Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Ironic really when the Tories seemingly want to fight the next election over what genitals people have rather than why people can't afford food or heat their homes, whilst devising institutionally racist immigration policies.
The current government has instigated an identity war and a lack of tolerance all by themselves in the past year or so, nobody else.
Are they still going to get your vote even though they demonstrably go against your core beliefs?
Ironic really when the Tories seemingly want to fight the next election over what genitals people have rather than why people can't afford food or heat their homes, whilst devising institutionally racist immigration policies.
The current government has instigated an identity war and a lack of tolerance all by themselves in the past year or so, nobody else.
Are they still going to get your vote even though they demonstrably go against your core beliefs?
I would say that there is just as much intolerance, if not more, demonstrated by the pro trans lobby against anyone who contradicts their point of view.
Just look at the treatment of JK Rowling, and those SNP MPs who were photographed at a rally with someone holding up a sign saying "...Decapitate TERFs..."
You should not be harrassed, bullied or threatened just for expressing an opinion such as "...women cannot have a penis..", or that biological sex cannot be changed.
Ironic really when the Tories seemingly want to fight the next election over what genitals people have rather than why people can't afford food or heat their homes, whilst devising institutionally racist immigration policies.
The current government has instigated an identity war and a lack of tolerance all by themselves in the past year or so, nobody else.
Are they still going to get your vote even though they demonstrably go against your core beliefs?
This started long before the current government was formed and you know it. Are they (contributing to) fanning the flames? Yes. Do they see political capital in doing so? Undoubtedly. It's completely disingenuous however to claim that they instigated the whole thing, or indeed that only one side are to blame.
I would say that there is just as much intolerance, if not more, demonstrated by the pro trans lobby against anyone who contradicts their point of view.
Just look at the treatment of JK Rowling, and those SNP MPs who were photographed at a rally with someone holding up a sign saying "...Decapitate TERFs..."
You should not be harrassed, bullied or threatened just for expressing an opinion such as "...women cannot have a penis..", or that biological sex cannot be changed.
This started long before the current government was formed and you know it. Are they (contributing to) fanning the flames? Yes. Do they see political capital in doing so? Undoubtedly. It's completely disingenuous however to claim that they instigated the whole thing, or indeed that only one side are to blame.
They are the only political party giving it any attention at all. Purely because it annoys people in their core demographic and whips up hatred for 5 minutes and deflects from their utter incompetency.
If the country was in a better state they wouldn't give it the time of day to even talk about.
They are the only political party giving it any attention at all. Purely because it annoys people in their core demographic and whips up hatred for 5 minutes and deflects from their utter incompetency.
If the country was in a better state they wouldn't give it the time of day to even talk about.
The Conservative Party are not the only party giving this matter some attention.
Look at the SNP in Scotland with their Gender Recognition Bill, and Sir Keir Starmer with his inability to decide whether a woman can have a penis or not.
The statements "..Trans women are women.." and "..Trans men are men.." are simply statements of opinion and are not objectively proven scientific facts.
No-one should be harrassed, bullied or threatened for either expressing those opinions or disagreeing with them, at least not in a society where free speech is valued.
It goes beyond their core demographic. I know the views of (quite a) few people in my local pub, and they never have and never will vote Tory! That's not to say I entirely disagree with your latter point.
The Conservative Party are not the only party giving this matter some attention.
Look at the SNP in Scotland with their Gender Recognition Bill, and Sir Keir Starmer with his inability to decide whether a woman can have a penis or not.
The statements "..Trans women are women.." and "..Trans men are men.." are simply statements of opinion and are not objectively proven scientific facts.
No-one should be harrassed, bullied or threatened for either expressing those opinions or disagreeing with them, at least not in a society where free speech is valued.
Whilst I'm a conservative and capitalist through and through, I actually agree with you here, to a point at least. You're using a rather extreme example though; I'm no fan of exploitation, greed, cronyism etc. either, but I believe these things are the result of abuse of the system rather then an inherent part of it.
Apart from a few on the far left, Labour and the LibDems are also in favour of capitalism, but with more regulation that ought to make those downsides less likely. So citing capitalism as a reason to vote Tory suggests a preference for the Wild West variety they've recently preached and practised.
Apart from a few on the far left, Labour and the LibDems are also in favour of capitalism, but with more regulation that ought to make those downsides less likely. So citing capitalism as a reason to vote Tory suggests a preference for the Wild West variety they've recently preached and practised.
It's not just "a few" though, or it certainly wasn't until very recently. Regulation is fine in principle (and indeed necessary in my opinion), but equally it needs to be implemented in such a way that it doesn't do the wider economy more harm than good. I don't entirely trust Labour to get it right if I'm honest.
I've certainly no preference for "wild west" capitalism as you put it, it doesn't benefit me (or 99.9% of the population) whatsoever. I actually may not vote Tory in the next election. I'm not so tribal that I'll vote for them come what may.
It's not just "a few" though, or it certainly wasn't until very recently. Regulation is fine in principle (and indeed necessary in my opinion), but equally it needs to be implemented in such a way that it doesn't do the wider economy more harm than good. I don't entirely trust Labour to get it right if I'm honest.
They are the only political party giving it any attention at all. Purely because it annoys people in their core demographic and whips up hatred for 5 minutes and deflects from their utter incompetency.
Not living in Scotland it is perhaps understandable that you are unaware that the 'only political party giving it any attention at all' is actually the SNP (plus their Green associates). The Westminster Government/Conservative party have, quite rightly, intervened because the SNP's ill-thought out bill impinges on UK-wide legislation, a bill which has been proven not to have the support of a majority of the population here and indeed led to the resignation of a Scottish Government, SNP, Minister.
Not living in Scotland it is perhaps understandable that you are unaware that the 'only political party giving it any attention at all' is actually the SNP (plus their Green associates). The Westminster Government/Conservative party have, quite rightly, intervened because the SNP's ill-thought out bill impinges on UK-wide legislation, a bill which has been proven not to have the support of a majority of the population here and indeed led to the resignation of a Scottish Government, SNP, Minister.
In light of recent events, I think the controversial bill was a coincidence in the timing of the resignations; it may have contributed on the surface, but the Sturgeon husband alleged dealings will have been the biggest factor. In any case the Tories are not the biggest benefactors of an SNP implosion, as Labour are more likely to pick up seats from the SNP and the Tories can't as easily use the argument that Labour would be in the SNP's pocket with the SNP imploding.
In light of recent events, I think the controversial bill was a coincidence in the timing of the resignations; it may have contributed on the surface, but the Sturgeon husband alleged dealings will have been the biggest factor. In any case the Tories are not the biggest benefactors of an SNP implosion, as Labour are more likely to pick up seats from the SNP and the Tories can't as easily use the argument that Labour would be in the SNP's pocket with the SNP imploding.
Apart from a few on the far left, Labour and the LibDems are also in favour of capitalism, but with more regulation that ought to make those downsides less likely. So citing capitalism as a reason to vote Tory suggests a preference for the Wild West variety they've recently preached and practised.
I disagree. Labour and the LibDems generally pay lip-service to the market economy and to supporting business, yet they constantly undermine that verbal support by continually attacking companies for making profits, demanding that profits be taxed away, making out that there's somehow something unethical about making a profit (There isn't: It's ethically no different from earning a salary, and just as essential for the economy to function), calling for things to be nationalised on apparently ideological grounds, or treating capitalism as some kind of bogey-word. That to my mind is not consistent with believing in capitalism, and strongly suggests to me neither Labour nor the LibDems really understands how capitalism or the free market works, and that any commitment to supporting our basic economic system is at best skin deep.
