For all those getting more left-wing as they get older - we are not alone!

[breadandbutterfly]

:)

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/23/miss-britain-of-public-ownership

Lovely article. So nice to know I'm not the only one. :)

I've been leftwing since my nan read me Das Kapital at the kitchen table (and cue...) and Thatch sent in the bully boys to beat the striking miners.

Good to see some seeing the light albeit a bit late in the day.

i'm the same, probably because the older i get, the less i care about what anyone thinks of me!

i feel more confident now, and know i have rights and that others won't automatically give them to me (or anyone else), i seem to need to fight for them and aren't afraid to do so.

i was always 'left', but as i get older i do see so much wrong with the world and feel all should have the right to live, and do so in peace.

I've been left-wing since I went on the CND marches as a child! As I get older my feelings of injustice and unfairness in the system are getting greater. I could not care less what others think, its caring for the vulnerable that makes me this way! If someone does not like it, they can go stuff themselves, they are not worth the energy. Guess getting older can stiffen your resolve!

Getting older for me is like the dance of the seven veils. Every few years another veil is removed and I feel that I can see things a little more clearly - or at least in a different light.

But the thing is, what I see is making me angry and sad, and frustrated that people will keep repeating the same old mistakes and that bullies still rule.

I think that when your own life starts being less difficult - you've fought your own battles - and you've arrived at a stage in life when you look outwards, that can make you more politically engaged, whether right- or left-wing.

You also have a better perspective on life, and faith that we will survive to face another day. Things have been worse and better in the past, and what we have to do is try to learn the right lessons from the past.

What my life has taught me is to have faith in human nature on a micro scale to behave with generosity and honour - even if we become inhuman when we hunt in packs. Don't know if that is right-or left-wing.

As I get older the thing I fail to understand is how "we" ever end up with a Tory government. We know that Labour is far from perfect and has made mistakes but the bottom line is Labour tries to rule for the good of all whereas we know that the Tories will rule on behalf of the elites whilst taking away as many "rights" from everyone else, this cannot be disputed it happens every time the Tories are in power, the reasons or necessity of their actions can be debated but not the fact that they happen.

As for not caring what others think I will admit to being rather vain when it comes to myself, I spend bloody ages at the gym keeping myself to a size 10 and a lot of money on clothes still we all have our weaknessess.

"We know that Labour is far from perfect and has made mistakes but the bottom line is Labour tries to rule for the good of all whereas we know that the Tories will rule on behalf of the elites whilst taking away as many "rights" from everyone else, this cannot be disputed it happens every time the Tories are in power, the reasons or necessity of their actions can be debated but not the fact that they happen." newwave

Well that's just a load of outright bollocks isn't it? How do you square Blair's "forces of conservatism" speech or the policy of letting every man and his dog into the country to, and I quote, "rub the Right?s noses in diversity" with your comment about them ruling for the good of ALL. Those cynical bastards deliberately set out to upset large parts of Middle England for political gain - that's not for the good of all in my book.

As for taking away rights, try reminding yourself who banned fox hunting, winning goldfish at funfairs, buying more than two packets of painkillers, owning a pistol, smoking in public, smoking in your own home if there is a public servant visiting in the near future, drinking alcohol in public, carrying a Swiss army knife if you're younger than 17, working with under 16's without a licence, protesting outside of parliament, putting sweets inside your children's lunch boxes, expressing a dislike of religion, taking a bottle of water onto an aeroplane, photographing a policeman without a permit, wearing a hat in public (numerous ASBO terms), buying or trading fur. They even removed our ancient right to buy eggs with the express intention of throwing them at Halloween time! Surely the state has more important things to do? I could go on... so I will.

They gave the state the right to intercept and read your mail (both postal and electronic), snoop on you and go through your bins, force entry into your house to evaluate if you've had the effrontery to improve your home by more than their arbitrary limit, stop and search anybody walking down the street, impose curfews on children, force religious groups to compromise on their beliefs (see adoption agencies), and to retain your DNA / fingerprints despite EU law saying that this is illegal.

Even our ancient rights weren't safe with those bastards. They did away with trial by jury and habeas corpus. You no longer have the right to remain silent and are expected to incriminate yourself if you are unfortunate to be caught speeding. We now have a double-jeopardy law where the state can try and re-try you for the same crime, with the same evidence, until they get the result which suits their nefarious aims. You can even be extradited to Europe for pursuing perfectly legal activities in this country which are illegal on the continent - see David Irving.

By contrast, I'm struggling to think of any inhibitor to my personal freedom that any conservative government has brought in. But, if as you say, the Tories take away as many rights as possible every time they're in power, perhaps you could name some.

Blimey, I managed a whole rant about how useless Labour were/are without once mentioning 'the economy'.

D'oh!

The right to squat on vacant land?
There's one right gone in the last week.

Becoming more left wing as you get older is possibly a sign you've managed to achieve below average wealth and you therefore want to pool resources.

Young lefties are charming though.

Or it could be that one has observed the injustices heaped upon the less fortunate, and the consistent lack of effort from governernments to remedy the causes of those injustices.

Info: I am also becoming more left wing. I have accumulated more than average wealth for a UK citizen, comfortably so; but I'm not convinced that ir right for me to have done so.

Taghai: If you're feeling guilty about your above average wealth, why not give some wealth back to those who need it more? There are plenty of good causes who are ready and waiting to accept your money and/or time. You don't need the government to facilitate that.

