Does anyone actually back the government these days?(106 Posts)
Every day I'm reading something negative about the government whether its sanctions, fucked up benefits, dla being cut, nhs suffering, the economy, schools, child benefit cuts, redundancies, and now peado's in the ranks. I'm betting people wish they hadn't rage voted now, but I'm just curious to see if there are actually people who still like their policies?
flatpackhamster, yes, be angry at rich people
it may help to think of the country as being run by and for rich people. sometimes we call them labour, sometimed we call them tory. they wear different colours to give an illusion of choice. there is also a small difference in policies, and imo the conservatives could do with rrflecting a bit more on the dangers of leaving the majority with no money and no stake in society.
This year the welfare bill is £200Bn. NHS costs £120Bn. Education £95Bn.
Rich people don't use any of those things. They're not the ones forcing my taxes up. Evil socialists force my taxes up.
I am right Hamster, your income is falling, that is what I said was it not?
Labour is no longer a socialist party, I can't imagine why you think they are, could you explain why you think they are socialist? I agree with merci, they are all puppets to the corps and the rich, they just wear different coloured ties.
I am self employed too and I agree with you about tax ( only so far as middle earners pay far too much) but I am a socialist, in terms of minimising the exploitation of workers and saving the capitalists the trouble of digging the grave for capitalism I would suggest a return to "big" government of the kind we had btw 1945-1979 when the debt to GDP ratio fell during that time and the income gap between rich and poor was 15:1, when we had very low levels of unemployment and businesses were still investing because there was demand for goods and services. Whilst the government levied heavy taxes on the rich and the corporations, working people neither paid heavy taxes or needed welfare to top up their income. We had rising prosperity for all, one adult wage could keep a family and we had social mobility.
Being angry with the poor and low waged workers, the sick and disabled and children who receive state education, pensioners who are sick and frail or the millions of young people who can no longer afford to train or study and the millions who now find themselves either unemployed or underemployed is evil.
Read up about Maggie, neo-liberalisation of the markets, the project to change the way people think. It started in the 50's, long before Maggie came to power. Why? because after Roosevelt levied 95% tax _on the rich_ they started their fight back, the Mont Pelerin Society was founded in 1947 by Friedrich Hayek and he found plenty of support from rich industrialists.
You sound very embittered Hamster and as is the case with the brainwashed army of capitalism apologists, self centred and selfish.
^This year the welfare bill is £200Bn. NHS costs £120Bn. Education £95Bn.
Rich people don't use any of those things. They're not the ones forcing my taxes up. Evil socialists force my taxes up.^
Actually healthcare is considered to be a luxury good by economists. As your income rises your demand for healthcare (especially publicly funded healthcare) rises. The richest income groups demand and consume healthcare more than the poorest income groups do.
I'd love to see the evidence to back that claim up.
Everything I've read suggests that the opposite is true. Those who have money are generally healthier because they have more options. They can eat better quality food, pay for gym memberships and are much less likely to smoke.
In fact I just found this article from the Guardian which is usually pretty left leaning and even they agree! Link
I didn't say anything about the state of health of those using healthcare. Yes, the wealthy are more likely to enjoy better health than lower income groups. However, they consume a greater amount of healthcare resources despite their better health 'status'. Will provide links when not on phone for you niceguy.
Yep, I back the government.
Knocking them for being out of touch toffs is just lazy...you probably wouldn't be so rude and call them names if they had a working class background if that differed from your own. And OP, as for the paedo comment, that probably is libellous.
Why is this term "idealogy" used as an insult?
Why is "idealogical cuts" considered so awful, yet "idealogical profligacy" is wonderful? :s
Wrt healthcare, I live in The Netherlands where we are legally required to puchase our own insurance. People on lower incomes receive subsidies to do so, nonetheless it must be paid and the more wealthy pay more for their premiums AND of course contribute more via NI type payments.
(The healthcare provided is vastly superior to the NHS - not wanting a debate but put it this way, I have a sore neck so called a chiropractor monday, had an appointment yesterday and it cost me 6 euros. I digress. )
It was revealed this week (by the government body CPB (http://www.cpb.nl/persbericht/3212718/solidariteit-in-de-zorg-onder-druk))that the more wealthy do in fact use all health services less than the lower-incomed population and that they take less from the system.
We knock them as being toffs but sajid Javid who was on the news last night went to a comp in Bradford, Ian Duncan Smith went to my old comp (secondary modern when he was there) before going to naval school. Steve Webb went to a comp in Birmingham. William Hague was state educated and therefore people talk about the Toffs because of Cameron, Clegg and Osborne. Fairly comparable with Labour under Blair. The Millibands did go to a comp but only because if their fathers principles not through lack of money. To be honest I would have a lot more respect for Labour if David and not Ed was the leader. David Millibands appears to be an intelligent honest leader.
