• 🇬🇧󠁿 🇸🇪 🇿🇦 🇮🇪 🇬🇭 🇩🇪 🇪🇺
    European & African
    Drug Discussion

    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • EADD Moderators: Pissed_and_messed | Shinji Ikari

Right wingers are less intelligent than left wingers, says Daily Mail article...

There's no doubt that Labour policy even during the Blair years was usually to the left of the Tories but it was significantly to the right of the previous Labour administration, and the influence of Thatcher was massive. As Ismene says above, the Blair government took Thatcherism further than the Tories could ever have done had they won the 1997 election.
 
Ismene said:
Under Thatcher the dole was 17% of the average working mans salary, now it's less than 10%.

as were most of the rest of the Tory party when it was introduced

But the minimum wage was introduced at such a pitiful level that it never had any impact on employers.

most think he was a total disaster for this country as far as I am aware.

I don't think the top bankers and executives thought Blair was a disaster. They grew richer under him than they could ever have dreamed of under Thatcher. Blair privatised industries that Thatcher wouldn't have dared touch in a million years.


let's get those cancer patients back to work (it would lose them too many votes).

Would it? With all the demonising they're doing of people on sickness benefits? I don't think most people give two hoots about the disabled.
Click to expand...

When Thatcher was in power the average wage was £2291-10,601, and when Blair was in power the average wage was £14,367-22,117. In real terms cross referenced with the RPI, someone under Thatcher earning the average compared to 2010 would make £14,991-18,751. And under Blair those figures are £20,903-24,041. That means in comparison to Thatcher, workers under Blair were making 39.4% more at the start of the leaderships, and 28% at the end. Undoubtedly people on benefits now lead much better lives than they did under Thatcher. There simply wasn't the availability of cheap food and commercial products.

The minimum wage had a massive effect on employers, and also on workers. We lost more industry to China after the introduction of minimum wage, than we lost under Thatcher's entire rule. It priced a lot of employers out of the country altogether.

Under a Tory government undoubtedly those bankers and execs would have made more, and the Tories would have sold more. I think you are confused by the fact that Labour was able to do things Thatcher would have love to have done when she was in charge, had the public allowed it. But make no mistake, if Thatcher was in charge when Blair was, with the same public mood, she would have sold everything under the sun. She would have driven benefits lower, taxes lower, and we would essentially move much closer to resembling how America was during the boom.

The getting cancer patients tested was a rather big issue, and it was and is being remedied as quickly as possible. People from the top to the bottom of society are pissed off, and will never accept their cancer safety net being jeopardised in any way. 1 in 3 people get it for crying out loud! The cancer charities are all over it.
 
Mr Smokes Blunts. said:
I understand that Labour was 'new' or whatever and not what it was, and that center is really just dictated by the party who is in at the time, but without a doubt during Labours rule it implemented a lot more policies that can be seen as Left than a Tory government would have. I'm sure you'd agree? I also happen to think that Brown was actually quite Lefty, as were a lot of the cabinnet like Harman etc.
Click to expand...

- Abandoning clause four
- Allowing banks free reign without regulation
- Increased immigration (immigration itself isn't a left wing concept despite what the media says when it mixes it up with anti-racism)
- An illegal war

Off the top of my head at past midnight. They were essentially a party dedicated to economic expansion above social justice. You can argue that bringing half a million kids out of poverty, introducing the minimum wage and improving public services indicates a left leaning Government, but the good work was done on the back of an increased reliance on the City which collapsed in on itself eventually anyway. You've also got to remember that any incoming Government after the Tyrant years would literally HAVE to improve social standing otherwise face massive revolt from the people who had suffered at the hands of Miss Presidente Dickbag for so long.

I wouldn't really consider New Labour as either right or left. They had an election to win which they did by appealing to the biggest set of voters in the country and, once won, a job to do after the Thatcher years which, given the guarantee that Capitalism always provides recession, went pretty well for a while.

Both Brown and Blair were progressive rather than left or right. Harman's just an idiot.
 
14176580.jpg
 
Mr Smokes Blunts. said:
When Thatcher was in power the average wage was £2291-10,601, and when Blair was in power the average wage was £14,367-22,117. In real terms cross referenced with the RPI, someone under Thatcher earning the average compared to 2010 would make £14,991-18,751. And under Blair those figures are £20,903-24,041. That means in comparison to Thatcher, workers under Blair were making 39.4% more at the start of the leaderships, and 28% at the end. Undoubtedly people on benefits now lead much better lives than they did under Thatcher. There simply wasn't the availability of cheap food and commercial products.
Click to expand...

An average is not a range, it's a single figure.