Taghain really are my eyes deceiving me or don't we have squatters in st pauls

If indeed the homes/land is vacant how on earth would any one know you were their it seems to me the issue is when people want their homes back the crustys won't leave

I am a libertarian and fervently so. I believe in a small state, minimal governmental interference and, naturally enough, low taxation. I too see massive injustices in our society and hate seeing ever increasing problems heaped upon those who are less fortunate than me.

I don't believe that the problem is a lack of effort from our government; I think that too much effort has been a large part of the problem.

I believe the welfare state traps people into a life of low-aspirational benefit dependency. In many cases women plan families so that they can maximise benefit claims and get their hands on social housing, the fathers are long gone, and even if they stuck around, may not be working themselves. This compounds a cycle of benefit dependency which is now into its third or fourth generation.

Unemployment itself is a function of the large state. I am the breadwinner in our household but my wife still works part time. The amount that she brings home is well under the amount that I pay in tax. If I paid less tax she wouldn't have to work at all. She could be the primary carer to our child (win for her and our child) and someone currently sat on the dole could have my wife?s job (win for them and for society).

Big governments, especially ones with huge welfare state components, cost lots of money. We are seeing this manifest itself is through our high levels of government debt and the problems that Greece and Italy find themselves in. Please, just as a thought experiment, instead of asking what would happen if the government spent ever more lumps of your money, try thinking what would happen if the government spent less - much, much less - and let you keep the difference to spend as you saw fit.

Nope, we don't have squatters in St Pauls. They are outside the Cathedral, and by permission of the CofE authorities.

There are plenty of laws already to prevent squatting in occupied family houses, but these new laws criminalise other activities too. Previously it was a civil offence - one with a very quick remedy.

People become more right wing as they got older, not left wing! If it's an article in the Guardian I never believe the left wing drivel this paper spouts. Did it take the poll from it's 175.000 daily readership? The Telegraph, (or any other paper for that matter) saying that the people turn more leftie as they get older I would believe, but not them. What about the baby boomers? Most of them are certainly not left wing.

So,according to your post,MrPants,a "woman" whose man is "long gone" should take the job your wife does now so she can stay at home with your child,and thus the "woman" who is alone with her child has to be away from hers?

Mr. Pants. Or should it be Mr.AngryPants. Well done on your post about the Labour parties failings which are many. You did forget the economy as you say, and how the Labour Party bankrupt the country! Oh yes and you forgot schooling, how the schools lost all sense of discipline under the lefties and failed children right, left and centre. Oh yes and how that bastard Ed Balls brought in 'hate crime' in primary and secondary schools and labelled children as young as four as racists. The labour party was the most fascist bunch ever to run this country. Oh yes and you forgot Tony Blair and his illegal wars. The list goes on, if I had to write down all the failings of the Labour party I would be here til next week!!

crazynanna just let me get this clear, are you asking me if I think it's right that my wife should have to go to work because some other womans partner did a runner?

Or to flip the question, why should my wife have to go to work just because she's in a stable relationship?

ironman I'd forgotten about racist four year olds - God they were awful weren't they!

At least a wife with a DH/DP has a choice....lone mothers',it seems,do not.
I am just making that point clear.

I think you've misunderstood my earlier point. I said that if the government wasn't bailing out every Tom, Dick and Harry with my money, my wife wouldn't have to work. In other words, at the moment she has no choice in the matter.

Why the personal circumstances and, in more than the odd case, lifestyle choice of a single parent is my responsibility I would, respectfully, ask you to explain.

There was an interesting piece on R4 Today prog this am. It was about immigrant spouses and families coming into the country (irrelevant to this discussion) and the following statistic came up: at any one time, half of the UK population are net contributors and the other half are net recipients. I thought that was interesting.

It would be interesting to know how the recipient half vote and how the contributor half vote. I suspectif the results were expressed as a Venn diagram we would see a disjoint set Venn.

I expect we would.

However, at any point isn't the same as in an individual's lifetime. For example, young children and most pensioners are probably net recipients. But that's not to say that during their working lives they won't amply pay that back. Or that an ideal society is one where small children and pensioners are forced to work to pay for their upkeep.

So I suspect your figures are a bit misleading - it's not 'half leeches and half selfless angels', as your statistic would suggest. It's probably 90% normal people, 5% sick or disabled and 5% 'happy to live off the state'.

It also ignores those who contribute in non-financial ways eg carers and parents of young children - the economy needs them (paying people to do all that caring would cost a lot more) but their contribution is never valued, maybe because it is never quantified. It also fails to take into account the mismatch between hard work and financial reward - thus the CEO of Llloyds Bank who is currently doing a sickie is presumably earning millions despite this, so counts as a good net contributor (assuming he pays a small prportion in taxes). But a cashier in one of LLoyds branches, on not much more than minimum wage might be classed as a net recipient, because they are paid such shit wages that the taxpayer has to bump this up with tax credits.

'Project Us'

My arse.

I am liking mr Pants very much indeed.

Oh and wondering when Newwave will start frothing at the mouth, shitting frog spawn and begin usual rant about Tory filth.

I am more left wing than ever because the right are just total and utter cunts. End of.

hullygully - made me smile. Obviously I disapprove entirely of your bad language but...

Certainly there are points where the temptation to give up logical argument is strong.