The tory jackboot strikes again..

[BillyStubbsTears]

i_ateallthepies wrote:

BillyStubbsTears wrote:

The Chinese believe that choosing your political leaders is a far too important job to leave to people who have no interest in or connection with the whole issue. Maybe they are right?

Communist sympathiser Billy?

I bet the majority of Chinese people would love the chance to choose their political leaders.

Irony mate. Irony.

Or, rather, a spur for discussion. After all, isn't democracy undervalued when so many people take pride in either their ignorance of politics, or their cynical \" they're all in it for themselves\" attitude. What's the point of democracy if millions of people decide to vote for Nick Clegg because ge looked good on telly and remembered people's names?

[not on facebook]

this is where we have done full cirlce  and are now back to
my first point about my first vote BST.

'my vote went on my first impressions'

and the first impression i was getting from mr foot, wrong or right was going right against what i just had been taught
at school.

to put it as basic as possible,they told you at school again and again to look smart for any job interview,as the first impressions could be your make or break.

then i go to vote and with the above still in mind i could just not picture mr foot or labour running the country,it was going against what i had been told at school.

the choicde for me came down to my first impressions.

was i wrong,well if i knew then what i know today i be honest
and say i would not vote conserative and at the same time i would not vote labour or liberal.

maybe if i lived in china i might be begging to be able to vote that is a fair point,but i dont and as mike-f said whoever is in its the choice of two evils.

my policy then for the record is not to vote,that suits me
and what other people do is their choice,but if you dont vote
then from my book you cant really complain about what the government is doing or not since you waved that action due to your lack of vote.

true to my word i have never complained about how the country is run and who,i might have a opinion and maybe
one day i will feal the need to vote.

i watched and listened to all partys in the last election daily, and if i was back in the uk i still feal i would have passed on my right to vote.

[BobG]

Billy wrote

\"Some of the most intelligent people I've ever met have been Tory voters. But they understood exactly what it was that the Tory party was wanting to achieve. What I despair of is people who choose their political allegiance with little understanding of the poltical philosophy or history underpinning the party they vote for.

I've yet to read anything you've written on here that gives any indication that you are in the first category. Prove me wrong\".

Hear bloody hear - to all of that. I have Tory voting friends. One of my three best mates is a Tory Councillor and a failed candidate for election on the Tory ticket. He is my partner in a housing paratnership. But he knows what he stands for and why. I don't agree with him, but then, he doesn't agree with me. But one thing is for sure, he understands full well just who he represents and why. So at least he's honest. Unlike the many, manay folk, on here and elsewhere, who can't be arsed to find out even the basics before they spout off rubbish inherited with their genes. God gave us all a brain. It's supposed to be used occasionally. The conclusions you come to with that use are your business. You can be to the right of Attila the Hun for all I care - but fcuking well think about why you take that position and what you stand for! That way you can at least demonstrate some intellectual honesty and explain what your objectives, hopes and reasons are. Through reasoned logic you might actually persuade some folk to agree with you.  But the intellectual masturbation that, Rigo, I'm afraid you have displayed every single time you have ever contributed to a political discussion will never convince anybody.

Cheers

BobG

[MrFrost]

BobG wrote:

Billy wrote

\"Some of the most intelligent people I've ever met have been Tory voters. But they understood exactly what it was that the Tory party was wanting to achieve. What I despair of is people who choose their political allegiance with little understanding of the poltical philosophy or history underpinning the party they vote for.

I've yet to read anything you've written on here that gives any indication that you are in the first category. Prove me wrong\".

Hear bloody hear - to all of that. I have Tory voting friends. One of my three best mates is a Tory Councillor and a failed candidate for election on the Tory ticket. He is my partner in a housing paratnership. But he knows what he stands for and why. I don't agree with him, but then, he doesn't agree with me. But one thing is for sure, he understands full well just who he represents and why. So at least he's honest. Unlike the many, manay folk, on here and elsewhere, who can't be arsed to find out even the basics before they spout off rubbish inherited with their genes. God gave us all a brain. It's supposed to be used occasionally. The conclusions you come to with that use are your business. You can be to the right of Attila the Hun for all I care - but fcuking well think about why you take that position and what you stand for! That way you can at least demonstrate some intellectual honesty and explain what your objectives, hopes and reasons are. Through reasoned logic you might actually persuade some folk to agree with you.  But the intellectual masturbation that, Rigo, I'm afraid you have displayed every single time you have ever contributed to a political discussion will never convince anybody.

Cheers

BobG

In the same argument Bob, would you say alot of the Labour voters also just spout crap or do they have better political knowledge, or is voting Labour because of what the Tories did round here a good enough reason?

Or should voters only be people with an in depth knowledge of politics?

God did give us all a brain, and I use it. Maybe politics isn't my bag, however you are obviously clued up on it Bob.

[CusworthRovers]

I think the majority in this country have limited knowledge on political or social issues, and I include myself on this. With limited knowledge you tend to just consider your own needs, as that is the easiest option.

To have great knowledge is to have great power.



As an aside, I would never dream or hear of anyone calling me middle class. I am working class. I was brought up working class. I have by far an improved lifestyle than I was brought up with, but I am still working class. IMO I would say all on here are and most of this country are bar the 5% upper class and an unknown percentage of the under working class.

[Filo]

CusworthRovers wrote:

I think the majority in this country have limited knowledge on political or social issues, and I include myself on this. With limited knowledge you tend to just consider your own needs, as that is the easiest option.

To have great knowledge is to have great power.



As an aside, I would never dream or hear of anyone calling me middle class. I am working class. I was brought up working class. I have by far an improved lifestyle than I was brought up with, but I am still working class. IMO I would say all on here are and most of this country are bar the 5% upper class and an unknown percentage of the under working class.

When you started standing upright and ventured out of your caves, and seeing how the Posh people lived in Stainy?

[Sheepskin Stu]

CusworthRovers wrote:

As an aside, I would never dream or hear of anyone calling me middle class. I am working class. I was brought up working class. I have by far an improved lifestyle than I was brought up with, but I am still working class. IMO I would say all on here are and most of this country are bar the 5% upper class and an unknown percentage of the under working class.

It's also interesting that you Cussy consider yourself working class even though most folk would probably think of you as middle class. (I know who are but I don't think we've met) Do you think that your class is fixed by your ancestry and therefore \"social mobility\" doesn't exist? My family is traditionally working class and I do a job that fits in to that. However, I have many friends who have top professional careers but I'm able to maintain those friendships even though my social status is low. Therefore what defines class and does it still exist in our globalised society?

[Mike_F]

Sheepskin Stu wrote:

It's interesting that you consider yourself to be middle class Mike. On what criteria have you reached that decision? I don't have any formal qualifications to speak of and do a manual job which is mundane and low paid. I was last unemployed over 15 years ago therefore I have paid taxes like you. I think it's too easy to fall back on outdated stereotypes. I really don't buy this \"oh but what about the poor middle classes\" routine. Nothing personal obviously,  Michael.  

When pushed to declare what class I assume myself to be in I have always thought of myself as lower middle class. When I was a kid, money was very tight with my Mum not working until I was about six and even then only part-time for many years but we had our own (mortgaged) house whilst a lot of my schoolfriends were from the council estate over the road. If they were working class then I was evidently not quite the same (although no better or worse for it). They were invariably the ones with the shiny new bikes, Nike trainers and top-end Scalextrics which my family could never afford due to the mortgage and car (Cortina 1.6GL) expenses. I suppose a bit of that envy from my early formative years has shaped my core values to this day.

When I was studying for my A-Levels at Danum and an influx of better-heeled teens from places like Barnborough, High Melton and the like turned up at my school I went through  a period of reverse snobbery - probably feeling my territory threatened by their airs and graces and I considered myself more working class than middle class but it was only a phase really. Since then I slept and drank my way through university and have ended up in a string of reasonably senior sales roles that I ought to have achieved more in had I a better work ethic. I have never come anywhere close to fulfilling my potential and therefore don't earn anywhere near what I probably ought to. This is mostly due to my predominantly laid-back character. I don't have a problem with this though as I truly believe that we live in a meritocratic society and if I had the inclination to pull my finger out I could achieve a lot more. But I can't be arsed and I'm generally happy so why rock the boat?!

I now realise that I have digressed from the point somewhat but this has been quite cathartic so thank you for prompting me, Stu. Much love.  B)

[RobTheRover]

Sheepskin Stu wrote:

I have many friends who have top professional careers but I'm able to maintain those friendships even though my social status is low.

Are you Baldrick?

Sorry, I though we were playing Guess Who!

[BillyStubbsTears]

BobG wrote:

Billy wrote

\"Some of the most intelligent people I've ever met have been Tory voters. But they understood exactly what it was that the Tory party was wanting to achieve. What I despair of is people who choose their political allegiance with little understanding of the poltical philosophy or history underpinning the party they vote for.

I've yet to read anything you've written on here that gives any indication that you are in the first category. Prove me wrong\".

Hear bloody hear - to all of that. I have Tory voting friends. One of my three best mates is a Tory Councillor and a failed candidate for election on the Tory ticket. He is my partner in a housing paratnership. But he knows what he stands for and why. I don't agree with him, but then, he doesn't agree with me. But one thing is for sure, he understands full well just who he represents and why. So at least he's honest. Unlike the many, manay folk, on here and elsewhere, who can't be arsed to find out even the basics before they spout off rubbish inherited with their genes. God gave us all a brain. It's supposed to be used occasionally. The conclusions you come to with that use are your business. You can be to the right of Attila the Hun for all I care - but fcuking well think about why you take that position and what you stand for! That way you can at least demonstrate some intellectual honesty and explain what your objectives, hopes and reasons are. Through reasoned logic you might actually persuade some folk to agree with you.  But the intellectual masturbation that, Rigo, I'm afraid you have displayed every single time you have ever contributed to a political discussion will never convince anybody.

Cheers

BobG

Gotcha!

I were only joking when I said I had some Tory mates. I wouldn't pass one without throttling the t**t. I was just doing it to smoke out the appeasers in a typically inter-necine leftist way. That's YOU down in the little red book for a bullet on Day 1 of Year Zero Bob!

But seriously folks, one of the things I love about this forum is that it's a 21st Century cyber version of Denaby Miners' Welfare. When I were a callow youth, if I spouted some ill-thought out comment about the world, some grizzled old pitman would rip me apart with a rapier of worldly-wise wit, sarcasm and vernacular philosophy. And a great benefit to my moral and intellectual development it was too. I vividly remember waxing lyrical about the first Space Shuttle launch one Sunday dinner time in the tap side, only for one old lag to mutter into his beer, \"Aye! Grand in it? An warra bart them poor buggers in India what's got no snap?\" As succinct a comment on geo-political strategic issues as you'd here in the debating room of the Oxford Union.

One of the side effects of Maggie's industrial policy is that we have a bigger division these days between the young gobshites and the old lags who have been round the block a few times. There's thankfully a few on here who help in a little way to redress the balance.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Mike_F wrote:

the mortgage and car (Cortina 1.6GL) expenses.

Middle Class?

Jesus wept, you'd have been looked at as coming from the landed gentry when I were at school!

[Mike_F]

BillyStubbsTears wrote:I vividly remember waxing lyrical about the first Space Shuttle launch one Sunday dinner time in the tap side, only for one old lag to mutter into his beer, \"Aye! Grand in it? An warra bart them poor buggers in India what's got no snap?\" As succinct a comment on geo-political strategic issues as you'd here in the debating room of the Oxford Union.[/quote]

One man's succint comment on geo-political strategic issues is another man's cantankerous, irrelevant and counter-constructive moan.

What's that you're doing there, Mr. Shakespeare, writing another sodding play for folk to gawp at. Methinks your time would be more wisely invested in producing discourse on the propensity of the moors to use religion as a tool for radicalisation!

[Jonathan]

I thought this was an interesting take on meritocracy (from David Mitchell, of That Mitchell and Webb Look, writing in The Observer), especially as it doesn't just conform to the stereotype that if you earn a good salary in the public sector you are stealing a living.

Who's the richest person in the world?\" That's a question I often asked as a small child. Do children ask that because so many of the stories they get read involve gold? Maybe it's peculiar to my generation who were learning our times tables as Thatcher came to power. Or maybe I was an unusually mercenary little shit. I don't think so, though. In the good times, we admire people with money; in the bad, we resent them, but they're always interesting.

I wanted the richest person in the world to be the Queen. It suited my juvenile sense of fairy-tale hierarchy. To a child's mind, a world where a nerdy American in a jumper and glasses or a podgy Saudi in a sheet can outspend the posh lady in the big gold coach wearing the big gold hat has gone mad.

Similarly, small children might expect the answer to the question: \"Who gets paid the most?\" to be: \"The prime minister.\" The prime minister is in charge so it might seem logical that \"the prime minister's salary\" means the same as \"the most amount of money imaginable\" and that anyone being paid more than that is an evil usurper of the Queen's treasure. In stories, such villains, grand viziers and the like, get punished. They're humiliated and made to give the money back. A child might even contemplate, in moments of post-sugar binge viciousness, chopping their heads off.

But small children are idiots. As each human foetus sloshes into the world, wailing and weeing, unable to walk, crawl, speak or even sit – a helpless lump of ignorant self-interest – society takes a deep breath because, in just 18 years' time, that blob will be allowed to vote. The professionals whose job it is to get them up to speed are called teachers and last week we learned that one of them is paid more than the prime minister.

It's a credit to the children and parents at Mark Elms's school that they still don't want to chop his head off. In general, they seem to think that he's very good at his job and deserves the money. You don't expect primary-school headmasters to be paid that much but he's brilliant and, to borrow a phrase from the private sector, you get what you pay for. But that's not everyone's view. Many are disgusted by the news that, contrary to our expectations, at least one teacher has a high salary.

How deeply depressing. This isn't some risibly job-titled council functionary – a \"deputy manager of procurement services\", a \"bureaucracy maximisation taskforce co-chair\" or a \"litter tsar\", one of those people responsible for all the \"waste\" we're asked to believe that the previous administration encouraged in direct defiance of its own interests. This guy runs a primary school in a grim area that was as crap as you'd expect when he took it over and has got vastly better under his leadership, to the immense benefit of his hundreds of pupils and their families. Why can't we treat him like the high-flyer his CV proclaims him to be?

I think most people are comfortable with the idea that if you're a brilliant doctor, surgeon or barrister, you'll get quite rich – nearly as rich as a second-rate management consultant or an inept banker. But the fact that we react so differently to a teacher's pay approaching that level gives the lie to our vociferous assertions that we think teaching is an important job. We don't think it's important, we think it's badly paid. And when we discover an instance where it isn't, it makes us angry, not glad.

It even makes the unions representing other teachers angry because, apparently despairing of ever seriously improving their own members' pay, they've focused on dragging headteachers down into the same under-remunerated swamp. One example is cited of a teacher's career that has involved success, fulfilment and money – a beacon of hope to talented graduates with a vocation to teach but who fear it would leave them absurdly less well-off than their peers in other jobs – and the very unions representing that profession want it snuffed out, so that teaching remains the preserve of the self-sacrificing or the mediocre.

The government agrees because this is the public sector which, according to Tory orthodoxy, is inevitably inefficient. The country must live within its means and so can't pay public sector wastrels at the same rate as their private sector equivalents, even though the main cause of those means becoming so straitened was the credit crisis-induced recession, a disaster brought on by monumental private sector inefficiency – if inefficiency is a sufficient word to cover that thoughtless spiral of hedonistic incompetence for which no proportionate retribution has been exacted.

Nevertheless, to this government, the private sector is automatically better. To suggest otherwise is heresy. That's why they're restructuring the NHS, in a way that will encourage more private enterprise, three weeks after the Commonwealth Fund declared it the most efficient health service out of the seven it had studied – that's ahead of Germany, Australia, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Canada and the United States, all systems with more private sector involvement. The NHS might well be, in terms of the results it delivers with the money it gets, the most efficient health service on earth. And yet the Tories are convinced that hasty and sweeping organisational reforms will make it even more so.

Meanwhile, paying higher salaries to get more able employees is, in their view, a technique that only works in the private sector. They've arbitrarily decided that it's a scandal if any public servant is paid more than the prime minister. But the prime minister's salary has always been incredibly low considering the importance of the job. To most prime ministers, the pay is irrelevant; they don't have much time to spend it and they know they can rake it in with a book deal and a lecture tour as soon as they resign.

I don't know if the country can afford to pay hard-working and well-motivated primary-school headteachers, who also work in the community to help other schools, £180,000 a year (which is roughly what he got after backpay for the previous year and employers' pension contributions are taken away). But I hope so and I'm pleased that Mark Elms has been well paid for doing a good job. The fact that so many felt otherwise is a sign of how hysterical with envy some people, and a lot of news reporting, have become.

[CusworthRovers]

Well now Mr Sheepskin Stu.

I define myself working class not through family lines, but through what I am and do. The main point for me and how I define working class, is in the title ie I work therefore I am working class.

Now some may say, well they earn by far more than me and live a better lifestyle, but in essence they work, be they doctors, lawyers, businessmen.........they all have to work to keep themselves and/or family in that lifestyle. If they did not work, then they would not have their lifestyle, whatever that may be.

There are, as said, approx 5% who do not have to work and live via inheritance, usually via a title.


This is very much a Marxist theory of mine, I have you know.


I'm particularly interested in this middle class theory, as I hold the opinion that there is no such thing as middle class. I will however, except there is an upper working class and sub working class.......but not a middle class. Each to their own though.

[BobG]

Cool

BobG

[Mike_F]

Cussy, I do see more social strata than Working, Middle or Upper class in our society but sometimes it's simpler when making a general point to use one of the broad bandings. I have always had a problem with the idle wastrels being referred to as \"working\" class when they wouldn't dream of doing any work. What would you classify these folk as?

[CusworthRovers]

As I said mate, I see:



5-10% Upper Class


Approx 20% Upper working class
Approx 60% Working class
Approx 10 Sub working class


There is no middle class in my world, as said.

The under working class (or most of them), have an ability to work, can work, should work.........but it's things beyond their control that may be preventing them. Hence, they should be deemed in the working class bracket. Obviously, just my opinion like.