughter at the altar of unrealistic expectations?

In some cases I suspect that is true, however take East and West Germany for example. Both started from the same base point, one capitalist and the other socialist. Which was the better place to live?

I guess it depends who you are ask.

[url= http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/homesick-for-a-dictatorship-majority-of-eastern-germans-feel-life-better-under-communism-a-634122.html ]Majority of Eastern Germans Feel Life Better under Communism[/url]

[i]"Today, 20 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, 57 percent, or an absolute majority, of eastern Germans defend the former East Germany".[/i]

You mention about Britain being one of the G7. Indeed, but how did we end up being one of the G7.

Most of Europe is in the G7 it is a lot of luck that it is currently our [ the west] empire but China is about to kick all our arses and that is not that centre right and its progress this century will negate much of what you are saying.

I guess it depends who you are ask.

Would be interesting to see what percentage of West Germans would say their half was better. I suspect the answer would be around 99%. And though that article says 57%, if there were to be a referendum tomorrow about returning to the old Communist East Germany I think you'd see that 57% shrink rapidly. It's one thing answering a newspaper poll, real life is very different.

Most of Europe is in the G7

Err, you might want to look at the arithmetic of that statement! 🙂

Slavery and pillaging the world for resources via war

We were the country that played a huge part in putting an end to slavery. As for war, simple matter is that we were far better than the rest. In those days it was far more of a dog eat dog world.

China is about to kick all our arses

I strongly suspect it isn't. The Chinese system has expanded too rapidly and is about to hit all sorts of problems in the next decade or two.

Would be interesting to see what percentage of West Germans would say their half was better. I suspect the answer would be around 99%. And though that article says 57%, if there were to be a referendum tomorrow about returning to the old Communist East Germany I think you'd see that 57% shrink rapidly. It's one thing answering a newspaper poll, real life is very different.

I take it you didn't like the answer to your question. I did say that it depends who you ask, which isn't surprising really. Presumably that's why you now want to change it to a different question ? Or ask the same question to Western Germans only ?

I actually deleted a bit about the size of the population DOH 😳

If you look at GDP per capita the EU is doing very well but yes not my best sentence

Funny how right wingers always say we ended slavery when you point out we did it. What we did was indefensible and bringing it to an end is hardly a good thing. Like expecting gratitude because I have stopped kicking you. Still I was better at it than you and it was dog eat dog then 😕

I dont like your morals any more than I like your argument.

years ago (well before the expenses fiasco) , I wrote on my facebook page under the heading for political views...

"None, they're all lying cheating thieving t****"

I reread it recently and saw that my once joke, was oh so true and sadly i feel it will always be that way

Funny how right wingers always say we ended slavery when you point out we did it. What we did was indefensible and bringing it to an end is hardly a good thing. Like expecting gratitude because I have stopped kicking you.

Considering life expectancy and the length of time the slave trade was going on for ending it has nothing to do with starting it, there were generations apart in many ways.

Kenyup's map is a tad misleading. One would think that a country whose current state is founded on a revolution of the lower classes and shining principle is liberty equality fraternity would feature as a socialist state . A significant number of the successful capatilists in this country prefer to live in that country too.

[quote=kennyp ]In some cases I suspect that is true, however take East and West Germany for example. Both started from the same base point, one capitalist and the other socialist. Which was the better place to live?

One data point, but how about ****stan and India (the latter is a socialist country according to your link)?

Though I'm wondering if you even bothered to read your link properly - at the most you might be able to have some justification for your points if you substitute "socialist" for "Marxist-Leninist" (I'll leave you to work out the distinction).

who are the next lambs to the slaughter at the altar of unrealistic expectations?

Probably the next lot stupid enough to do this and capitulate immediately.
[img] [/img]

FWIW i agree with your broad point re the Lib Dems and think they have done pretty well in some limited areas - raisinf tax threshold, schools and curtailing the excess of tory policies but it should not need explaining why they are judged so poorly for that initial decision and why no one trusts them, A vote for the lib dems is like rolling the dice.

Considering life expectancy and the length of time the slave trade was going on for ending it has nothing to do with starting it, there were generations apart in many ways.

it's not a positive spin Junki it's that you can't lump those who started it with those who had the courage to end it.
Recognise also that the Lib Dems were the junior partner in a coalition, they only get junior decision making rights and have to give stuff up to get them. There is a state election finishing up here in Oz where 2/99 MP's are presenting a list of 26 massive demands in order to help one party or the other make government. So the minority gets the sway, not exactly what people voted for.

who are the next lambs to the slaughter at the altar of unrealistic expectations?

Nicola Sturgeon was on the news last night saying the SNP would only support a minority labour administration if it scrapped Britain's nuclear weapons. So theres your next candidate right there.

I am not lumping them together I am saying the fact we were part of the slave trade for generations is shameful and avoiding discussing our part in slavery and just mentioning that we ended it is to avoid the issue/sidestep it.

have to give stuff up to get them

Just to expand on the point I made yesterday, what are people's thought's on potential post may 7th Coalitions?

Which parties would, could or should work together?
Which combo's would make an utter fist of it?

Thoughts?

Hard to see the greens or SNP with the tories- so they will help Labour

Hard to see UKIP with anyone but the Tories as they are just more racist Tories.

Lib dem 4 MP's will be happy to help anyone 😉

I wonder which scares THM most

AS in govt or Farage 😈

What post Home secretary ?
Deputy PM 😯

The Tories coming out and saying they'd not go into a coalition with UKIP under any circumstances, actually means they'd be more than happy to do just that.

The SNP and labour are an obvious one! Can you imagine just how smug Wee Eck would look in Westminster as he dictates terms to Millibean?

If the last 5 year have proved one thing, its that the Lib Dems under Nick Clegg have no discernible principles whatsoever and would go into a coalition with anybody.

The idea of a Tory/UKIP coalition is truly terrifying! Out of Europe and full steam ahead with privatising the NHS, and completely wrecking (what remains of) the countries economy

Time to leave the country! 😯

Sturgeon had been on the DOs happy pipe yesterday.

If only it was that easy, Nicola.

[quote=Junkyard ]They also get to choose what they give up and they chose to give and up and do the thing they pledged to vote against. Not exactly why people voted for them and not a part of their electoral mandate.
Everyone is free to judge them for this decision and decide how trustworthy and meaningful their manifesto and commitments are . IME even life long lib dems struggle to do this. It was a mistake and it will be a costly one.

[quote=binners ]If the last 5 year have proved one thing, its that the Lib Dems under Nick Clegg have no discernible principles whatsoever and would go into a coalition with anybody.

What surprises me with you lot is that you seem to think the Lib Dems are in some way unique with this. Put any of the other parties in the same situation, I expect they'd all have done the same thing. You do know the old joke about how you tell when a politician is lying? I also wonder whether people who've previously voted Lib Dem and say they won't again are cutting off their nose to spite their face - who else are they going to vote for who is most likely to influence policy in the way they'd like?

No need to panic - the [s]private sector[/s] rest if us get on reasonably well despite the efforts of our elected representatives. Leave them to react to events, we build businesses and growth.

The European issue is actually terrifying - looking at Ukraine, we are sleep walking into really scary times.

The "this isn't democratic" brigade can have a field day if minority partners such as SNP and UKIP end up with undue influence.

Perhaps aracer ..perhaps we had higher expectations that they would actually practice what they preach and be different but it was such a spectacular and public about face that it will stay long in the memory.

I cannot think of such a public ...this is what we stand for and then doing the opposite though Can you ? [ genuine q] Of course they are all liars but the Lib Dems meant that when they said it and then did the opposite that was unforgivable IMHO

Tories saying they would do nothing to the NHS was a known lie as was "greenest govt ever". They did not mean it when they said it so no real surprise when they ignored it.

The idea of a Tory/UKIP coalition is truly terrifying! Out of Europe

How does giving people a referendum equate to 'out of Europe'? And if it did, then wouldn't that be democracy in action?

What exactly is so terrifying about allowing people to vote on an issue?

[quote=Junkyard ]I cannot think of such a public ...this is what we stand for and then doing the opposite though Can you ?

I think the Tories said something about doing nothing to the NHS and being the greenest government ever 😉 The issue here is that you expect the Tories to lie, but had unrealistic expectations of the Lib Dems.

I'd love to discuss the reality of the vote on tuition fees (I know Clegg has stated that the pledge was a mistake, not the vote), but suspect we'd totally derail this thread!

Side bar on FB 😀

Happy to discuss it or just do it here on the grounds you may change my political view so its on topic

OK. Well I don't know the full details of what went on in the actual vote - would it have been lost if all 57 LDs had voted against it as they pledged? Though we've debated student fees on here quite a bit, and my understanding of the situation is that whilst they broke the terms of the pledge, because fees are now higher, what we have got (which we wouldn't have if they'd stuck to the pledge) is a repayment structure which is far more progressive than the old one.

Whilst opposing student fees on a point of principle, and opposing the raising of fees is a fine position to hold, and one I largely agree with, I'm also a pragmatist. The reality as I understand it (I'm open to being corrected if my facts are wrong) is that poorer graduates are actually rather better off under the new system. So what we're actually complaining about here is the Lib Dems voting to increase the amount graduates earning above the national average wage have to pay towards their university fees. From a personal point of view, I'm lucky enough to have gone to university when we still got grants and being a rich sponsored student never needed to take a loan to support myself, but if I'd had to take out a loan to pay fees, I'm fairly sure I'd have been better off under the new system - am no longer "rich"!

Of course the other question is, if they had all voted against on this occasion, would they have achieved any of the positive things they have managed as the junior party in the coalition (for all the complaints people make about current government policy, it could be worse), or would the Tories have then played hardball with them?

On balance I think they were right to vote the way they did (before you all get righteous on me, see my comment above regarding my personal opinion about student fees). That's if we ignore the political damage - taking that into account, clearly they should have stuck with the pledge however bad the resultant outcome.

My claim essentially is that socialism doesn't work.

Just to expand on the point I made yesterday, what are people's thought's on potential post may 7th Coalitions?

How does giving people a referendum equate to 'out of Europe'? And if it did, then wouldn't that be democracy in action?

You think that all the right wing loons in on the Tory backbenches (having ousted Dave for failing to win a majority) combined with their new right wing UKIP chums, wouldn't just be demanding a straight withdrawal?

What exactly is so terrifying about allowing people to vote on an issue?

Because we'd have a rabidly anti-europe, right wing press, who would go into overdrive. But now backed by a rabidly right wing, foaming at the mouth, party in government. There would be very few sensible or measured arguments being heard, and it'd all be hysterics about straight bananas, and all that crap. So we'd be out. And that would be economic suicide!

I used to think Scottish Nationalism was a joke, but I ended up voting Yes because I just can't identify with Westminster at all. Watching [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b052r7g4 ]Inside the Commons (iPlayer)[/url] last night further exemplified the gulf, when overprivileged idiots like William Rees Mog can work to kill Bills by simply and genuinely talking shite, and someone who looked like they were doing right by people, get bought off e.g. Robert Halfon.

You would make a good spin Dr 😉

Whilst i get your argument i think they actually paid back more over a longer period so the monthly amounts were less but the total owed greater.
they also increased the threshold for payment from 15 k to 21 k but they also charged a real interest rate rather than inflation. IIRC it means low earners never pay it all back but they pay more for 30 years - not certain on that point.
The pledge was to not increase fees
What they did was increase fees [ 3290 pa to £9 k]and then use a fairer system than previously used to collect the increase. Its hard to spin that as anything other than a collapse and an increase and I imagine as a result 90% + of students pay more over their lifetime not least because they owe much more.

I dont think the Tories could have got it through with out their votes as labour [ irrespective of their view on it though they were against it] would have voted against it to beat the govt and call a vote of no confidence. Even as it was it was won by 21 votes with the majority cut by 3/4s

FWIW

Some 21 Lib Dems rebelled, while 27 - including the party's ministers - backed the change, and eight abstained

a majority of Lib dems MP's did not support it but abstaining on it was a proper act of cowardice IMHO. Stand up and be counted for what you believe in or support your party at all costs but to do neither is somewhat wishy washy IMHO

I have lived in the North East all my life. Makes no difference what anyone votes up here the political landscape is so heavily entrenched with the pits and ship building that Labour could skin new born babies alive and people would still vote Labour because their parents and grandparents have always voted Labour. I suppose my values would be traditional Lib Dem in principle but unfortunately that's not their core value any more. They have tried to take up the middle ground between Labour and Tory Policy.

In my mind North East is going to be interesting in the election, as will many of the industrial heartlands that are Labour strongholds that they've ignored for so long as they were a shoe-in for a seat.

Do we only vote Labour because we hate the Tories so much, or do they really believe in the Labour 'principles'. I kinda half think its the former (and I've been a union rep and worked on elections, and there are some fairly right wing thinking Labour 'voters', I can tell you).

If UKIP roll in saying they'll kick all the Johnny Foreigners out of the country so jobs for the locals blah blah blah, depressingly they could easily get a bit of momentum going and be a viable alternative for those Labour voters. I can see a couple of seats going their way, alas.

In reality that might be the same story in Cons strongholds in mirror image - do they just hate Labour rather than wanting Cons?

[quote=Junkyard ]Whilst i get your argument i think they actually paid back more over a longer period so the monthly amounts were less but the total owed greater.
they also increased the threshold for payment from 15 k to 21 k but they also charged a real interest rate rather than inflation. IIRC it means low earners never pay it all back but they pay more for 30 years - not certain on that point.

I'm a realist, not a spin doctor. The changed threshold makes far more difference than anything else. I plugged a national average £26.5k salary into the calculators at http://www.savethestudent.org/student-loans-repayment-calculator Under the old system you'd pay £1035 a year for 24 years and pay off the debt after 24 years. Under the new system you'd pay £495 a year for 30 years and then it would be written off. The break even point appears to be when you're earning £30k, old system £1350 for 18 years, new system £810 for 30 years (of course decreasing value of money and wage rises shifts that a bit, but it's a good approximation to being the same repayment on both systems). So the socialists have a fundamental problem with people earning over £30k having to pay more "tax"?

The pledge was to not increase fees
What they did was increase fees

I understand and acknowledge that. I'm also a pragmatist.

a majority of Lib dems MP's did not support it but abstaining on it was a proper act of cowardice IMHO. Stand up and be counted for what you believe in or support your party at all costs but to do neither is somewhat wishy washy IMHO

They pledged to vote against. Thanks for the info on the vote.

If UKIP roll in saying they'll kick all the Johnny Foreigners out of the country so jobs for the locals blah blah blah, depressingly they could easily get a bit of momentum going and be a viable alternative for those Labour voters. I can see a couple of seats going their way, alas.

UKIP all but wiped out a 6,000 labour majority at the Middleton by election last year by doing exactly that! I've said it before, but I think labour are in for one hell of a shock in May. And they look absolutely clueless/oblivious to it. They already know they're going lose seats to the SNP north of the border. But I think a lot of the previously rock solid labour seats in the north have absolutely had it with the labour party too. Constantly being ignored and taken for granted. Its like being in an abusive relationship.

Simon Danczuk saw it and described the alienation problem [url= http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/dec/23/ed-miliband-cease-hampstead-heath-politics-win-general-election-says-labour-mp ]perfectly[/url]

I'm not saying that UKIP are going to win seats in the north, but enough people will vote for them, that it will then wipe out previously safe majorities in Labour Strongholds, and deliver up some really perverse results! They're going to lose a lot of votes to the Greens too. So they're haemorrhaging votes to the right and left.

Lets be honest.... the rise of UKIP stands as the most damning indictment possible of the two major parties, and their abject failure to even pretend to engage with the electorate any more

breatheeasy - Member

I have lived in the North East all my life. Makes no difference what anyone votes up here the political landscape is so heavily entrenched with the pits and ship building that Labour could skin new born babies alive and people would still vote Labour because their parents and grandparents have always voted Labour. I suppose my values would be traditional Lib Dem in principle but unfortunately that's not their core value any more. They have tried to take up the middle ground between Labour and Tory Policy.

In my mind North East is going to be interesting in the election, as will many of the industrial heartlands that are Labour strongholds that they've ignored for so long as they were a shoe-in for a seat.

Do we only vote Labour because we hate the Tories so much, or do they really believe in the Labour 'principles'. I kinda half think its the former (and I've been a union rep and worked on elections, and there are some fairly right wing thinking Labour 'voters', I can tell you).

If UKIP roll in saying they'll kick all the Johnny Foreigners out of the country so jobs for the locals blah blah blah, depressingly they could easily get a bit of momentum going and be a viable alternative for those Labour voters. I can see a couple of seats going their way, alas.

In reality that might be the same story in Cons strongholds in mirror image - do they just hate Labour rather than wanting Cons?

I am voting UKIP not because I believe them but rather I want all the political parties to fight each other like hell ... they need to earn their living. They need to earn their living Hard and I need them to entertain me.

The politicians have had it so good for so long now I want them to feel the stress of earning a hard living.

I wonder why someone would vote for the same party again and again ...

I wonder why someone would vote for the same party again and again ...

So the socialists have a fundamental problem with people earning over £30k having to pay more "tax"?

Also in terms of doing the calculations it makes more sense to use average GRADUATE salaries as the calculation

Your total debt is:£43500 = £1575 = 28 years
Your total debt is £24720 = £2115 = 12 years

The whole point of the change was to raise more money. It will not have failed in that respect despite your "massaging of the figures"

Everyone owes more and the majority will pay more back that was what it was meant to do. Its true less well off people are better off and therefore it can be called fairer.

So Farage kicked off Ukip's campaign in my home town this morn... good/bad old Canvey Island.

How many more own goals can these berks score ??

You see if it wasn't for our friends across the water ... no not the peoples of Benfleet... I mean our European neighbours across the English Channel.... half of Canvey wouldn't even exist.

Dutch migrant workers reclaim the land back in the 1600s and were given some of the new land for their work... a third of street names have Dutch origins.

In fact, I rode through the village of Lottem, which gives it's name to street I grew up on, during a cycle tour of Holland with my school back in the late 80s.

Maybe Farage will repatriate the two Dutch Cottages that still stand ?

I don't think my views have altered that much, which are generally left of centre and very much focussed on fairness and equality, but with a pro-military slant. However I think the political playing field in this country has.

I took this test a few years back and was surprised with the result - I was nearer to Gandhi than anything in the UK. The site is also quite fascinating too and worth a mooch round, tracking the changes in national and international politics.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/test

Aracer - perhaps it should be (1) have problems with the transparency required to make the informed decision on whether going to Unuversity is worth the investment or not, (2) ditto but to compare different universities with each other and (3) allow our globally competitive institutions to compete on a level playing field internationally.

The issue here is that you expect the Tories to lie, but had unrealistic expectations of the Lib Dems.

If that's how you feel aracer then you have completely missed the point. The LibDems plunged to new depths, they betrayed people's trust even more, they undermined even further the credibility of politicians.

When did the Tories invite the national press and media to witness them sign a "pledge", with all the publicity that entails, and then do the complete opposite?

And give me one example of a Labour election [i]pledge[/i] where a Labour government has then deliberately done the complete opposite.

Yes all politicians have a tendency to make all sorts of promises which they know they won't be able/willing to keep. But the betrayal of trust, and the breathtaking hypocrisy, as displayed in the video below, puts the LibDems in a league of their own.

When did the Tories invite the national press and media to witness them sign a "pledge", with all the publicity that entails, and then do the complete opposite?

It wasn't a signed pledge, but Dave promised to have "the greenest government ever" (but wants to introduce fracking, apart from in Oxfordshire) and that "we can trust them with the NHS" (trust them to slowly dismantle it, that is).

He probably meant "green" as in lacking experience.

And I'm sure he would still argue that "we can trust them with the NHS", although he did say that there would be no reorganization of the NHS, which was obviously a lie.

The only thing I trust the Tories with is to behave like Tories. They never let me down.

It wasn't a signed pledge, but Dave promised to have "the greenest government ever"

To be fair to Dave, he made lots of mood music about all manner of things in the run up to the last election, to 'detoxify the Tory Brand', but he eventually went into that election with virtually no solid policy commitments at all.

If people were gullible enough to swallow the vague, noncommittal, noises made by an oily PR man, and actually vote for him on the strength of some half-promised, barely-formed suggestions, then frankly they deserve everything they get

Ed Milliband is attempting exactly the same thing this time round. But whereas Dave was a crafty, devious and slick operator, with a compliant press behind him, not asking too many questions, Miliband is a clueless ****-wit, who glazes over and looks like an escaped mental patient when pressed about his lack of policy detail. So its not really working.

The only thing I trust the Tories with is to behave like Tories. They never let me down.

Didn't the Tories promise austerity? Who has the more restrictive fiscal policy, austerity george or our friends in Europe?

Over the last two years, austerity george has eased up on his promise and in fact last year fiscal policy was actually expansionary. So they lied in their pledge too (as have his critics who have misdiagnosed the situation)

"The only thing I trust the Tories with is to behave like Tories. They never let me down".

Didn't the Tories promise austerity?

As usual THM you're not reading my posts properly, or deliberately, or accidentally, ignoring/missing the point I'm making.

I said............ "The only thing I trust the Tories with is to behave like Tories". I'm not interested in their "promises".

That's the point I was making. So your retort "Didn't the Tories promise ..... blah, blah, blah" is pointless. See ?

It might help if you state what behaving like Tories mean - as you will be aware many say that involves cutting government spending and as we know not even Maggie did that. Then they might talk about austerity or spending on certain services.

What do you mean?

What do you mean?

I'm going to let you try to figure that one out. But here's a clue :

[i]"as we know not even Maggie did that"[/i]

Thatcher, or Maggie as you like to affectionately call her, made a lot of promises, eg, cut taxation, cut unemployment, cut crime, cut government spending, increase growth, etc.

She failed in all her stated aims. In fact not just that but she achieved the complete opposite in most cases, eg, the tax burden increased, unemployment increased, crime increased, government spending increased. Average growth in the 1980s was exactly the same as average growth in the 1970s, so that was almost a success story. And all the while she pissed North Sea oil.

She did however behave very much like a Tory. I didn't feel let down by her in that respect, despite the fact that she broke all her promises.

Of course she did achieve what she set out to achieve - that goes without saying.

So behaving like a Tory is not delivering on your promises, sounds like the LD then. QED.

So behaving like a Tory is not delivering on your promises

Behaving like a Tory is behaving like a Tory. Promises are completely irrelevant, is my point. Which you appear to be completely unable to grasp.

Either I'm really crap at explaining what I mean or you're a little daft. I'm sure it must be me, no one's that daft.

Funny how right wingers always say we ended slavery when you point out we did it. What we did was indefensible and bringing it to an end is hardly a good thing

So what would you have done were you in power back in 1807? Just let slavery continue which is the implication of your statement above? What a bizarre argument to make......bringing something evil to an end is "hardly a good thing".

think this depends to some entent on your definition of "socialism". If you mean collectives, Marxism, etc. I'm inclined to agree. But the general Western European definition of socialism is simply "left of centre". Many countries have oscillated regularly between left and right without total ruin.

I'd say that oscillating regularly between centre right and centre left is probably why many countries, such as the UK, have done so well over the decades. Checks and balances etc.

I've always been red, but have recently (last year or so) decided that we need to f- the sort of rabid capitalism as practiced in America right off. As wet Ed and his mob are as blue as the other mob I'm now Green.

Yes, my political views have changed since I turned 25.
I've become a lot more left leaning.

So what would you have done were you in power back in 1807? Just let slavery continue which is the implication of your statement above? What a bizarre argument to make......bringing something evil to an end is "hardly a good thing".

Perhaps because we didn't invent slavery, in fact it was an age old industry with thousands of years of involvement by a huge variety of races and countries, that we (largely) ended, by a mixture of diplomacy and force, in an incredibly short time.

We (well, you lot... 😉 ) probably invented the industrialisation of slavery. But don't let that stop anyone diverting the responsibility anywhere else...

Perhaps because we didn't invent slavery

And there you go........a complete misrepresentation of the point that Junkyard made, a tactic much favoured by right-wingers.

To this question :

You mention about Britain being one of the G7. Indeed, but how did we end up being one of the G7.

Junkyard answered :

Slavery and pillaging the world for resources via war

There's no mention of Britain "inventing" slavery. Just the suggestion that Britain grew powerful as the result of "slavery and pillaging the world for resources via war". A fair point which carries some truth.

So why do right wingers always say we ended slavery when you mention our slavery legacy

For the simple reason that left wingers continually bring the subject up as if it is something Britain should be uniquely ashamed off. The fact is that slavery was practiced by pretty much every country at some point, has been for thousands of years and sadly still is in some parts of the world. Britain played probably the greatest part in trying to stamp out the trade, but you seem unwilling to admit that.

a complete misrepresentation of the point that Junkyard made, a tactic much favoured by right-wingers

You honestly believe that that is a trait solely of right wing parties? It's something people and parties of all political hues do. I do it, so do you, so do most folk in these sorts of debates at some point or another.

What i would do is side step the question

Well to be fair you did first mention slavery. To my mind it had virtually nothing to do with Britain becoming a wealthy country.

And as regarding sidestepping questions, the basic question I asked was a simple one about "Could someone who believes we would be better off under a socialist government please give me an example of where socialism (as opposed to a centre left party) has worked?".

Just the suggestion that Britain grew powerful as the result of "slavery and pillaging the world for resources via war". A fair point which carries some truth

I disagree re slavery but will agree that a lot of British wealth came about as a result of war. The harsh facts are however that in those days war was seen as a legitimate means of wealth creation. If Britain hadn't fought those wars another country would. To our modern eyes that may seem distasteful but try and view it from the perspective of a couple of hundred or so years ago.

I dont like your morals any more than I like your argument.

Bit of a harsh thing to say surely? What exactly is it about my moral values that you dislike? I'm not actually sure I've expressed any moral viewpoints on this thread. Political ones certainly, but not moral, at least as far as I can tell.

[quote=Junkyard ]So the socialists have a fundamental problem with people earning over £30k having to pay more "tax"?
Pretty sure you are a spin doctor describing it like that.

Looks like a tax, swims like a tax, quacks like a tax. Even the banks don't treat it as a debt. It's only those earning well above average wage who pay more. I'm not sure if I'm completely missing the point of why you're describing it as spin?

Also in terms of doing the calculations it makes more sense to use average GRADUATE salaries as the calculation

That kind of depends what you're trying to prove. Is it reasonable that a non-graduate earning a national average salary is effectively subsidising those earning thousands of pounds more? Sure most graduates pay more under the new system - but given the average graduate is in the higher strata of income, is that really a big problem? Why exactly are you so upset by a more progressive system which results in a slight improvement in the redistribution of income?

The whole point of the change was to raise more money. It will not have failed in that respect despite your "massaging of the figures"

I agree - I wasn't trying to prove otherwise. Simply that those for whom the burden of paying back the fees is greatest - the ones for whom the imposition of fees and any increase in fees seems unfair - have had that burden lifted a bit. As you yourself said, it is more fair.

I can only think that it's the principle you have a problem with rather than the reality.

[quote=ernie_lynch ]If that's how you feel aracer then you have completely missed the point. The LibDems plunged to new depths, they betrayed people's trust even more, they undermined even further the credibility of politicians.

I acknowledge you have a point. Which is only slightly undermined by you then admitting that your expectations of behaviour are lower for the Tories. I'd suggest that the Tories are also better at lying, and being more used to being in power, better at avoiding making stupid promises they won't be able to keep. Because fundamentally it was making the pledge where they went wrong, and what Clegg has promised ( 😯 ) not to do again.

I have to admit I don't remember that video - that was also rather tempting fate wasn't it. Come to think of it, the big issue is actually the lack of foresight - did nobody think through the possibility of them being in a coalition and having to compromise?

Which is only slightly undermined by you then admitting that your expectations of behaviour are lower for the Tories.

I did no such thing. The rest of the post was as follows :

[i]When did the Tories invite the national press and media to witness them sign a "pledge", with all the publicity that entails, and then do the complete opposite?

And give me one example of a Labour election pledge where a Labour government has then deliberately done the complete opposite.

Yes all politicians have a tendency to make all sorts of promises which they know they won't be able/willing to keep. But the betrayal of trust, and the breathtaking hypocrisy, as displayed in the video below, puts the LibDems in a league of their own.[/i]

Nowhere do I "admit" that my expectations of behaviour are lower for the Tories.

I merely point out that neither the Tories and Labour have stooped so low and that the LibDems are in a league of their own with regards to publicity seeking pre-election signed "pledges".

[quote=ernie_lynch ]I did no such thing. The rest of the post was as follows

I meant in subsequent posts, but meh, I'm not getting into a fight over this, I agree the pledge was a stupid thing to do.

I merely point out that neither the Tories and Labour have stooped so low and that the LibDems are in a league of their own with regards to publicity seeking pre-election signed "pledges".

Eh?

Was this not a series of publicity seeking pre election signed pledges then?
[img] [/img]

And, to be fair, several Tory "pledges" here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25609485
https://web.archive.org/web/20100328230716/http:/www.conservatives.com/News/News_stories/2010/03/Conservatives_announce_pensioner_pledge.asp

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/11/david-cameron-european-union-referendum-pledge

I meant in subsequent posts, but meh, I'm not getting into a fight over this, I agree the pledge was a stupid thing to do.

In "subsequent posts" I point that I expect Tories to behave like Tories (whatever promises they might make).

The reason being that it is perfectly logical for them to do so, why would they behave any differently ?

There was a time when I didn't expect Labour, or LibDems for that matter, to behave like Tories. Not anymore.

Nowhere do I "admit" that my expectations of behaviour are lower for the Tories. Unless you think accusing a Tory of being a Tory is some sort of insult.

As I said, I used to expect Labour and the LibDems to behave differently to the Tories. Not anymore.

HTH