Studied Politics in the 80's and would agree that generally all parties continue the similar politics no matter which colour. Privatisation process started before Thatcher and was also an international theme at the time. Labour continued to privatise health and education services. They did not return to public services completely. They needed the money as does the current govt. in most of Europe health services are paid by employers and employees and would echo the comments by the poster in the Netherlands, having lived in Austria.
It may be true that the wealthier use more healthcare as generally the wealthier you are the longer you live and life expectancy in wealthier areas is much higher compared to more deprived areas so just for the sheer length of life you would expect more and certainly when I went to uni on a full grant, higher education was more used by the wealthy although not pre-higher education because in those days very few of the wealthy used state schools as much as they do today. However it is important that this argument hinges in the fact that they probably pay prportionately more than they take out in terms of healthcare abd education although no stats to hand to back this up just tax and Ni revenues.
Greg Mankiw's much simpler explanation here Niceguy.
Mamma that article just talks about the growth of healthcare, the wealthier the nation becomes which would be in part down to money spent on research and therefore new solutions plus people loving longer hence the need for solutions. It does not provide evidence that the wealthier people in those nations use healthcare more.
Losingtrust the article states that healthcare has an income elasticity of demand of greater than 1 (luxury good), in other words as your income rises your demand for healthcare rises. Thus, the richer you are the greater your demand for healthcare.
I'm sure there are various meta-regressions which attempt to isolate the impact on various sub-/socio-economic groups but my econometrics is a bit too rusty to start looking into this now!
I think the people that sneer at the Tories as toffs are probably the same characters who sneered at Thatcher as a grocer's daughter and Major as the son of a music hall performer. In other words Tories get sneered at, full stop by left wingers because sneer is their default mode.
Wonder what sneer they would have had to resort to if David Davis had won the leadership role instead of Cameron considering he was brought up in a slum flat and then on a council estate?
Left wingers made not have liked Tony Blair but I don't remember too much sneering about him as a toff, even though he went to Fettes, the Scottish equivalent of Eton.
You might want to read what you have written again Grimble. You have contradicted yourself.
If lefties sneer at Grocer's daughters why would they not sneer at Davis?
I don't sneer at Tories but then I am not a Turkey voting for Christmas either, Davis is acting against his own class interests.
If lefties sneer at Grocer's daughters why would they not sneer at Davis?
No contradiction: Of course they would. I was wondering what sneer they would come up with e.g. "slum boy" "council house kid'?
I was making the point that lefties like to sneer at Tories whatever their background. They simply can't help it.
PS - given your last comment, a suitable sneer might be "class traitor"?
I'm not sneering, it's an observation, or are we now not allowed to think?
I'm not very interested in politics because it isn't politics that makes the wheels turn but economics. All three major parties are liberal free market champions and puppets to industry. I didn't like Blair. I had plenty to say about the last labour government. Saying all lefties are sneering inverse snobs is lazy and untrue.
I didn't say you were sneering Mini. I suggested that given your last comment a suitable sneer might be "class traitor". I think it has a certain ring about it
OK, maybe not all lefties - not that I used the word all. It just feels that way when you read the threads on MN. It seems to be turning into the Labour party at prayer, just like it used to be said that the Church of England was the Tory party at prayer.
I know it's bad form to quote other threads where I have seen words like evil, hateful, nasty, toffs etc. so I will stick to just this thread where we can read Tory scum and sociopathic scum used as descriptors.
And I am not even right wing.....you don't have to be right wing to object to vilification and sneering as a default form of description and debate. if I am lazy and untruthful I wonder what that makes those left wingers on here who come out with words like scum etc.?
I don't like sneering. What is interesting to me about politics at the moment is that the major three are all the same. It confuses people It's interesting to note that we are divided and invited to attack the working poor, sick, disabled and unemployed as scroungers but the rich and the political elite are not divided are they? they all stand for the same thing, they have class consciousness and know how to further their own collective interests.....
An example of this today is that Radio 4 announce that the condems are looking at including a policy in their manifesto for next term that will include privatising schools. When you look behind this, you discover that the law to allow this was passed under labour. If I ever vote again, I will probably just pick the bunch wearing the nicest coloured ties it won't make any difference.
condems=Conservative policy. See how easy it is to confuse them.
'If I ever vote again, I will probably just pick the bunch wearing the nicest coloured ties it won't make any difference.'
UKIP may well make a big difference.
Anyone who voted the Tories into power should be supporting them,as they are acting exactly how Tories always act.
UKIP are just going to make things even more confusing Claig. No party is likely to get a majority. The more parties you add to the mix and we'll have Greece.
Join the discussion
Please login first.