I disagree. Labour and the LibDems generally pay lip-service to the market economy and to supporting business, but the frequency with which they attack companies for making profits, demand that profits be taxed away, make out that there's somehow something unethical about making a profit (there isn't: It's ethically no different from earning a salary, and just as essential for the economy to function), call for things to be nationalised on apparently ideological grounds, or treat capitalism as some kind of bogey-word, strongly suggests to me that they do not really understand how capitalism or the market works, and that any commitment to supporting our basic economic system is at best skin deep.
I disagree. Labour and the LibDems generally pay lip-service to the market economy and to supporting business, yet they constantly undermine that verbal support by continually attacking companies for making profits, demanding that profits be taxed away, making out that there's somehow something unethical about making a profit (There isn't: It's ethically no different from earning a salary, and just as essential for the economy to function), calling for things to be nationalised on apparently ideological grounds, or treating capitalism as some kind of bogey-word. That to my mind is not consistent with believing in capitalism, and strongly suggests to me neither Labour nor the LibDems really understands how capitalism or the free market works, and that any commitment to supporting our basic economic system is at best skin deep.
Sorry but that's nonsense. Profits are fundamentally the reward that you get for setting up and running a business, as well as for taking a risk that your business will fail and you will lose all the money and time you spent to set it up. Or do you believe that anyone who takes the trouble to set up a business should not be allowed to earn any money for their efforts?
Without profits, almost no-one would set up a business, and there would therefore be no employees (apart from people employed by the Government) and we would all be massively poorer. Besides, in a genuinely free market, a company that was actually paying employees less than their worth would quickly find that they lose those employees to other businesses (unless they are providing some other benefit that makes employees feel it's worth their while working when they could earn more elsewhere).
I disagree. Labour and the LibDems generally pay lip-service to the market economy and to supporting business, yet they constantly undermine that verbal support by continually attacking companies for making profits, demanding that profits be taxed away
An awful lot of ostensibly profitable businesses aren't actually covering their costs, and are only able to return a surplus to their owners/shareholders because they are finding ways to price them onto others, whether that be their workers, local residents, people elsewhere in the supply chain, wildlife or national and local governments who then have to clean up the mess they've made. I don't see what's wrong with taxing their profits as a way of recovering these costs.
This is only true if you take the view that the rights of corporations need to be seen in equally high esteem as the rights of human beings, which isn't a position I can see a particularly good argument for.
No. It seems to me that the Left instigated the identity and associated culture wars when they started doing things like attacking our history, gratuitously looking for racism everywhere, attacking anyone who didn't agree with them on culture issues as some kind of something-o-phobe, etc. And then when other groups, including many Conservatives, responded by defending those values that were being attacked, that same Left started complaining (falsely) that the Conservatives had started a culture war.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Have you ever compared poverty levels in capitalist countries with poverty levels in countries that run their economies along socialist lines? Capitalism lifts people out of poverty because it innovates and generates the wealth that you need to get people out of poverty. No other economic system yet devised has shown itself capable of doing that. The only qualification to that is that you usually need some Government intervention to ensure that the wealth capitalism creates is distributed in a reasonable way.
And I don't consider employing someone to be 'systemic exploitation'. When I get a builder in to do some work on my house and pay him/her an agreed rate, am I someone exploiting that builder in a bad way? When I give Sainsburys money in exchange for them supplying me with some food, am I guilty of systemic exploitation of Sainsburys?
If that's the case, then that's sad. I'm not familiar with that story, but what you say there doesn't by itself prove exploitation. Remember that, thanks to the Ukraine war and our not wanting to buy energy from Russia, Western countries have struggled to get enough energy to satisfy demand. And basic laws of physics/maths tells you that if there's a shortage of something (such as energy) then someone is going to struggle to get what they need (such as enough energy to heat their homes). That doesn't prove exploitation - it's simply (and sadly) an inevitable consequence of there being a shortage!
Sorry but that's nonsense. Profits are fundamentally the reward that you get for setting up and running a business, as well as for taking a risk that your business will fail and you will lose all the money and time you spent to set it up. Or do you believe that anyone who takes the trouble to set up a business should not be allowed to earn any money for their efforts?
