Do people actually vote Conservative because they are snobs?

First topic message reminder :

Giles Bandreth tested the folk of Guildford, a Tory stronghold, on the policies of Jeremy Corbyn, and found they were appalled to find that they agreed with him.  Which begs the question, do they vote Conservative for the snob value, somehow thinking it makes them a better class?

Raggamuffin wrote:

sassy wrote:


Which just shows that the electorate need to be educated voting and why to vote.  It's pathetic.

It's the way it is. That's why it's important for a party to choose the right leader. They're simply not going to vote for a party if they really don't like the leader.

If I thought that was true I'd make it law that people had to pass an intelligence test before they were allowed to vote.

Because people don't know leaders unless they have met them personally, they only know the manipulations of the media.

sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It's the way it is. That's why it's important for a party to choose the right leader. They're simply not going to vote for a party if they really don't like the leader.

If I thought that was true I'd make it law that people had to pass an intelligence test before they were allowed to vote.

That's partly why Labour got in in 1997 - IMO. Besides, a lot of people don't think that the policies will take place anyway.

Raggamuffin wrote:

sassy wrote:


If I thought that was true I'd make it law that people had to pass an intelligence test before they were allowed to vote.

That's partly why Labour got in in 1997 - IMO. Besides, a lot of people don't think that the policies will take place anyway.  

Absolutely disagree.  Now I have dinner to do, so see you later.

sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It's the way it is. That's why it's important for a party to choose the right leader. They're simply not going to vote for a party if they really don't like the leader.

If I thought that was true I'd make it law that people had to pass an intelligence test before they were allowed to vote.

Because people don't know leaders unless they have met them personally, they only know the manipulations of the media.

That would make labour support plummet instantly by at least half!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:

sassy wrote:


If I thought that was true I'd make it law that people had to pass an intelligence test before they were allowed to vote.

Because people don't know leaders unless they have met them personally, they only know the manipulations of the media.

That would make labour support plummet instantly by at least half!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:

sassy wrote:


If I thought that was true I'd make it law that people had to pass an intelligence test before they were allowed to vote.

Because people don't know leaders unless they have met them personally, they only know the manipulations of the media.

That would make labour support plummet instantly by at least half!!!

No Tommy, it would do the opposite, RW are totally braindead and the likes of UKIP etc are the most braindead of all.  They even took a study to see which faction had the highest intelligence and the LW came out way ahead.

Right-wingers are less intelligent than left wingers, says study

• Children with low intelligence grow up to be prejudiced
  
  
• Right-wing views make the less intelligent feel 'safe'
  
  
• Analysis of more than 15,000 people
  
  

Total rubbish.

eddie wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:I think that it's perverse to mock people who vote for policies they believe are going to help the less fortunate. If the government isn't there to help people, I don't see why we have them at all.

The government are supposed to be there to help ALL people. I'm not sure why LW's think rich people should be constantly punished for being rich. There's always that air about left politics.

WHAT A LOAD of self serving, self righteous and  RW apologist crap !!!


TUG that that forelock a little harder, eddie -- you're not grovelling to the Tories well enough yet..

Tommy Monk wrote:I want small and efficient state/govt, small bureaucracy etc... I am more than happy to pay taxes towards their being an authority to run public services and towards having a democratically elected lot of people in charge of it but then they must only be enacting the will of the electorate in directing the authorities... not as it is now where they seem to think they are elected to do what THEY want...

IN OTHER WORDS, Tommy  --  you' re basically agreeing that those 'orrible little Tory voters must have rocks in their heads, to keep on voting Cameron's mob back in ?
AND THAT the average Conservative voter is a mindless prat,  only desiring towards being a brown-tonguing crawler, willing to bend over backwards to kiss their bosses' backsides...

WAY to go, Tommy!   There may be hope for you yet..

eddie wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

I don't think there are really that many LW politicians who believe in "punishing" the rich. There is an undercurrent of anger at the wealthy, sure -- but why is that? I think a lot of people perceive the wealthy as being at the root of many of the world's biggest problems.

