Elections 6th May...

[Snadger]

My views are:-

Tory = Capitalist (Thinking of self and monetary gain)Capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Labour = Socialist (Thinking of all, fairness,compassion)Socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You've probably guessed which way I'll be voting.

[PAULW]

My views are:-


Labour = Socialist (Thinking of all, fairness,compassion)Socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You've probably guessed which way I'll be voting.

As my gran used to say " If some people stood still long enough you could stuff em with straw"

[organic]

Snadger

Labour = totalitarian, spying on the people, database loving, intrusive, economy-ruining, borrowing us further into debt even in this state, pension-pilfering party.

You'd vote for THAT?

Wow.


EDIT
Oh yea - and they removed the right to free protest.
Thinking of all.

[PAULW]

OR THERE IS THIS TO GET YOU THINKING
This is what politics is about !!
YouTube - John Harris - It's an illusion Part 1/5

[Snadger]

Snadger

Labour = totalitarian, spying on the people, database loving, intrusive, economy-ruining, borrowing us further into debt even in this state, pension-pilfering party..............

.

Must have missed that bit on their manifesto? Or was it hidden behind the billboards with pictures of Gordon Brown the Tories are toting around....how crass!

[zazen999]

Snadger

Labour = totalitarian, spying on the people, database loving, intrusive, economy-ruining, borrowing us further into debt even in this state, pension-pilfering party.

You'd vote for THAT?

Wow.


EDIT
Oh yea - and they removed the right to free protest.
Thinking of all.

I've said it before - but they DEFINITELY picked up the wrong briefcases a few years back, didn't they?

[organic]

John has a wife and 2 kids.
Mark has a wife and 2 kids.
They live next door to eachother.

John works hard, he gets up at 6:30 has breakfast and is out the door before anyone else is awake. He works hard until 6pm, stopping for a short lunch break and the odd cup of tea here and there. He then goes home, has some food, maybe a beer and heads off to bed.

A. Mark doesn't work. He hops over the garden fence at night, picks the lock on the back door of John's house, takes food from the fridge - reaches for the rainy day fund jar on the fridge and takes some money and sneaks back out, leaving John with 80% of what he had when he went to bed.

B. Mark doesn't work. He calls a friend who goes to John's house at night, picks the lock on the back door, takes food from the fridge - reaches for the rainy day fund jar on the fridge and takes some money and sneaks back out. On the way home he pops into Mark's house and drops off the food and money, taking a cut for himself in the process. In all John now has 70% of what he had when he went to bed.

C. Mark doesn't work. John doesn't get to take home all that he earns. He works really hard but the government take 35% of what he earns before he even gets paid. He has a harder time paying his mortgage, feeding his kids and saving for a rainy day - the jar on the fridge is nearly empty. The government hand Mark the money they took from John's wages taking a cut for themselves and a few other people in the process.
Because of the high rate of tax John pays on the fuel he needs to do his job he has even less money than the 65% he would have had.
Because Mark is on incapacity benefits because he has a doctor who readilly signs sick-notes for spurious reasons, as encouraged by the socialist government who want to massage the unemployment statistics in their favour he also gets a large share of the fuel tax that John has to pay out just to do his job.
Not only that, but the money John is forced to pay for healthcare that he and his physically active, healthily eating family rarely use is vastly more than a private scheme for his level of use would cost - he is, of course, also paying for the medical treatment Mark's family use. Sooner or later Mark's cigarette habit (paid for with John's money) will catch up on him costing John and people like him even more in healthcare costs for an illness that wasn't theirs.
When everything is added up, Mark, a man who knows how to play the system has a more comfortable life with less stress and hard work than his neighbour, John, who works extremely hard.
At the end of it all, the government will take John's house to pay for his care in his twilight years, a time where the work he's done catches up and his body starts to fail.
In the name of fairness, though, Mark gets the same standard of treatment at zero cost to him... John paid for that too.

Now, A and B are so obviously wrong that it would take the most hardcore of anti-property type to think otherwise. C is exactly what happens under a socialist system.
There is no direct incentive for those, like Mark, who simply can't be bothered to work because John will pay for everything anyway.

It's all well and good to paint simplistic and fundamentally skewed pictures that show socialism being this wonderfully fair and equal system and capitalism being selfish and greedy; but even the slightest analysis of what actually happens - whether factual or in an illustrative story like the options A, B and C above - shows that it is anything but fair and equal.

The reality is that socialism punishes those who work hard, rewards those who do not, and provides no incentive at all for people to better or provide for themselves.


On the other hand - capitalism, while it is so oftern portrayed as selfish, unthinking and entirely profit-driven (not that profit is the dirty word so many see it as) is what has given us the incredibly high standard of living we enjoy in the developed world. It is what has given us the computers upon which we are communicating in this very thread. It is what has given us (in reverse order) the car, the motorcycle and the bicycle. It is what has given us the electricity that powers our lights and our computers. It is what has given us our mobile phones.
It's not perfect, no, but it's far more perfect than any of the alternatives.
Nor are all capitalists the greedy, top-hatted stereotypes (another hat-tip to Mr Orwell) they are painted as. Far from it.

Wheras socialism forcefully removes a person's property and gives it to others (wasting plenty in the process) capitalism allows them to do so of their own free will, and the millions upon millions given to charities (including the RNLI, our air ambulances, the Royal British Legion, Shelter and countless others) by both everyday people and figurehead capitalists like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet (who gave away vast swathes of their fortunes) and many others who do so with far less fanfare are irrefutable proof of that.

[organic]

Snadger - that's where you go wrong looking at the manifesto and theoretical ideals of a party.

Look instead at what they are doing right now.

ID Cards and database.
DNA database.
NHS spine.
Outlawing unlicenced protest see: Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (sections 132 to 138)
Attempted to pass laws so fundamentally totalitarian in nature they were dubbed "The Abolition of Parliament Bill" see: the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill
Attempting to outlaw engaging with anyone of a religious persuasion because causing offence would be an offence (Religious Hatred Act) - a full-on attack on freedom of speech
Taking dirty great big piles of money and handing it to the banks and saddling us with debts we probably won't be able to clear within a couple of generations, some of us won't even live to see the day the debts are cleared - and if Labour get into power with the even bigger defecit they've just budgeted it'll be worse still.
Then there's the pension-pilfering bit. Are you seriously saying that's hidden behind the Tory billboards?

Manifesto or not, all of the above has happened or is happening as clear as day and is a stark illustration of the reality of the "Thinking of all, fair,compassionate" Labour party.

I could go on... and on... and on just listing the things this socialist party have done that fit the bill of a totalitarian [...] party, but I think the above makes it clear enough.

Anyone who votes for them is insane and if they vote them back into power they should be ashamed.

[reetnproper]

Frankly, they're all as bad as each other.

In many respects and for many people, voting Gordon Brown back in would be a case of 'Better the Devil you know'.

The Lib Dems are neither here nor there and their policies appear, to me at least, to be rewarding non-tax payers and penalising, heavily, the hard working tax payers . There is something about Clegg that I really don't trust. A simplistic overview but that's how I see it.

As for Cameron what has he actually said in respect of his policies? Nothing!

I have heard a lot of:
'We would like to do......' but no explaination as to how this would be achieved; and
'We may be able to ......' but no explaination as to how this would be achieved; and
'We would probably do .......' but, surprise, surprise, no explaination as to how this would be achieved; and
'It is our aim to do .....' but no explaination as to how this would be achieved either.

Can anyone see a pattern emerging here?

He has, at some point over the last year or so, managed to promise - no sorry wrong word - pledge to help every concievable group of voters, in one way or another, and yet he hasn't said how he intends to fulfil these pledges. In fact he has appeared to cover pretty much every single eventuality without actually committing to a single policy .

There is nothing to choose between the three of them, so, as I said at the start, it may very well turn out to be a case of 'Better the Devil you know', or, at the very least, a hung parliament brought about by many voters, like OH and I, considering voting for a marginal party.

Reet
x

P.S. My OHs Landy forum had this link posted - may well be in an earlier post but just in case it isn't: Policies

[organic]

reetnproper
He did make one promise.
To give us our denied referendum on the Lisbon treaty...


...IF it hadn't been ratified by the time they came into power - knowing full well it would be ratified long before they even got onto the campaign trail for the general election.

So yes, he has made at least one definite statement.


The long and short of it is "We've got Lisbon now - lump it."

Joy!

[Snadger]

Snadger -
..................Anyone who votes for them is insane and if they vote them back into power they should be ashamed.

Ahh, so now we've finally unlocked the Tory manifesto!

I seem to remember that the Russian govenment put you in the looney bin if you didn't conform, on the pretence that you were insane for going against their beliefs!

[SarzWix]

Snadger - that's where you go wrong looking at the manifesto and theoretical ideals of a party.

Taking dirty great big piles of money and handing it to the banks and saddling us with debts we probably won't be able to clear within a couple of generations, some of us won't even live to see the day the debts are cleared - and if Labour get into power with the even bigger defecit they've just budgeted it'll be worse still.

And what exactly would the Tories have done in the same situation? Let the banks fold? I very much doubt it. They mostly agreed with the gov't response at the time if I remember rightly. And it's only afterwards that they start saying that they would have done any differently.

I could go on... and on... and on...........

I'm sure you could...

Anyone who votes for them is insane and if they vote them back into power they should be ashamed.

In what way is that debate?! I think even if you added IN MY OPINION to that, it's still bordering on the personal/offensive. People are free to make their own choices remember? I think that people who don't vote could be considered 'insane' and should be 'ashamed'....

[Snadger]

............In what way is that debate?! I think even if you added IN MY OPINION to that, it's still bordering on the personal/offensive. People are free to make their own choices remember? I think that people who don't vote could be considered 'insane' and should be 'ashamed'....

I think if you are prepared to post on a political debate thread you've got to be a bit thick skinned and take each comment with a pinch of salt Sarz!
To coin another phrase " If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen" springs to mind

[Jeanied]

Ah, but Snadge - Sarz has a tricky job going on here - she has to keep the thread modded and make sure people keep rational and balanced. An impossible task on this topic IMHO. Which is why I only post and run.

[Snadger]

Ah, but Snadge - Sarz has a tricky job going on here - she has to keep the thread modded and make sure people keep rational and balanced. An impossible task on this topic IMHO. Which is why I only post and run.

I certainly wasn't having a go at Sarz, Jeanie, just pointing out that if you aren't prepared to take the flack you shouldn't really post on a political thread.

Its good that we can have a bit banter, still be friends, and long may the thread remain!