The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
No, it's not an experiment involving David Cameron's face. But something interesting (if you like that sort of thing) just occured to me.
I used to see the Tories as selfish rat-munchers whose politics were all about protecting them and theirs, and sticking two fingers up to those worse off than themselves.
Then I managed to wise up a little, and appreciate the economic benefits of capitalism and competition.
There are also credible philosophical arguments for people standing on their own feet, and not being responsible for everyone else, or expecting everyone else to be responsible for them. Such policies can be based on true philosophy, not just greed and self-preservation.
Finally, doing things that intuitively look 'nice' isn't always in peoples' best interests. Sometimes people need tough love. Thatcher may have been a cold-hearted witch, or she might have been the crowned queen of tough love. (Maybe we'd have to ask the husband about that).
I eventually resolved on what is probably close to the truth - the Tories contain a mix of vile greedy 'haves' who are happy to protect their lot and watch the 'have-nots' suffer, and people who actually believed in the principles of the party as a matter of philosophy.
There's probably even a bit of a blend of the two approaches in many of the party supporters. (Here I exclude the greedies who believe what they want to believe, and look for people with genuine, sincere philosophical toryism).
So, how do you split the noble philosophers from the greedy society-deniers?
I was thinking about inheritance tax. Not just because I'm that exciting, but because I'm studying tax as part of my accountancy qualification at moment.
My personal feeling is that if someone would resolve the problem of people being forced to sell their family homes (and even in existing law, there's precident to be able to do that - spouses (and to a limited extent, other family members) get an equitable interest in the family home on divorce. If they could claim that interest from a deceased person's estate before it was transferred to them through the will, inheritance tax would get a lesser cut, and a person's moral interest in the home would be preserved.)
Aanyway, if someone would sort that out, inheritence tax becomes the best tax ever - the only person who actually had rights of ownership over the property doesn't lose out, they're dead. The beneficiaries of the will, while obviously hoping for all they can get, don't have any 'right' to their slice of anything. If the deceased wanted, he could cut them out entirely. Essentially, these people are independent and expected to stand on their own feet. If they get paid off in the will, that's a bonus for them.
Now this gives us an interesting opportunity - here we get to splice apart peoples' self interest (to receive 'daddy's' estate or pass everything on to the kids) from their philosophical view that people should stand on their own feet, and others are not responsible for them - their fundamental conservatism.
In fact, inheritance tax sets these two values head to head, it diametrically opposes them.
If you really believe in a society where everyone is responsible for themselves, inheritance tax is wonderful - it takes from nobody (living) who has any right over the money, and thus reduces the tax burden society places on everyone else. Thus everyone else is less responsible for society at large.
If the reason you're a Tory is because you want to protect you and yours, you oppose inheritance tax - it hurts your payoff from the rich parents and it hurts your kids' payoff when you shuffle off.
So, what's the overwhelming position of the Tory party on this issue?
Yeah, greedy ***tards.
I used to see the Tories as selfish rat-munchers whose politics were all about protecting them and theirs, and sticking two fingers up to those worse off than themselves.
Then I managed to wise up a little, and appreciate the economic benefits of capitalism and competition.
There are also credible philosophical arguments for people standing on their own feet, and not being responsible for everyone else, or expecting everyone else to be responsible for them. Such policies can be based on true philosophy, not just greed and self-preservation.
Finally, doing things that intuitively look 'nice' isn't always in peoples' best interests. Sometimes people need tough love. Thatcher may have been a cold-hearted witch, or she might have been the crowned queen of tough love. (Maybe we'd have to ask the husband about that).
I eventually resolved on what is probably close to the truth - the Tories contain a mix of vile greedy 'haves' who are happy to protect their lot and watch the 'have-nots' suffer, and people who actually believed in the principles of the party as a matter of philosophy.
There's probably even a bit of a blend of the two approaches in many of the party supporters. (Here I exclude the greedies who believe what they want to believe, and look for people with genuine, sincere philosophical toryism).
So, how do you split the noble philosophers from the greedy society-deniers?
I was thinking about inheritance tax. Not just because I'm that exciting, but because I'm studying tax as part of my accountancy qualification at moment.
My personal feeling is that if someone would resolve the problem of people being forced to sell their family homes (and even in existing law, there's precident to be able to do that - spouses (and to a limited extent, other family members) get an equitable interest in the family home on divorce. If they could claim that interest from a deceased person's estate before it was transferred to them through the will, inheritance tax would get a lesser cut, and a person's moral interest in the home would be preserved.)
Aanyway, if someone would sort that out, inheritence tax becomes the best tax ever - the only person who actually had rights of ownership over the property doesn't lose out, they're dead. The beneficiaries of the will, while obviously hoping for all they can get, don't have any 'right' to their slice of anything. If the deceased wanted, he could cut them out entirely. Essentially, these people are independent and expected to stand on their own feet. If they get paid off in the will, that's a bonus for them.
Now this gives us an interesting opportunity - here we get to splice apart peoples' self interest (to receive 'daddy's' estate or pass everything on to the kids) from their philosophical view that people should stand on their own feet, and others are not responsible for them - their fundamental conservatism.
