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

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

Eh?

Yeah I'm not really interested in attempting to have a sensible discussion with you Z-11, I know the futility of such attempts.

I have clearly acknowledged that Labour made pre-election pledges when I posted : [i]And give me one example of a Labour election pledge where a Labour government has then deliberately done the complete opposite.[/i]

That's the whole point. I am suggesting that there is not one single example of a Labour election pledge where a Labour government has then deliberately done the complete opposite.

But of course you want to misrepresent what I've said. Nothing very surprising there.

Ernie, I thought your point was the publicity and theatre about signed pledges

However, since you mention it, I certianly can remember Labour pledging something and thrn going and deliberatley doing the opposite, and that was university top up fees!

2001 election manifesto: [i]"We will not introduce 'top-up' fees and have legislated to prevent them."[/i]

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.

😀

There's nothing wrong with publicizing your pledges, that's the whole point of having them.

And of course there is a difference between a "pledge", ie, a solemn and binding promise, and an inclusion in a manifesto. But you knew that.

Just like you also knew that I had said (twice now)

[i]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]

[quote=ernie_lynch ]the LibDems are in a league of their own with regards to publicity seeking pre-election signed "pledges".

Were. Nick has promised not to do that again.

And of course there is a difference between a "pledge", ie, a solemn and binding promise, and an inclusion in a manifesto. But you knew that

Spinning for England now Ernie!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/1160403.stm

Were. Nick has promised not to do that again.

You mean that you trust him to keep his promise, even though he can't keep a pledge ?

Anyway when he's EU Commissioner it won't be up to him what the LibDems promise/pledge

[quote=ernie_lynch ]You mean that you trust him to keep his promise, even though he can't keep a pledge ?

Now that's the tricky bit isn't it 😆 I wonder if he makes more pledges he will then apologise for not keeping his promise? Maybe he'll then suggest that he was a bit daft to make such a promise, and assure us that he won't do it again...

Is it reasonable that a non-graduate earning a national average salary is effectively subsidising those earning thousands of pounds more?

You know when this argument was trotted out at the time of the introduction of tuition fees it pissed me off then and it hasn't improved. If anyone really wants an honest answer to that then they would have not only have to look at the cost of a tertiary education borne by the taxpayer gnerally but also the benefit that the taxpayer receives. Not just through the personal taxation from the graduate but also the wealth that is generated by having the graduates. Only then will you be able make an informed choice.

So don't vote Labour - they introduced the fees.

We were discussing whether the new system was better than the old one, and hence the income below which graduates now pay less "graduate tax" in total. Because realistically the Lib Dems had zero chance of scrapping Labour's tuition fees.

Of course your argument also applies to the taxation of bankers' bonuses. Bad old Labour again.

So don't vote Labour - they introduced the fees.

I never said I did.

Of course your argument also applies to the taxation of bankers' bonuses

Hmmm possibly, but only for those banks that have received significant aid from the state. Where it gets really awkward is around other state "benefits". Should those who have recieved significant treament from the NHS pay more more tax to compensate? How about those who received unemplyment benefits? That's where the questions get really uncomfortable.

I have always voted labour, however their message and delivery is lacking and more incoherent than ever. I am tending towards Lib Dem. I think some of the kicking they are taking is unwarrented, however tuition fees are a massive black mark IMO. I would not like to be a graduate these days lumbered with such large debt.

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.

Ain't that the truth. 🙁

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.

That hurt too, as a previous LibDem voter. In their defence though, I don't think they ever believed that they had a snowball's chance in hell of gaining any semblance of power...

Bring back Paddy. 😀

[quote=gonefishin ]So don't vote Labour - they introduced the fees.
I never said I did.

So who do you vote for (between you and the ballot box, so don't feel obliged to answer, it's a rhetorical question)? It seems they've all got their fingers in the pie of imposing fees on students, and if you accept JY's argument rather than mine, then the Tories and Lib Dems are just as much to blame.

Of course your argument also applies to the taxation of bankers' bonuses
Hmmm possibly, but only for those banks that have received significant aid from the state.

Not really - "the benefit that the taxpayer receives. Not just through the personal taxation from the banker but also the wealth that is generated by having the bankers."