Have you ever compared poverty levels in capitalist countries with poverty levels in countries that run their economies along socialist lines? Capitalism lifts people out of poverty because it innovates and generates the wealth that you need to get people out of poverty. No other economic system yet devised has shown itself capable of doing that.
If you can pick two moderate democracies, then I'd be happy to. If you're going to raise some preexisting economic basket case that had a violet revolution sponsored by the Soviets, then I reserve the right to select a similar capitalist basket case.
The only qualification to that is that you usually need some Government intervention to ensure that the wealth capitalism creates is distributed in a reasonable way.
You are assuming an unhealthy, exploitative relationship between employer and employee. Those exist, of course, and not just in the private sector.... But the relationship is often a healthy one. Many people don't want to run their own business and/or lack the skills. I'd make more money if I was self-employed but I prefer the security of being employed - my employer makes a profit from me and that's just fine with me! (And if we were all self-employed, we'd all be poorer due to the loss of economies of scale!)
I disagree. Labour and the LibDems generally pay lip-service to the market economy and to supporting business, yet they constantly undermine that verbal support by continually attacking companies for making profits, demanding that profits be taxed away, making out that there's somehow something unethical about making a profit (There isn't: It's ethically no different from earning a salary, and just as essential for the economy to function), calling for things to be nationalised on apparently ideological grounds, or treating capitalism as some kind of bogey-word. That to my mind is not consistent with believing in capitalism, and strongly suggests to me neither Labour nor the LibDems really understands how capitalism or the free market works, and that any commitment to supporting our basic economic system is at best skin deep.
For attacking a system that has generated massive incomes whilst the plebs suffer on the breadline and have no other opportunity to prevent this from happening? Why does that make it wrong for Labour to want to tax these companies that have mountainous profits and not tax the companies to support society as a whole? Or does that sound too much like helpful?
How are you defining exploitation? Is any profit taken from investing capital exploitative?
If you can pick two moderate democracies, then I'd be happy to. If you're going to raise some preexisting economic basket case that had a violet revolution sponsored by the Soviets, then I reserve the right to select a similar capitalist basket case.
The fact there are very few properly socialist states in the world today suggests there are issues with that form of government.
If you want examples of countries that have pulled themselves up with capitalism, Bangladesh and South Korea? The former went from 80% of the population in poverty to 13% today. Both appear to be fairly normal democracies.
Socialism is defined by the common ownership of the means of production. If most of your economy is privately owned companies, then it’s capitalism, even if you’re taxing the profits.
As someone who is left-leaning, I'm quite prepared to accept that a business has to make a profit. My issue is about where those profits actually go. The emphasis seems to be towards rewarding the people who start/invest in the business, and I have no issue with this as long provided those profits are generated solely by those people; if you're relying on the labour of others in order for your business idea to be successful, then your workers are also "wealth creators" and have every right to benefit from a share of the profit that your business makes.
As someone who is left-leaning, I'm quite prepared to accept that a business has to make a profit. My issue is about where those profits actually go. The emphasis seems to be towards rewarding the people who start/invest in the business, and I have no issue with this as long provided those profits are generated solely by those people; if you're relying on the labour of others in order for your business idea to be successful, then your workers are also "wealth creators" and have every right to benefit from a share of the profit that your business makes.
As someone who is left-leaning, I'm quite prepared to accept that a business has to make a profit. My issue is about where those profits actually go. The emphasis seems to be towards rewarding the people who start/invest in the business, and I have no issue with this as long provided those profits are generated solely by those people; if you're relying on the labour of others in order for your business idea to be successful, then your workers are also "wealth creators" and have every right to benefit from a share of the profit that your business makes.
If by OP you are referring to my Post #2141, quoted above, a Scottish Government Minister can only refer to a single person! As the discussion was concerning Gender issues and political parties, I was of course referring to Ash Regan. The First Minister's resignation appears to have had multiple causes, so far, perhaps with more to emerge. But we are getting off topic in a Conservative Party discussion.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