In fact, inheritance tax sets these two values head to head, it diametrically opposes them.
If you really believe in a society where everyone is responsible for themselves, inheritance tax is wonderful - it takes from nobody (living) who has any right over the money, and thus reduces the tax burden society places on everyone else. Thus everyone else is less responsible for society at large.
If the reason you're a Tory is because you want to protect you and yours, you oppose inheritance tax - it hurts your payoff from the rich parents and it hurts your kids' payoff when you shuffle off.
So, what's the overwhelming position of the Tory party on this issue?
Yeah, greedy ***tards.
Page:
Well, in any election, the best way to gain votes is by going for the swing voters, as of course it's much easier to change their minds - and by going towards the centre, the major parties will both be trying to get votes on issues a lot of people can relate to, instead of more ideologically-based ones. Or so at least is the theory.
I've now seen that the Conservatives have decided to support the City academy scheme, in favour of a larger promotion of Grammar Schools; yet another move to get votes, seemingly, yet I guess that it's at least a move to improve education in such areas. I'll say this, though; yes, grammar schooling is selective. But it produces some damn intelligent people.
I've now seen that the Conservatives have decided to support the City academy scheme, in favour of a larger promotion of Grammar Schools; yet another move to get votes, seemingly, yet I guess that it's at least a move to improve education in such areas. I'll say this, though; yes, grammar schooling is selective. But it produces some damn intelligent people.
Red or blue. Hmm, decisions, decisions. The next General Election may as well be decided by a boxing match, because let's face it, whoever gets in will roughly be the same party, in that Thatcherism has triumphed and is steering British politics. In the red corner, Gordon was-once-a-socialist-but-not-anymore Brown, in the blue corner, David I'm-a-toff-but-don't-tell-anyone Cameron. Seconds out, fight. Pick your favourite bruiser, but does matter anymore. Of course not. The middle ground is all, and they'll all linger there because they have to.
Unfortunately, the underlying purpose of politics, which is to coerce the resident populous into giving you power, means that the type of person naturally attracted to the profession should be automatically banned from entering into it.
Hence my view of the Tories differs little from any other political party in that I consider them wholly untrustworthy, and ill-equipped to ably command the nation without using the chance to further their own agenda, rather than serve the public who voted for them.
Hence my view of the Tories differs little from any other political party in that I consider them wholly untrustworthy, and ill-equipped to ably command the nation without using the chance to further their own agenda, rather than serve the public who voted for them.
Liar!
Mumbai Duck wrote:
> Even if I do strenuously oppose everything you believe in :^D
Well, there's politics for you. If it wasn't so adversarial, nothing would ever get scrutinised and there would be all sorts of chaos!
> Even if I do strenuously oppose everything you believe in :^D
Well, there's politics for you. If it wasn't so adversarial, nothing would ever get scrutinised and there would be all sorts of chaos!
Der Nazi wrote:
> But I've only been studying Politics for a
> short period of time, and been interested in it for not much
> longer, so obviously I haven't got the experience or knowledge
> that you guys seem to, maybe I'm suffering from a minor case of
> what Keith Richards once referred to as "Idealistic Teenage
> Bull***t".
I feel you're overly modest Der. You're obviously reasonably knowledgeable and seem far too rational and clear-headed be a Screaming BelldandyTM.
Even if I do strenuously oppose everything you believe in :^D
> But I've only been studying Politics for a
> short period of time, and been interested in it for not much
> longer, so obviously I haven't got the experience or knowledge
> that you guys seem to, maybe I'm suffering from a minor case of
> what Keith Richards once referred to as "Idealistic Teenage
> Bull***t".
I feel you're overly modest Der. You're obviously reasonably knowledgeable and seem far too rational and clear-headed be a Screaming BelldandyTM.
Even if I do strenuously oppose everything you believe in :^D
I'm not sure who I'd like to see leading Labour, though I personally think David Milliband is the lesser of two evils when compared to Brown, though he is of course much less experienced as a politician. As far as I'm concerned, David Davies would be a better Conservative leader, and Simon Hughes would probably do more for the Lib Dems than Ming Campbell.
Yeah, the Tories have a real PR monster. But I reckon some of their current (and hell, even typical policies) may perform better than Labour's. But I've only been studying Politics for a short period of time, and been interested in it for not much longer, so obviously I haven't got the experience or knowledge that you guys seem to, maybe I'm suffering from a minor case of what Keith Richards once referred to as "Idealistic Teenage Bull***t".
Neither of the main parties is perfect, but to be perfectly honest, I'd prefer to see a Conservative government after the next General Election, although if it isn't one holding a decent majority, that would make things rather problematic.
Yeah, the Tories have a real PR monster. But I reckon some of their current (and hell, even typical policies) may perform better than Labour's. But I've only been studying Politics for a short period of time, and been interested in it for not much longer, so obviously I haven't got the experience or knowledge that you guys seem to, maybe I'm suffering from a minor case of what Keith Richards once referred to as "Idealistic Teenage Bull***t".
Neither of the main parties is perfect, but to be perfectly honest, I'd prefer to see a Conservative government after the next General Election, although if it isn't one holding a decent majority, that would make things rather problematic.