I believe in taxing the rich more, because they can afford it while the poor can't. I believe in using government to rein in their outsize influence on the rest of the world. If they perceive that as "punishment" for being wealthy, I think that's a really childish stance for them to take.

On top of that, people who enhance the world they live in, like JK Rowling, are admirable people in my view. I have no problem with people getting richly rewarded for coming up with brilliant ideas that people like. I just have a problem with them thinking they should have more power than one vote in elections, and I have a problem with them thinking that paying a small percentage of their vast wealth toward helping people in need is "stealing" from them.

You do realsie that taxing someone more because they earn more is the reason why they hide their money in offshore accounts?

I'm kind of with you on taxing the rich more, but at the same time, I sort of think it is like punishing someone becasue they work really hard and earn lots of money...!
Not all rich people are evil...

THE GREAT MAJORITY of very rich people didn't get there through "working hard"..

THEY MOSTLY GOT their ill-gained moolah from robbing other people...
YOU MIGHT become a millionaire through working smart, but to become a billionaire one usually needs to be sneaky, underhanded and downright nasty..

AND THEN employing shady accountants, shonky lawyers, and mercenary thugs, to hide and maintain that ill-deserved wealth..

NAME ONE billionaire who got there through plain hard work ???

sassy wrote:Anyway, that's not what the OP was about.  Those people were agreeing with all Corbyn's policies, but were horrified when they discovered that the policies were his.  Not because of the policies, but because they didn't want to be seen agreeing with Corbyn and socialist policies, that was beneath them.  They obviously felt that by agreeing they had let their 'class' down.  They weren't Conservative because they agreed with the policies of conservatives, they were conservative because that made them think they were part of the elite.

I'VE ALWAYS thought that most Conservative voters got that way through being generally a bit thick, poorly educated, or both...

ESPECIALLY any Conservative voter who only earns an average to middling income..

nicko wrote:Total rubbish.

WHAT'S THAT, nicko ?


ARE YOU agreeing that the Conservatives and their voters are a total load of rubbish ?

AND SO are their policies...


THAT'S you and Tommy ! Now we only have to see if Stormee has seen the error of his ways, and joins you two in enjoicing and sharing in your new enlightenment..   

Raggamuffin wrote:They are asked to pay more than their fair share - they're asked to pay a higher percentage of their earnings/interest, etc.

You have to think about the psychology of that. Regardless of where the money came from - from their own efforts or from an inheritance or luck, a lot of them are going to resent handing over such a large percentage to the Government - who didn't earn the money in any sense.

You mean other than regulating the economy to keep it from collapsing; providing armed services to defend the country; taking all reasonable steps to ensure that the food, water and medicine you consume is safe; building vital public infrastructure; hiring police, firefighters, teachers, doctors and nurses, etc. to serve the public; need I go on? I think providing the basic foundation of a society is a way to earn taxes.

I do believe there's such a thing as taxing the rich too much -- as eddie pointed out, they start to offshore their money at a certain point (those lovely patriots that they are), and they don't have enough to invest in new ventures at a certain point.

I don't know what the income tax situation is in the UK, but in the U.S., the most you can pay on your income is 39.6 percent. And it's also important to note that you start paying that rate -- 40 cents out of each dollar -- only AFTER you've already earned $415,051, which was taxed at lower rates.

If you're making $500,000 a year, is it really harming you to have to pay 40 cents per dollar in tax on that last $85,000? No. Someone making $500,000 in the U.S. pays about 30 percent of that in federal income tax.

Would it be humane to expect someone making $50,000 per year to pay the same percentage? That would leave them with less than $35,000.

Father of Capitalism Adam Smith put it best in The Wealth of Nations:

"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich . . . . It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

I would take that argument further and note that the rich have gotten more out of their countries than the poor have. Does Bill Gates owe nothing to the United States for his success? Could he have created Microsoft if he'd been born in a remote village in Afghanistan or Somalia? And now that he's rich, the U.S. is engaged in protecting the value of his money, paying people to keep criminals from stealing his products, protecting his intellectual property and many other things that help keep him one of the richest people in the world. Is asking him for 40 cents out of every dollar earned over $415,000 so unreasonable, given all that?

And if 40 cents out of every dollar seems pretty reasonable, let me point out that the rich and their right-wing allies in the U.S. claim it is far too high.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:I want small and efficient state/govt, small bureaucracy etc... I am more than happy to pay taxes towards their being an authority to run public services and towards having a democratically elected lot of people in charge of it but then they must only be enacting the will of the electorate in directing the authorities... not as it is now where they seem to think they are elected to do what THEY want...

IN OTHER WORDS, Tommy  --  you' re basically agreeing that those 'orrible little Tory voters must have rocks in their heads, to keep on voting Cameron's mob back in ?
AND THAT the average Conservative voter is a mindless prat,  only desiring towards being a brown-tonguing crawler, willing to bend over backwards to kiss their bosses' backsides...

WAY to go, Tommy!   There may be hope for you yet..

Not what I said... tory and Ukip are the only party's here in uk that aim to do any of what I said...!

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:They are asked to pay more than their fair share - they're asked to pay a higher percentage of their earnings/interest, etc.

You have to think about the psychology of that. Regardless of where the money came from - from their own efforts or from an inheritance or luck, a lot of them are going to resent handing over such a large percentage to the Government - who didn't earn the money in any sense.

You mean other than regulating the economy to keep it from collapsing; providing armed services to defend the country; taking all reasonable steps to ensure that the food, water and medicine you consume is safe; building vital public infrastructure; hiring police, firefighters, teachers, doctors and nurses, etc. to serve the public; need I go on? I think providing the basic foundation of a society is a way to earn taxes.

I do believe there's such a thing as taxing the rich too much -- as eddie pointed out, they start to offshore their money at a certain point (those lovely patriots that they are), and they don't have enough to invest in new ventures at a certain point.

I don't know what the income tax situation is in the UK, but in the U.S., the most you can pay on your income is 39.6 percent. And it's also important to note that you start paying that rate -- 40 cents out of each dollar -- only AFTER you've already earned $415,051, which was taxed at lower rates.

If you're making $500,000 a year, is it really harming you to have to pay 40 cents per dollar in tax on that last $85,000? No. Someone making $500,000 in the U.S. pays about 30 percent of that in federal income tax.

Would it be humane to expect someone making $50,000 per year to pay the same percentage? That would leave them with less than $35,000.

Father of Capitalism Adam Smith put it best in The Wealth of Nations:

"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich . . . . It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

I would take that argument further and note that the rich have gotten more out of their countries than the poor have. Does Bill Gates owe nothing to the United States for his success? Could he have created Microsoft if he'd been born in a remote village in Afghanistan or Somalia? And now that he's rich, the U.S. is engaged in protecting the value of his money, paying people to keep criminals from stealing his products, protecting his intellectual property and many other things that help keep him one of the richest people in the world. Is asking him for 40 cents out of every dollar earned over $415,000 so unreasonable, given all that?

And if 40 cents out of every dollar seems pretty reasonable, let me point out that the rich and their right-wing allies in the U.S. claim it is far too high.

The first bit is what I said earlier that I want... which is a simplified and scaled back version of what we currently have in uk as a result of 13 years of labour govt who massively increased bureaucracy and red tape and costs... while also allowing multitudes of the public sector services to be outsourced to private companies to run!!!


2nd bit... in uk... nobody pays tax on first £10,000 of earnings, any earnings over that are subject to the lower rate of income tax... earnings over £43,000 are subject to 45% rate of income tax already!!!

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:They are asked to pay more than their fair share - they're asked to pay a higher percentage of their earnings/interest, etc.

You have to think about the psychology of that. Regardless of where the money came from - from their own efforts or from an inheritance or luck, a lot of them are going to resent handing over such a large percentage to the Government - who didn't earn the money in any sense.

You mean other than regulating the economy to keep it from collapsing; providing armed services to defend the country; taking all reasonable steps to ensure that the food, water and medicine you consume is safe; building vital public infrastructure; hiring police, firefighters, teachers, doctors and nurses, etc. to serve the public; need I go on? I think providing the basic foundation of a society is a way to earn taxes.

I do believe there's such a thing as taxing the rich too much -- as eddie pointed out, they start to offshore their money at a certain point (those lovely patriots that they are), and they don't have enough to invest in new ventures at a certain point.

I don't know what the income tax situation is in the UK, but in the U.S., the most you can pay on your income is 39.6 percent. And it's also important to note that you start paying that rate -- 40 cents out of each dollar -- only AFTER you've already earned $415,051, which was taxed at lower rates.

If you're making $500,000 a year, is it really harming you to have to pay 40 cents per dollar in tax on that last $85,000? No. Someone making $500,000 in the U.S. pays about 30 percent of that in federal income tax.

Would it be humane to expect someone making $50,000 per year to pay the same percentage? That would leave them with less than $35,000.

Father of Capitalism Adam Smith put it best in The Wealth of Nations:

"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich . . . . It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

I would take that argument further and note that the rich have gotten more out of their countries than the poor have. Does Bill Gates owe nothing to the United States for his success? Could he have created Microsoft if he'd been born in a remote village in Afghanistan or Somalia? And now that he's rich, the U.S. is engaged in protecting the value of his money, paying people to keep criminals from stealing his products, protecting his intellectual property and many other things that help keep him one of the richest people in the world. Is asking him for 40 cents out of every dollar earned over $415,000 so unreasonable, given all that?

And if 40 cents out of every dollar seems pretty reasonable, let me point out that the rich and their right-wing allies in the U.S. claim it is far too high.

The politicians are very well paid for doing their job.

Here, after the personal allowance, which is £11,000 (?) for 2016/17, you pay 20%, and then 40% after £43,000. Then you pay 45% after £150,000 I think. I don't see why it can't be 20% for everyone really. People earning loads of money would still be paying a load of tax.

Thank you Raggs... my mistake... you are right about it being 40% then 45% at those levels of income.

Tommy Monk wrote:Thank you Raggs... my mistake... you are right about it being 40% then 45% at those levels of income.

Oh! I didn't realise you had even addressed the question Tommy. I read Ben's post and then replied without reading further posts.

So people start paying 40% at a much lower level than in the US.

Raggamuffin wrote:So people start paying 40% at a much lower level than in the US.

they do here

highest is 47% tax rate is about 100,000 pounds up, (on conversion or 180k here as an individual)
but the next highest is 37% that be about 50,000 up
32% is about 35,000 up
12% on about 11,000 up

fairly similar overall
i think economist did the numbers here,
it worked out about 27% flat rate to get the same tax income
UK would be similar

Do people actually vote Conservative because they are snobs?

Nah, most of them are just selfish gits and the Tories are the best party to support them in that.

Back in the day it was either the Whigs or the Tories really.

The Whig Party slowly evolved during the 18th century. The Whig tendency supported the great aristocratic families, the Protestant Hanoverian succession, and toleration for nonconformist Protestants (the "dissenters," such as Presbyterians), while some Tories supported the exiled Stuart royal family's claim to the throne (Jacobitism), and virtually all Tories supported the established Church of England and the gentry. Later on, the Whigs drew support from the emerging industrial interests and wealthy merchants, while the Tories drew support from the landed interests and the royal family. By the first half of the 19th century, however, the Whig political programme came to encompass not only the supremacy of parliament over the monarch and support for free trade, but Catholic emancipation, the abolition of slavery and expansion of the franchise (suffrage). They eventually became the Liberal Party.

The Tories or The Conservative Party traces its origins to a faction, rooted in the 18th-century Whig Party, that coalesced around William Pitt the Younger (Prime Minister of Great Britain 1783–1801 and 1804–1806). They were known as "Independent Whigs", "Friends of Mr Pitt", or "Pittites". After Pitt's death the term "Tory" came into use. This was an allusion to the Tories, a political grouping that had existed from 1678, but which had no organisational continuity with the Pittite party. From about 1812 on the name "Tory" was commonly used for the newer party.[13]

The term "Conservative" was suggested as a title for the party by a magazine article by J. Wilson Croker in the Quarterly Review in 1830. The name immediately caught on and was officially adopted under the aegis of Sir Robert Peel around 1834. Peel is acknowledged as the founder of the Conservative Party, which he created with the announcement of the Tamworth Manifesto. The term "Conservative Party" rather than Tory was the dominant usage by 1845.

Of course they used to vote either/or because of being snobs although the Whigs/Liberals at least made a pretense of caring about the common person.

I do believe that it carries on today to some degree. It sometimes depends on what or who is cool as was seen with Thatcher in the early 80s (loadsamoney Flash Harrys) and Blair in the 90s cause it was New Britain.

Tommy Monk wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:



IN OTHER WORDS, Tommy  --  you' re basically agreeing that those 'orrible little Tory voters must have rocks in their heads, to keep on voting Cameron's mob back in ?
AND THAT the average Conservative voter is a mindless prat,  only desiring towards being a brown-tonguing crawler, willing to bend over backwards to kiss their bosses' backsides...

WAY to go, Tommy!   There may be hope for you yet..

Not what I said... tory and Ukip are the only party's here in uk that aim to do any of what I said...!

WHAT A LOAD of garbage, Tommy....

The Tories are only in it to look after the Millionaires and Aristocracy over there..
WHILST screwing over as many of your workers as they can in the process.

AS FOR that pathetic dogs' breakfast the UKIP, all that those racist scaremongering fascist dicks seem to be interested in is promoting their own little godless whiter-than-thou concepts for a xenophobe's paradise..      

sassy wrote:Right-wingers are less intelligent than left wingers, says study

• Children with low intelligence grow up to be prejudiced
  
  
• Right-wing views make the less intelligent feel 'safe'
  
  
• Analysis of more than 15,000 people
  
  

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2095549/Right-wingers-intelligent-left-wingers-says-controversial-study--conservative-politics-lead-people-racist.html#ixzz44yG4eC6Q
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice

http://www.livescience.com/18132-intelligence-social-conservatism-racism.html

This is a valid, and most important study.  It concludes what I have been saying from the gallery all along.  RWers shrink before challenges to make the world better.  Rather, they opt for 'no-change' because it's easier.  Their core value is intellectual laziness.  They say, I can't, I can't...where liberals and progressives say, we can!

The world is full of challenges.  At the fringes of our society are all sorts of people in need.  RWers want to ignore them and the challenges they present,  RWers are lazy.  Their idea of a good time is a recliner and a pork dinner.  Liberals and progressives embrace the challenges the world presents, and their world is better for it.  Remember, progress never came from the right.

It's not that RWers have lower IQs necessarily, but they are unpracticed when it comes to embracing challenges.  As with anything, the lack of exercise atrophies the muscles and the body's capacity diminishes.  The same is true with the mental faculties.  I would urge all RWers to become LW activists, if only for their good health.

The link between atrophied intelligence and prejudice is that it is easier to point to someone and say he is the problem, than it is to analyze the situation and come up with solutions. Prejudice is an escape: simpler ideas require short-cuts like personifying and disparaging, rather than the rigors of methodically pursuing truth. We have seen this in myths, superstitions and yes, even religion. We see it repeatedly in ideology, and prejudice is most certainly an ideology.

Perhaps there are only two types of people in the world:
Rigid people who're more right-wing, and laid back lefties?

eddie wrote:Perhaps there are only two types of people in the world:
Rigid people who're more right-wing,  and laid back lefties?

The latter are call Californians.  

veya_victaous wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:So people start paying 40% at a much lower level than in the US.

they do here

highest is 47% tax rate is about 100,000 pounds up, (on conversion or 180k here as an individual)
but the next highest is 37% that be about 50,000 up
32% is about 35,000 up
12% on about 11,000 up

fairly similar overall
i think economist did the numbers here,
it worked out about 27% flat rate to get the same tax income
UK would be similar

So we already pay higher rates of income tax here in uk than you do in Australia too!!!


Plus we also pay 'national insurance' tax on our earnings too!!!

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-1692508/What-National-Insurance-will-you-pay.html


Then we pay 'council tax' at somewhere between £1000-3000 a year per household depending on area and property value...




And then we pay another 20% tax when we actually want to spend our already taxed earnings... VAT!!!

https://www.gov.uk/vat-rates


On top of all the other heavily loaded tax duty we have on other stuff like petrol, alcohol and cigarettes etc...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/11339882/Osborne-pockets-70pc-of-your-petrol-bill-as-oil-price-continues-to-fall.html

https://www.gov.uk/tax-on-shopping/alcohol-tobacco


And then we also pay extra tax levys on energy to go to subsidies towards funding loss making 'green' energy projects like wind and solar etc...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/energy-bills/11362064/Green-levies-add-112-to-energy-bills-where-does-the-money-go.html

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

Not what I said... tory and Ukip are the only party's here in uk that aim to do any of what I said...!

WHAT A LOAD of garbage, Tommy....

The Tories are only in it to look after the Millionaires and Aristocracy over there..
WHILST screwing over as many of your workers as they can in the process.

AS FOR that pathetic dogs' breakfast the UKIP, all that those racist scaremongering fascist dicks seem to be interested in is promoting their own little godless whiter-than-thou concepts for a xenophobe's paradise..      

Hardly... tory want to slim down the over blown and expensive bureaucracy and lower taxes for everyone!!!


And Ukip want to end the current open door to 500 million white Europeans and make the immigration system fairer to the rest of the world who are not white!!!


You really need to start questioning what you think you know about things here... and where you are getting your information from...!?

Our media tells us plenty of bullshit about other countries... and yours is probably telling you plenty of bullshit about our country too!!!

sassy wrote:Giles Bandreth tested the folk of Guildford, a Tory stronghold, on the policies of Jeremy Corbyn, and found they were appalled to find that they agreed with him.  Which begs the question, do they vote Conservative for the snob value, somehow thinking it makes them a better class?

There are many a book/manuscript/college course written about the HUMAN PSYCHE, and how we aren't to far from the herd mentality that we observe in the world around us.

So it's easy {from my POV} to see the value in Con. vs Liberal thought processes; but unfortunately the equality factor of --- All Humans Are Created Equal --- seems to have gone astray and the 'Fake Faithful' that are living in fear of the recent LGBT rulings {here in America} have used those 'Equality' issues to preach the fear/hell & damnation in hopes to over turn the federal equality in marriage laws.

We tend to live within confines of social status communities, attend organizations that are comfy and generate like minded humans to join, we rarely venture out of our comfort zones for anything new and different --- why would our methods for voting be any different?

And frankly...conservatives {staunch bible thumpers} like being told/led around by their noses --- it gives them a secure sense of WORTH and a happy heart to know that they are better then the riff-raff out here!

We tend to live within confines of social status communities, attend organizations that are comfy and generate like minded humans to join, we rarely venture out of our comfort zones for anything new and different --- why would our methods for voting be any different?


That's exactly what I meant, they are part of that particular 'herd', and actually looking at policies and whether they agree with them or not isn't what they worry about, they just want to be the same, even if it means their lives are going to be made worse.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

Not what I said... tory and Ukip are the only party's here in uk that aim to do any of what I said...!

WHAT A LOAD of garbage, Tommy....

The Tories are only in it to look after the Millionaires and Aristocracy over there..
WHILST screwing over as many of your workers as they can in the process.

AS FOR that pathetic dogs' breakfast the UKIP, all that those racist scaremongering fascist dicks seem to be interested in is promoting their own little godless whiter-than-thou concepts for a xenophobe's paradise..      

Also... it was our labour govt of 13 years who screwed over the majority of British working class by allowing mass immigration that massively drove up costs of living while holding down wages and reducing job opportunities for British workers as well as putting extra strain on public services which also had a detrimental effect on the services as a whole for British people!!!


British people suffered under Labour while corporations were loving this flood of cheaper employees!!!

4EVER2 wrote:

sassy wrote:Giles Bandreth tested the folk of Guildford, a Tory stronghold, on the policies of Jeremy Corbyn, and found they were appalled to find that they agreed with him.  Which begs the question, do they vote Conservative for the snob value, somehow thinking it makes them a better class?

There are many a book/manuscript/college course written about the HUMAN PSYCHE, and how we aren't to far from the herd mentality that we observe in the world around us.

So it's easy {from my POV} to see the value in Con. vs Liberal thought processes; but unfortunately the equality factor of --- All Humans Are Created Equal --- seems to have gone astray and the 'Fake Faithful' that are living in fear of the recent LGBT rulings {here in America} have used those 'Equality' issues to preach the fear/hell & damnation in hopes to over turn the federal equality in marriage laws.

We tend to live within confines of social status communities, attend organizations that are comfy and generate like minded humans to join, we rarely venture out of our comfort zones for anything new and different --- why would our methods for voting be any different?

And frankly...conservatives {staunch bible thumpers} like being told/led around by their noses --- it gives them a secure sense of WORTH and a happy heart to know that they are better then the riff-raff out here!

I keep telling Ben and Quill that our conservatives are much more like your Democrats... with our labour/lefties and your Republicans being at the extreme ends of left and right!!!


For example... earlier on this thread Ben was arguing (the american democrat/liberal/leftie case) for increase in taxes for the higher paid over there... and in his usual 'all conservatives are the same and are all evil' style...

But what he was arguing FOR was for a lower rate of taxation than WE ALREADY HAVE HERE IN UK and THE RATES WE HAVE SET HERE ARE THE RATES SET BY OUR CONSERVATIVES!!!


In fact... what YOUR so called 'liberals/lefties/democrats' are arguing FOR in many areas is a much lesser version of what WE ALREADY DO/HAVE... AND WHAT IS ALSO HAPPENING IN FULL SUPPORT OF OUR CONSERVATIVES!!!


If you had OUR labour/lefties over there too and arguing over there for what they do over here... YOUR SO CALLED 'LEFTIE/LIBERAL/DEMOCRATS' WOULD BE SAYING THEY WERE 'COMMIES' AND TRAITORS!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:

4EVER2 wrote:
There are many a book/manuscript/college course written about the HUMAN PSYCHE, and how we aren't to far from the herd mentality that we observe in the world around us.

So it's easy {from my POV} to see the value in Con. vs Liberal thought processes; but unfortunately the equality factor of --- All Humans Are Created Equal --- seems to have gone astray and the 'Fake Faithful' that are living in fear of the recent LGBT rulings {here in America} have used those 'Equality' issues to preach the fear/hell & damnation in hopes to over turn the federal equality in marriage laws.

We tend to live within confines of social status communities, attend organizations that are comfy and generate like minded humans to join, we rarely venture out of our comfort zones for anything new and different --- why would our methods for voting be any different?

And frankly...conservatives {staunch bible thumpers} like being told/led around by their noses --- it gives them a secure sense of WORTH and a happy heart to know that they are better then the riff-raff out here!

I keep telling Ben and Quill that our conservatives are much more like your Democrats... with our labour/lefties and your Republicans being at the extreme ends of left and right!!!
For example... earlier on this thread Ben was arguing (the american democrat/liberal/leftie case) for increase in taxes for the higher paid over there... and in his usual 'all conservatives are the same and are all evil' style...
But what he was arguing FOR was for a lower rate of taxation than WE ALREADY HAVE HERE IN UK and THE RATES WE HAVE SET HERE ARE THE RATES SET BY OUR CONSERVATIVES!!!
In fact... what YOUR so called 'liberals/lefties/democrats' are arguing FOR in many areas is a much lesser version of what WE ALREADY DO/HAVE... AND WHAT IS ALSO HAPPENING IN FULL SUPPORT OF OUR CONSERVATIVES!!!
If you had OUR labour/lefties over there too and arguing over there for what they do over here... YOUR SO CALLED 'LEFTIE/LIBERAL/DEMOCRATS' WOULD BE SAYING THEY WERE 'COMMIES' AND TRAITORS!!!

Rather interesting isn't it '???', how we derive the twisted definitions of our political titles - flip/flopped them to mean the opposite.    

I've an older fellow {mid 80's} that has been a internet buddy of mine for over 10+ years; he lives in Australia and he's always got to be reminded about that 'REVERSE' wording when he starts trashing my political POV ~~~ we've had some very busy exchanges over the years

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:Perhaps there are only two types of people in the world:
Rigid people who're more right-wing,  and laid back lefties?

The latter are call Californians.  

You have a rather nice bum for a 116 year old man

Raggamuffin wrote:So people start paying 40% at a much lower level than in the US.

And the U.S. has no NHS or social welfare of anything compared to the UK.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:So people start paying 40% at a much lower level than in the US.

And the U.S. has no NHS or social welfare of anything compared to the UK.

But we already pay shit loads more tax than you do... and we already pay shit loads more tax under our conservatives than you are arguing for as an American 'leftie/liberal/democrat'!!!


Look at the post I made about our UK taxes...

We already pay higher rates of income tax here in uk...


Plus we also pay 'national insurance' tax on our earnings too!!!

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-1692508/What-National-Insurance-will-you-pay.html


Then we pay 'council tax' at somewhere between £1000-3000 a year per household depending on area and property value...




And then we pay another 20% tax when we actually want to spend our already taxed earnings... VAT!!!

https://www.gov.uk/vat-rates


On top of all the other heavily loaded tax duty we have on other stuff like petrol, alcohol and cigarettes etc...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/11339882/Osborne-pockets-70pc-of-your-petrol-bill-as-oil-price-continues-to-fall.html

https://www.gov.uk/tax-on-shopping/alcohol-tobacco


And then we also pay extra tax levys on energy to go to subsidies towards funding loss making 'green' energy projects like wind and solar etc...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/energy-bills/11362064/Green-levies-add-112-to-energy-bills-where-does-the-money-go.html

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:So people start paying 40% at a much lower level than in the US.

And the U.S. has no NHS or social welfare of anything compared to the UK.

We also pay National Insurance though, which can be quite complicated. We have Class 1 where employees pay 12% if they earn over £155 per week, and the employer pays around the same amount. Self-employed people pay Class 2 and Class 4. Class 2 is a flat rate of £2.80 per week, and Class 4 is paid on profits over a certain amount - that's another 9%.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:So people start paying 40% at a much lower level than in the US.

And the U.S. has no NHS or social welfare of anything compared to the UK.

But we already pay shit loads more tax than you do... and we already pay shit loads more tax under our conservatives than you are arguing for as an American 'leftie/liberal/democrat'!!!


Look at the post I made about our UK taxes...

I actually haven't made any argument for what the appropriate income tax would be ... but if I had to, I'd keep it where it is in the U.S., but add another tier above the top one that would kick in for salaries above $1 million annually, and tax that at 50 percent.

Not going to weigh in on the British tax system because I have no knowledge of it, as I said before.

You made a post earlier advocating more taxes on those earning around $500,000...


You also continuously bang on about our conservatives being the same as your conservatives...


Truth is that under OUR conservatives we already have a much higher rate of taxes than you are advocating over there as a 'liberal/leftie/democrat'!!!


That makes you more far right than our conservatives!!!

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

The latter are call Californians.  

You have a rather nice bum for a 116 year old man

I'm only 51 now; take a look. The bum is to one of my many admirers.

BTW, she's not showing off. She's goin' surfin'. That's what Californians do.

I hope she doesn't get sand up her bum.

I hear there are several orifices there, should she wipe out. Let's hope she stays in the tube, 5 x 5.

I see the lefties are again stunned into silence by the truth...!!!