Poll: Who Will You Be Voting For In The Next General Election?

DirectDebacle

Quote:
Originally Posted by nickmason
I don't think it's daft to suggest that the rich would be even richer, but so would the poor. And the middle class.
At least financially. I don't think either party would have made a substantive difference culturally or socially. Politically, also, we'd be richer - our unwritten democratic constitution and individual liberty wouldn't be in the tatters it is now.

If everybody would be richer, who would be poorer. You cannot have one without the other.

I think he means in relative terms. There would still be rich and poor with the majority in the middle. The gap would be less thus the poor would have a better standing of living than they do now.

One of the main ideologoies of the Labour Party which they have spectacularly betrayed. They have turned their notion redistribution of wealth on its head and the gap between rich and poor becomes ever wider under them. The working class have been abandoned by Tory Blair and his successors.

nickmason

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

If everybody would be richer, who would be poorer. You cannot have one without the other.

GG

An interesting question.
If you'll allow me to talk in absolute terms, then clearly it's not a zero-sum game, and so all could be richer; as long as we were using resources productively.

If on the other hand (as is the current vogue) we need to talk about relative wealth/poverty, then I hope you will meet me halfway and see it in the global context - whereby again the above argument works; we just have a global benchmark to work against. Trust me, there are enough people in Africa who don't understand how we describe people as poor the way we do; indeed there are people from Africa who are "poor" in this country while sending money home to families who become - by the same numerical approach - wealthy.

If I'm still not allowed to use that approach, then I simply ask "what is relative wealth/poverty"? Does it have any basis in real things? When it is a zero-sum game, when it is measured against itself, when there is no growth, and only redistribution? Or is it in fact the political formulation of envy and jealousy? Is it not the manifestation of the "grass is greener"/"must have now"/"it's my right" psyche that is consistently berated on these boards?

Gorgeous_George

I voted Lib Dem last time and will do the same next time.



GG

nickmason

All right then. :eek:

drbeat

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

I voted Lib Dem last time and will do the same next time.



GG

Nick Clegg-over?

Gorgeous_George

drbeat wrote: »

Nick Clegg-over?

It keeps the Tories out

GG

Masomnia

Nick Clegg's a Tory in a yellow tie, let's be fair.

Davesnave

mitchaa wrote: »

I would actually vote lib dems, but see it as a wasted vote as i believe its between the big 2.

Where I live, it isn't, because they often get in. It was the same where I lived as a child.

I quite liked Chris Patten though. It was a pity when we lost him.

1echidna

Personally I haven't decided which way to vote yet, will wait to see how the arguments develop in the run up to the election. I will probably vote for the party I am most convinced occupies the centre ground and has an eye on the long term. It once seemed to me that Labour were that party, not so sure now.

overlander

I am genuinely shocked to see Labour have got so many votes. What is wrong with these people can they not see the mess Labour have got this country in. It will take 10-15 years to recover from 10 years of Gordonomics.