Boris's Johnson, Liberalism, The BBC - it's all here..

[onebatmother]

Anyone want to continue the sick-at-heart/flushed-with-triumph thread.

We were just discussing the BBC and liberalism.

"Surely anything that saves the public purse is more just."

No, not at all Swedes, a saving in operating costs by simplifying a policy may well benefit the public purse. But if that simplification involves removing support from the most vulnerable, it is unjust.

no, anything that saves the public purse is not usually more just.

stuffitall - I really am unaware of a "tradition" of working class Tories. I know some that exist, but you have to agree that most poorer people do not vote Conservative. or if they do, they do so for social rather than fiscal reasons.

I meant for the same outcome - if the outcome is the same then surely it's more just to save the public purse. The money could then be spent on something else which would be of further benefit.

Sometimes I've been against policies which favour me over the years and vice versa.

We have a very swollen public sector but I don't see any movement even on the right to want to cut it back to be honest. We seem very much nowadays to have a one party state.

well no again really - redistributive taxation benefits the whole of society, not just the worse off as it decreases inequality (and higher levels of inequalityare associated with other problems, especially higher crime).

also old Tory policies (I can't talk about new ones as they don't seem to have any) tended not to spend the money from the public purse on the worse off much anyway.

Onebat - I don't know why you're assuming you're the only one concerned about the most vulnerable.

Xenia - The Tories do have a policy with regard to the size of the state. It's their only policy.

Swedes, I'm NOT assuming that - why are you assuming that I AM assuming that?

I was initially arguing quite specifically against SWC's quite specific point about how it's easy to have principles if you're wealthy, which seemed to me both unfair to me personally and, well, just not the most obvious way of looking at the Wealth/Socialist venn.

And now I am arguing with you on a point of logic, that because something is of benefit to the country as a whole, does not mean it is not unjust to the poorest of us.

I am assuming nothing, and especially I am assuming nothing about you. I'm sorry you feel that way.

Yes, there is such a tradition and a solid one, in urban and, probably more now, rural areas. If by "social" you mean "values and principles", you could be right. Frugality, old fashioned morality and so on.

In urban areas I believe (my theory only) that in the last decade the traditional working class conservative vote is the one heavily sought by the BNP and such.

If it's being claimed that if you're poor, you vote for what will benefit you, and if only if you're affluent, you will vote for an altruistic benefit, then whoever said that is surely wrong. Don't poor people have principles any more? Surely no one would say that.

actually by social reasons, I meant "string em up / send em home" so yes, possibly the ones the BNP are after.

Thank you stuffitall, that's what I bloody thought!

also that's not what I'm claiming, as I explicitly said in my previous post.

Senora I thought you meant that by social reasons. But that's now.. the traditional working class conservative voter was a different animal.

I don't know who said what so accept you didn't say it. I can't imagine anyone would.

SP - not you! I'm referring to smallwhitecat who addressed the following comment to me : "cklearly you're one of those who can afford to vote labour" and later said "it's a lot easier to be "principled" re taxation when you're well off and it's a relatively low proportion of your income that goes in tax."

This is both insulting and not my experience of the world.

What a very badly-expressed post my last is.

"This is personally insulting, and does not match my experience of the world."

or somthing like that. Anyways, off to make potato soup with a side of coal.

with perhaps some turnip-tops for dessert.

ooh, turnip tops. you lucky thing.

I worked hard for those turnip-tops SP - why should I not enjoy them?

coal

Onebat - "the poor-ER are more likely to hold principles relating to economic justice and the support of the MOST impoverished section of society. Not necessarily because these principles benefit themselves materially, but from a sense of duty to support those who are struggling." So, if I'm poorer than you, am I more likely to hold principles that support the most impoverished? Wven if I vote Tory?

This poor caring for the poor-ER thing is certainly not borne out in charitable [[
www.guardian.co.uk/money/2005/dec/12/voluntarysector.society giving]]

giving

There are bound to be some people like that. It's why the phrase champagne socialist was coined. More than enough money than they know what to do with - happy to pay a load more tax. But I don't think the tories have any tax cutting plans hence my comment that it's a one party state.

Swedes, many people, myself included, hold the political conviction that individual charitable donations are not the best way to support the needy. We believe that this is the duty of the state, both domestically and internationally, through taxation.

I do have direct debits etc, but I resent it and feel that I am contributing to a wider wrong by doing so, in that I am making it possible for the state to continue to ignore its duty. But I am as vulnerable to evidence of the awful contrast between my life, and the lives of many others, as the rest of you.

Blimey, I killed a thread with excessive punctuation.