You can't compare average wages (or any monetary measurement) under Thatcher from 1979-1990 with average wages (or whatever) under Blair from 1997-2007 without allowing for inflation. I mean, that's almost a 30 year period, inflation can wreak havoc with your numbers over that timescale, as can all other kinds of developments.

Didn't bother reading rest!


Something is fucking with my editing box. Either 3-MeO-PCE or the development branch of Ubuntu.
 
Last edited:
knockando said:
An average is not a range, it's a single figure.

You can't compare average wages (or any monetary measurement) under Thatcher from 1979-1990 with average wages (or whatever) under Blair from 1997-2007 without allowing for inflation. I mean, that's almost a 30 year period, inflation can wreak havoc with your numbers over that timescale, as can all other kinds of developments.

Didn't bother reading rest!


Something is fucking with my editing box. Either 3-MeO-PCE or the development branch of Ubuntu.
Click to expand...

That's why it's cross referenced with the retail price index of the time?
 
Mr Smokes Blunts. said:
Undoubtedly people on benefits now lead much better lives than they did under Thatcher.
Click to expand...

Even tho they get only half as much?

The minimum wage had a massive effect on employers, and also on workers

So how come employment went up after it was introduced?

But make no mistake, if Thatcher was in charge when Blair was, with the same public mood, she would have sold everything under the sun.

Was there really any public mood for more privatisation? Did Blair promise it at elections thinking it was a vote-winner? I can't remember him doing so.

The getting cancer patients tested was a rather big issue, and it was and is being remedied as quickly as possible.

I thought the government had just stated that there is no question that cancer patients will continue to be tested.
 
knockando said:
I missed that! But why is an average a range? I'm guessing it's the range over the duration of their time as prime minister. Now sober, my reading skills are a bit better ;)
Click to expand...

I just thought i'd try and make the comparison fair, rather than take the best figure from both politicians. And I couldn't be bothered to get the average from 2 decades worth of statistics lol.
 
Ismene said:
Even tho they get only half as much?

The minimum wage had a massive effect on employers, and also on workers

So how come employment went up after it was introduced?

But make no mistake, if Thatcher was in charge when Blair was, with the same public mood, she would have sold everything under the sun.

Was there really any public mood for more privatisation? Did Blair promise it at elections thinking it was a vote-winner? I can't remember him doing so.

The getting cancer patients tested was a rather big issue, and it was and is being remedied as quickly as possible.

I thought the government had just stated that there is no question that cancer patients will continue to be tested.
Click to expand...

You have just discarded my entire post, aside from the few lines you could actually contend. I already showed you using RPI why, even though they would have been getting more money, this money wouldn't go any where near as far. Employment increased because we were in the biggest boom we have ever seen... and now we are paying the price. The public mood allowed privatisation, they barely ever ask for it.
 
Mr Smokes Blunts. said:
You have just discarded my entire post, aside from the few lines you could actually contend. .
Click to expand...


True but those were the only lines relevant to anything I'd said.

this money wouldn't go any where near as far.

I wouldn't be too sure about that. I havn't noticed money stretching any furthur. 30 years ago you could fill a car with enough petrol to take you to the moon and back and still have change from a fiver.

Being on the dole 30 years ago was far better than it is now - ask a few older people and see what they say. What's the latest wheeze? Making the unemployed work for their dole? Thatcher would have pissed herself if she even dreamt she could force that through.

Employment increased because we were in the biggest boom we have ever seen

Not that we've ever seen - employment was still far worse than it was back in the 50's and 60's when you could leave a well paid job on the friday and have another well paid job on the monday.
 
chinup said:
i did love the charlie brooker commentary, it was well written and concepts such as britains foremost knee tickled me.

but i don't really get the fuss. evidence for a correlation with intelligence doesn't make one ideology more valid than another. thats down to individuals and the premises and deductions they used to reach their ideologies. right vs left is a pretty intractable debate which has lasted millennia and these findings don't change that, or even really add anything substantial to it.

conversely anyone who takes from this, 'i hold these views so i must be clever' or 'they hold those views so they must be thick' doesn't really understand the complex interplay of variables that make up intelligence. i'm not claiming i do either, i don't need to in order to recognise a gross oversimplification.

and i know no one is outwardly making these claims, well apart from the OPs hyperbolic example, but its what i've, whether correctly or not, read in between the lines.

so i guess i'm saying, beyond the hilarity of this being reported by the mail, is 'so what?'
Click to expand...

Again, another reason why bluelight needs a "like post" button. Very well said!
 
Heh..
iirc the only "proven" correlations are between measured intelligence and propensity for suicide/deviance/drug use ..
My excuse, and I'm sticking to it. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top