why to vote Tory rather than Labour

[The Dude]

[quote]Quoting from 15:46, 4th May 2005
"Oh yeah, and that's rubbish as well, I went to a state school of about 600 people, most people there were very poor, including myself, (and I still am).

out of the 70 or so in my year, there are at least 15 that I know of that went to University, and 10 that went to College."

Im not saying that you are doomed if born into poverty, just that it is a lot harder to get into higher education than if you are from a middle class background and statistics reflect this.

[/quote

While it is certainly possable to pull one's selp up by one's boot straps I think the statistic you gave is very telling. I whent to a school in which 99 or 100 percent (depending on the year) of the people whent on to university. Incidentally this was a boarding school in a relatively affluent country town which cost 35,000 dollars a year (divide in half for pounds more or less). Of the people I knew there a good portion would not have gone on to do anything with there lives (let alone go to university) if it wasn't for significant parental and school preasure. The only reason why they are doing well now is because their parents cared and had enough money to send them to school, probably with enough left over to leave a sizable inheritance. Personally I did not have to pay tuition since my mother taught there but I find it very hard to believe that there is no disperity between a person with no impetus to learn going to a state school and a person who has been adiquitly provided for and nurtured by rich parents. Everybody (with the exception of the disabled)is born with more or less the same faculties and ability to succeed but clearly the road to success is a lot easier to traverse when it is paved with gold.

[Smith]

Quoting Tweedle-Dum from 16:58, 4th May 2005
Because it will lead to shorter waiting lists, and give some competition to the unsustainable behomoth which is and was every nationalised brittish industry. Every party's commitment to free healthcare for all at point of service still stands, the conservative party merely want shorter waiting lists, and if that means that it costs the public sector half of what it would have cost for many operations, then that's money in the pocket of the taxpayers, and the brilliant thing is that the money is never "lost" to the privte sector, it is spent, (or even better right now) invested in a bank to prop up the nation's consumer debt (over £1 Trillion) and stop our economy collapsing under the tax and borrow then spend policies of the current government, whose economics are based on the hope that when the economy crashes properly as a result of debt, the Tories will be in and it'll be called "Tory boom and bust" as they wash their hands of the issue.

[hr]

Live by the sword, die by the arrow.

The only problem with this is, again, it only helps the richer people. The current "tax, borrow, spend" situation is the only way to run things. Nobody has enough money to buy a house at age 25, they have to borrow the money and pay it back over time. This just rehighlights the point that conservative voters are completely selfish and only want for the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer.

[hr]

I tried thinking of an innovative witty remark, but could only come up with this...

[The Badger Machine]

Quoting ian mcfarlane from 16:56, 4th May 2005

Mr Machine, another New Labour victory on Thursday night (god forbid) would of course be another victory for conservatism. If I was one of your 'fellow left wing students' I would be a tad depressed a the prospect of a seventh consecutive election triumph for the Right. Hopefully though, it'll be the Tories, as Labour are so incompetent in so many ways.

maoam

I, like most of the left, am not happy at the right-wing leanings of the so called 'Labour' government. However, New labour are still considerably to the left of the Tory-scum and have introduced a few token socialist policies like the minimum wage and the abolition of heridetary peers in the house of lords.

The main thing I will be toasting on Friday morning will not be the inevitable Labour victory but the Conservative defeat as nothing will make me happier than to see the party of Aitken and Archer kept in the wilderness where they belong for a further five years.

You evil right-wing monsters may see me on Friday, I will be recognisable as the person with the smug grin strolling around town giving mocking stares at anyone who reeks of Toryism.

MAOAM! is the future

[Steveo]

Right, let me get this straight, you don't want to vote conservative, because they are Conservatives?

Nothing to do with the policies?

You're just a fucking retard, to be fair.

Labour will fuck it up again, then the Conservatives will be elected, have to take tough action, and be branded as the cunts.

[hr]

IMAGE:www.conservatives.com/UploadedFiles/GRAPHIC%5CDOWNLOADTHUMB%5Cthumb-torchlandwordspos.jpg

[Smith]

branded as the cunts?

[hr]

I tried thinking of an innovative witty remark, but could only come up with this...

[MadDog20/20]

Tomorrow is going to be so awesome. Labour are going to win convincigly, and then Gordon Brown is going to replace TB.

Hopefully he will implement at least some of his Brownite agenda and spend the next four years taxing the fuck out of all the Tory bastards in the south of England.

Beautiful.

I can't wait.

Cheer up Michael Howard

[Steveo]

TB will leave when he's been PM longer than Thatcher.

[hr]

IMAGE:www.conservatives.com/UploadedFiles/GRAPHIC%5CDOWNLOADTHUMB%5Cthumb-torchlandwordspos.jpg

[The Badger Machine]

Quoting Steveo from 18:05, 4th May 2005
Right, let me get this straight, you don't want to vote conservative, because they are Conservatives?

Nothing to do with the policies?

You're just a fucking retard, to be fair.

Actually I don't want to vote Conservative because they are an evil evil party.

And, just so you know, there are other reasons to vote other than your wallet. You could vote for for a morally sound reason such as how best society as a whole would be served if a certain party won. If you were to do this you will realise that the Tories are the party of self-interest and greed.

To be fair, when your scum-ridden party loses, which they will, I will think of people like you and give a small sigh of pleasure knowing that you will have just recieved the politcal equivalent of a kick in the bollocks. I will then celebrate with Maoam.

Maoam!

[Eliot Wilson]

I think I'm with Mr Haraldsen. You are a fucking retard.

The "party of Aitken and Archer", eh? What about the party of Robinson, Mandelson (twice), Blunkett, Byers, Sainsbury and Ecclestone?

[hr]

Bill and Ted beat the Grim Reaper at Twister

Bill: "You played very well, Death, especially with your totally heavy Death robes."

Death: "Don't patronise me."

[Humphrey]

Actually I don't want to vote Conservative because they are an evil evil party.

And, just so you know, there are other reasons to vote other than your wallet. You could vote for for a morally sound reason such as how best society as a whole would be served if a certain party won. If you were to do this you will realise that the Tories are the party of self-interest and greed.

Lets face it, the other lot aren't exactly a shining moral example, taking us to war on a false pretext, speeding through nannys visa applications, changing the stats to make it look as if crime and unemployment figures are dropping, 'burying bad news' under a shower of spin. Maybe its time to drop the stereotypes of the 1980s, the only choice now seems to be between thatcherites and thatcherites with a few token left wing policies tacked on to make them seem like the party of the people.

[hr]

http://www.livejournal.com/users/humphrey_clarke/

[exnihilo]

You know, "evil" is a word that is bandied around far too much without any thought to what it actually means. Also, if some of the people posting on here who are so ragingly anti-conservative were old enough to remember the state of this country in the 70s and the dramatic turnaround of the 80s they might think differently. Of course, that would involve thinking at all and not just spouting the same old meaningless crap devoid of rationale. I celebrated in 1997 too, the Tories had been in power too long and had become pointless and devoid of ideas, Labour is fast approaching this position too, but don't think for a minute you'll get rid of them this time. Maybe eventually we'll be shaken from the two party mentality and start to give someone else a chance?

And now, I couldn't let this one go by without comment...

Quoting themushroomgod from 11:35, 4th May 2005
2) Kids 16 - 18 have to pay tax if they have a full time job, yet get no vote. In a democracy, is there not something wrong with taxation without representation? I would say yes!

So ALL 16 year olds should have the vote because some of them work? What about those who don't? Surely representation without taxation is as bad as the other? Perhaps we should make it so that ONLY those who pay tax get the vote? Maybe even a number of votes contingent on how much tax they pay? Point being that argument is an absurdity.

Want people to take voting seriously? Don't give votes out like toffees. Don't lower the age. Possibly introduce some kind of citizenship test to qualify for the vote even, we expect it of immigrants but seem content to let the native born be ignorant and complacent. Voting is not a right, it is a hard-won privilege and should be accorded due respect. Sometimes I wish politicians would remember that too.

Personally, I'd make it 18 for everything, much neater. None of this 16 for some things, 15 for some others. 18 should be the age of majority, and you come into all your adult rights at that time, in one big lump. 90% of people will have smoked, drunk alcohol, had sex etc before then, but that's true now - so it won't make much difference, just makes the point clearer.

[Smith]

Quoting Eliot Wilson from 19:16, 4th May 2005
I think I'm with Mr Haraldsen. You are a fucking retard.

The "party of Aitken and Archer", eh? What about the party of Robinson, Mandelson (twice), Blunkett, Byers, Sainsbury and Ecclestone?

[hr]

Bill and Ted beat the Grim Reaper at Twister

Bill: "You played very well, Death, especially with your totally heavy Death robes."

Death: "Don't patronise me."

all wankers, the lot of them. Who the fuck has a name like Ecclestone?

[hr]

I tried thinking of an innovative witty remark, but could only come up with this...

[exnihilo]

Midget billionaires, apparently.

[The Badger Machine]

Quoting Eliot Wilson from 19:16, 4th May 2005
I think I'm with Mr Haraldsen. You are a fucking retard.

The "party of Aitken and Archer", eh? What about the party of Robinson, Mandelson (twice), Blunkett, Byers, Sainsbury and Ecclestone?

Did someone say prison? I'm sure I heard someone say slept with a prostitute while pretending to be from the party of 'back to basics' and 'family values' and then lied about it in court. No? Must just be me then. Oh well lets just sit tight and wait and listen really carefully so that we can clearly make out the sounds of sobbing coming from messrs wilson and 'steveo' as the election results filter through to them. Please don't call me a retard, I really expect better from a 'responsible adult'.

[Pudding Queen]

How are we 'cruising'? Sure we're at a great university but is that not because we worked hard to get the grades? And is it not remotely possible that our parents made huge sacrifices in order to give us a good education and therefore a better chance in life? Not all of us come from landed backgrounds (and good on those who do, despite the pashminas) and surely if we work like hell we deserve to keep the majority of our earnings so that our children can have a good chance at life too?

Quoting MadDog20/20 from 03:13, 4th May 2005
Fair enough, there are a lot of wasters in this country. But the way forward is to improve the distribution procedure so that the money goes to those who need it most.

How do you lot know you will be healthy and working in successful careers for the rest of your lives? What if you develop a mental illness and cannot hold down a regular job? There has to be a general social mechanism in place to ensure that people who have run out of luck can still enjoy a basic existence.

I suggest you three take a vacation to Vancouver sometime and see just how bad things can get under a conservative low-tax regime. I would not like to be a homeless person in Vancouver.

As human beings we have an obligation to help those worse off and LESS CAPABLE than ourselves. Do you think it is really fair for Chantelle in Dundee to live in a shithole just because she's not as bright as you?
The reality is that a lot of people at the bottom rung of the ladder are trying hard to get by, and need all the help they can get just to survive.

There is no way round about it, this means significant taxes for those of us that are cruising.

The only people who should be shipped off to another planet are the middle class whiners (like my parents) who piss and moan about taxes while they drive their Volvo to the golf club.

Having lived in both Canada and the states I am glad to know that I live in a country where if I should fall upon hard times there is a basic safety net in place. Supporting a few loafers is a small price to pay.

Socialism rules.


FUCK OFF TORY WANKERS!

(and don't even get me started on libertarians - they are already on another planet!)

[Smith]

I'm sorry but the amount of work we do here compared to one of my friends from school who is making £60 a week on a joinery apprenticeship is laughable. And we get given money to do it.

We are most definitely cruising.

[hr]

I tried thinking of an innovative witty remark, but could only come up with this...

[Bitterandtwisted]

Quoting Smith from 20:16, 4th May 2005
I'm sorry but the amount of work we do here compared to one of my friends from school who is making £60 a week on a joinery apprenticeship is laughable. And we get given money to do it.

We are most definitely cruising.

[hr]

I tried thinking of an innovative witty remark, but could only come up with this...

Who's giving you money, Smith?

[hr]

... and so, with nothing left to live for, he obeys the chanted command from the distant crowd below.

[The Badger Machine]

[quote]Quoting Smith from 20:16, 4th May 2005
I'm sorry but the amount of work we do here compared to one of my friends from school who is making £60 a week on a joinery apprenticeship is laughable. And we get given money to do it.

We are most definitely cruising.

[quote]

Indeed and then after 4 years of pissing about we then expect to go out and get paid significantly more than those who have spent the last 4 years working. Its just not fair.

[Bitterandtwisted]

Quoting exnihilo from 19:48, 4th May 2005


And now, I couldn't let this one go by without comment...

Quoting themushroomgod from 11:35, 4th May 2005
2) Kids 16 - 18 have to pay tax if they have a full time job, yet get no vote. In a democracy, is there not something wrong with taxation without representation? I would say yes!

So ALL 16 year olds should have the vote because some of them work? What about those who don't? Surely representation without taxation is as bad as the other? Perhaps we should make it so that ONLY those who pay tax get the vote? Maybe even a number of votes contingent on how much tax they pay? Point being that argument is an absurdity.

Want people to take voting seriously? Don't give votes out like toffees. Don't lower the age. Possibly introduce some kind of citizenship test to qualify for the vote even, we expect it of immigrants but seem content to let the native born be ignorant and complacent. Voting is not a right, it is a hard-won privilege and should be accorded due respect. Sometimes I wish politicians would remember that too.

Personally, I'd make it 18 for everything, much neater. None of this 16 for some things, 15 for some others. 18 should be the age of majority, and you come into all your adult rights at that time, in one big lump. 90% of people will have smoked, drunk alcohol, had sex etc before then, but that's true now - so it won't make much difference, just makes the point clearer.

So you would advocate removing the vote from students, pensioners, the unemployed etc? Just because someone is not working during an election does not mean they never will or never did. Maybe if they can then live tax free for the rest of the government's term of office you could justifiably remove their vote.

[hr]

... and so, with nothing left to live for, he obeys the chanted command from the distant crowd below.

[Ian McFarlane]

In the words of Andrew Marr, a 'dramatic' shift in the polls towards the Conservatives is occuring, at the last minute. Exactly that happened in 1970, and the mighty Tories won...