I have no idea how the next one's going to go.
My main objection to cameron, aside from disagreeing with his party's actual policies, is that he's such a slimey lying gimp.
He came to power claiming to do 'nice' non-sleaze-mongering politics. Then at his conference he has his silver-haired sidekick do all the sleaze-mongering for him. That's not valid.
More recently he's been taking cheap personal insults at Brown.
The guy's a completely untrustworthy wang.
It's not really a surprise, but it's still a label he deserves.
The problem is, while Brown may have a more dignified image, we've all seen the Tony PR-monster.
I still find it hard to hate the guy on an emotional level, despite everything I know on a rational level, and I feel many others are the same. This is because he's PR'd and NLP'd his way through office so successfully.
It seems reasonable to assume Brown is on the same psychological assault, which means my absence of a sense of hostility towards him is completely untrustworthy.
I have no idea who'll win next time, but I'm of the opinion that I should hate the idea of either of them ruling the country.
My main objection to cameron, aside from disagreeing with his party's actual policies, is that he's such a slimey lying gimp.
He came to power claiming to do 'nice' non-sleaze-mongering politics. Then at his conference he has his silver-haired sidekick do all the sleaze-mongering for him. That's not valid.
More recently he's been taking cheap personal insults at Brown.
The guy's a completely untrustworthy wang.
It's not really a surprise, but it's still a label he deserves.
The problem is, while Brown may have a more dignified image, we've all seen the Tony PR-monster.
I still find it hard to hate the guy on an emotional level, despite everything I know on a rational level, and I feel many others are the same. This is because he's PR'd and NLP'd his way through office so successfully.
It seems reasonable to assume Brown is on the same psychological assault, which means my absence of a sense of hostility towards him is completely untrustworthy.
I have no idea who'll win next time, but I'm of the opinion that I should hate the idea of either of them ruling the country.
It's generally the same people underneath and it seems a lot of voters aren't fooled or desperate enough to give those faceless people (who've been there for 20 years) another chance.
Plus the whole 'Tax Cut' thing's been stolen and that was their main gimmic.
Plus the whole 'Tax Cut' thing's been stolen and that was their main gimmic.
There are several factions within the party; traditionalists, Thatcherites and David Cameron's more cuddly bunch, so their views do vary; I personally do tend to side with them on many issues, however.
Yeah, sometimes their policies can come accross as slightly harsh, but in my opinion thier economic policies do tend to make a lot of sense, especially the opposition to the ridiculous levels of inheritance tax that Gordon Brown and chums have come up with. Opposition to the government's reliance on borrowed money, the "Nanny-State" culture, and also Quangos and other often pointless drains on resources (Why is there a British Potato Council, and how does its chairman merit a salary of £60,000 for 3 days' work a week?) I all agree with.
Although I would like to see some tax cuts (Despite the fact I am only employed part-time, i'd rather not end up paying ridiculous amounts soon), I'm not so sure whether introducing a large number would do so much for public spending... that said, mismanagement and the use of targets by the Labour government are probably as much to blame as poor funding. And I don't like the way in which the military is allowed to become a laughing stock... the government's penny-pinching has done it no good, though I'm far from being really interested in that. And let's not go into the debacle of tax credits. So I largely side with the Conservatives. When a party has dominated politics for so long, its influence does start to unravel... Labour seem to be starting to go where the Tories went in the 90s.
And David Davis would have been a much better Conservative leader, he's more convincing than Cameron and has stronger policy stances. But Cameron's more likely to win an election and certainly a more dynamic character.
I've probably said too much, but I guess there's plenty here for people to have a good criticism of me, for largely siding with them. But I'm not convinced enough to have become a member, that's very much for sure.
Yeah, sometimes their policies can come accross as slightly harsh, but in my opinion thier economic policies do tend to make a lot of sense, especially the opposition to the ridiculous levels of inheritance tax that Gordon Brown and chums have come up with. Opposition to the government's reliance on borrowed money, the "Nanny-State" culture, and also Quangos and other often pointless drains on resources (Why is there a British Potato Council, and how does its chairman merit a salary of £60,000 for 3 days' work a week?) I all agree with.
Although I would like to see some tax cuts (Despite the fact I am only employed part-time, i'd rather not end up paying ridiculous amounts soon), I'm not so sure whether introducing a large number would do so much for public spending... that said, mismanagement and the use of targets by the Labour government are probably as much to blame as poor funding. And I don't like the way in which the military is allowed to become a laughing stock... the government's penny-pinching has done it no good, though I'm far from being really interested in that. And let's not go into the debacle of tax credits. So I largely side with the Conservatives. When a party has dominated politics for so long, its influence does start to unravel... Labour seem to be starting to go where the Tories went in the 90s.
And David Davis would have been a much better Conservative leader, he's more convincing than Cameron and has stronger policy stances. But Cameron's more likely to win an election and certainly a more dynamic character.
I've probably said too much, but I guess there's plenty here for people to have a good criticism of me, for largely siding with them. But I'm not convinced enough to have become a member, that's very much for sure.
Page: