Originally Posted by bil

Everyone said Brown was the pits and Labour was finished, but at the polls, the vote between L&C was so close that the coalition was the only way the tories could hold power.

Most people realise that the fault of the shitstorm was the american tossers and their NINJA mortgages.

Originally Posted by bil

I'm known for my dislike of politicians of all stripes, with a couple of exceptions, sometimes for odd reasons.

I can never understand why so many people at the bottom of the heap continue to vote for the right when the right wing of politics is so far in the camp of the rich and the powerful.

I think they appeal to the nasty side in a lot of cases, the racist card is one you usually find the right playing.

The promise of tax cuts, when for the basic earners, tax cuts usually mean at best a small amount in their pocket, an increase in some other tax bigger than the amount gained, and a reduction in services which will almost certainly cost them more than the few extra quid they get back.

Of course, for the big earners, tax cuts are great. They get a shedload back, the increase in other taxes is small beer to them, and they usually don't even use the services that the poorer members of society depend on.

In short, the right and their tax cutting systems are, more often than not going to screw the bulk of the population while enriching the topsector.

So when I see so many poorer people voting Tory, I have to assume that they are too stupid to do basic adding up, or else too thick to grasp what they really get, or so desperate to hang onto every single penny they earn, they don't realise that by letting go of a little, they stand to gain a lot.

Originally Posted by scampicat

Because the alternative is Miliband Minor, who knows (nor cares) any more about the working class than Cameron, and is far more idealogically-led.

Originally Posted by Dick Dasterdly

Yet voted in by the Unions despite the fact that both the Labour party and the majority of its followers preferred Millipede Major.

As usual with Labour,the tail wags the dog.

Originally Posted by scampicat

In the UK, the alternative is Miliband Minor, who knows (nor cares) no more about the working class than Cameron, and is far more idealogically-led. Out of the two, Cameron is streets ahead, both in ability and in statesmanship. Miliband is a champagne socialist who cares little for the things that most Brits hold dear.

Originally Posted by bil

Cameron, who has a level of wealth that few can imagine? How the hell is he going to be sympathetic to the likes of us?

I understood the definition of champagne socialist was one who wanted those at the bottom to have a good time too, rather than it being restricted to the rich.

As opposed to the more trad socialist who simply wants to drag the rich down to the bottom with everyone else.

Of course, for a laugh, could you define the term socialist for us all?

Originally Posted by scampicat

AFAIK, Miliband has more than the likes of us too.

IMO a champagne socialist was one who has wealth and privilege and really has no connection with (nor cares particularly about ) those at the bottom of the pile. They bleat on about 'equality' and 'rights' for minorities whilst igoring those hard-working majority who make up the traditional working class.

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dict...agne-socialist

I'm not over-enamoured with Cameron, but the alternative, imho, is so, so much worse that I will always vote Tory while that man is at Labour's helm.

Originally Posted by bil

Of course, for a laugh, could you define the term socialist for us all?

Originally Posted by bil

The definition you posted was

"a rich person who says he or she supports a fair society in which everyone has equal rights and the rich help the poor, but who may not behave in this way"

Or who equally may behave in that way. So, not a brilliant definition.

OK, so now can you define socialist for me? I kinda have a problem there, as it needs to encompass Nazi, communist, christian and democrat, so I wish you luck.

I'm puzzled. You make your choice of who you vote for on a basis of who the leader is? Surely you jest? Why not just admit you are a tory?

I agree millipede is a stupid, if not suicidal choice, but I would, if I voted be voting Labour, not millipede.

Originally Posted by scampicat

Because I am not a Tory. I am a floating voter.

I was always a Labour voter until the Michael Foot years when I found I could no longer in all conscience vote for them. Now I will vote for the party who seems to me best at the time. I have voted all political colours except far left or right.

If I am voting for a Government for my country, then of course I care who the leader is....they will become the Prime Minister if their party wins! If I voted Labour I would be voting for Miliband to become Prime Minister.

I may (and usually do) vote differently in a local election to a Parlaimentary one.


And I was brought up in a family of far-left idealogists like Miliband,I do know what they are like.

Originally Posted by bil

Ah, a floater. Much prized in certain quarters I understand.

So, what's a socialist defined as these days?

Originally Posted by scampicat

Presumably a follower of socialism.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism