Metropol

Chie wrote:I honestly can't decide where I am in terms of class or social status, although in this position it does mean I can view all social groups from a neutral standpoint.

You have to know that you're not the only person who feels that way.

The class system per se is an anathema in this age - yet you've used it in pretty broad brush strokes when you're taking about labour v tory "types". I've been trying to express that its not about social scale or income as such, but about an ideology.

The biggest problem I've got with the whole thing is that a lot of the people who've made it over the last decade, who've gone from being working to middle, used to whinge on incessantly about how we should all help each other and how rich people were snobs. But now they have made it up the ladder, they wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire. They've become exactly like the snobs they used to moan about when they were poor.

That was the 80s. The decade of massive personal successes. "Loadsamoney". You've seen it yourself in a different decade for sure, but its happened before - and again the, "fuck you, I'm doing well" ideology is there.

But then you could argue that if you reduce their inheritance tax liability and capital gains tax, they'll have more money to spend on the ground and therefore help to get the economy going again. There must be a logical reason the Tories want to do it anyway, unless they've got a death wish and really do want to help the rich become richer.

By no means am I trying to oversimplify a whole political movement, but yes - the net result is to make the rich richer - or at least, to lessen the amount of tax they pay back. The idea is that they've earned it and shouldn't have to pay back to society on death a proportion of what they gained by living and trading in that society.

Its an ideology. And not one I'm comfortable with.

I take a more egalitarian and yes, socialist view. I know that in a democracy, ultimately people will vote in a way that best serves them - and secondarily you hope that your choice makes for the greater good for everyone too.

But one ideology sticks out more to me than the other of maybe making those two things happen together.

Does that make sense?

Gavin Scott wrote:That was the 80s. The decade of massive personal successes. "Loadsamoney". You've seen it yourself in a different decade for sure, but its happened before - and again the, "fuck you, I'm doing well" ideology is there.

Yeah, I'm starting to see it now. Although I do think people should be encouraged to work hard and do as well as they can for themselves. It's just a shame so many people's attitude changes for the worse when they get there. It's natural for people to put themselves and their loved ones first, but the open arrogance and selfishness of this decade has been plain offensive, as I'm sure it was in the 80s.

Gavin Scott wrote:By no means am I trying to oversimplify a whole political movement, but yes - the net result is to make the rich richer - or at least, to lessen the amount of tax they pay back. The idea is that they've earned it and shouldn't have to pay back to society on death a proportion of what they gained by living and trading in that society.

Its an ideology. And not one I'm comfortable with.

I take a more egalitarian and yes, socialist view. I know that in a democracy, ultimately people will vote in a way that best serves them - and secondarily you hope that your choice makes for the greater good for everyone too.

But one ideology sticks out more to me than the other of maybe making those two things happen together.

Does that make sense?

Yes. The only thing is that by living and trading in society, the really rich people are the ones who create jobs and provide employment, so they already do benefit the society in life. But then I guess their offspring will have gone through a good school and university and probably have a business of their own anyway, so they don't need all their parents' money.

But then I guess their offspring will have gone through a good school and university and probably have a business of their own anyway, so they don't need all their parents' money.

Just look at Paris hilton and many people like that to so good examples. May be people who built up there empires, worked hard and provide a good service, look at Tesco in early days or Morrisons. Many of there off springs are brats that need a good kick.

Back to main point.

News of world are now having words like David C WILL be the next prime minster, I'm sorry i don't believe this. The only part to ever get swings big enough to win election are the Labour party, I don;t see this changing now.

Its a disgrace that labour will Sleep walk into letting Them in, there should Fight!

Lets have a look at the effect of the conference season on the betting odds ...

Conservatives are set to win 356 - 363 seats
Labour 200 - 202
Liberals 50 - 53
SNP 12 - 15
Plaid 4 - 6
DUP 6 - 9

according to the Party Seats Line on Betfair last night.

barcode wrote:The only part to ever get swings big enough to win election are the Labour party, I don;t see this changing now.

That is a totally illogical and impossible comment, Barcrod.

If that statement was true, then Labour would have been in power continuously, ever since their initial win.

That is not the case.

Given the resentment towards Labour in England (who have had to put up with some of the more annoying policies Foundation Hospitals / City Academies and what not) it's very very likely the Tories will get a major win on the back of English votes.

I appreciate the sentiment that the tories won't get that far in Scotland and any swing will be to SNP / Lib Dem but given that England is a fair bit larger than Scotland I doubt it'll matter enough to swing the vote.

Don't be too sure on Scotland's influence even a couple of percent gain in Conservative support in Scotland, from disaffected unionists, will turn several marginal seats into very interesting contests. Admittedly a Conservative breakthrough is improbable but their impact could be dramatic nevertheless, swinging seats from Labour to the Nationalists.

A 2% swing from Labour to the Conservatives would give the SNP three additional seats over and above current trends.

Nick Harvey wrote:

barcode wrote:The only part to ever get swings big enough to win election are the Labour party, I don;t see this changing now.

That is a totally illogical and impossible comment, Barcrod.

If that statement was true, then Labour would have been in power continuously, ever since their initial win.
That is not the case.

Lets look at the facts shall we:

The biggest Tory swing was in 1979 with overall swing of 5.2% and there was MUCH more unhappyness with the labour party then.

1970: swing of 4.9%
1983 there gain 4.1%
but lost 1.7% in 1987
lost 2.1% : 1992

Labour biggest swing were
* 1997 -10%
* 1945 -12% was the swing.

For the tories to win this election out right there need swing of 6.9% there NEVER done this, over past what at least 60years. ( we could push it to 100 years!)

You seem to neglect the fact that people as a whole have never been so p***** off with a Labour Government and the novel fact that we are 12 long stressful years into a Labour Administration many feel it's time to change.

DVB Cornwall wrote:You seem to neglect the fact that people as a whole have never been so p***** off with a Labour Government and the novel fact that we are 12 long stressful years into a Labour Administration many feel it's time to change.

what about 1992? alot people said that about Tory goverment, poll tax etc, and yet HE won, with over 14million people

So anything could and will happen