Do you prioritise your social or your economic beliefs.

butterandjam It sounds like you are one of the lucky ones whose economic and social view sit pretty much in the same place.

David49 we could argue the "theories" you express but they are only partially supported by agreed economic and political theories and that by such as dependency theory and studies of authoritarian regimes.

These views are not universally accepted as comprehensive truths. Modern development strategies emphasise internal capacity-building and legitimacy rather than reliance solely on external income or coercion.

I wonder if this extreme view of economics is because you actually vote according to your social views and use what you believe to be proved in order to substantiate them?

What seemed to be simple suddenly seems much more complicated!

>Under the threat of military, police or religions persuasion the >population obey the elite.

I don't believe Brexit was the result of military police or religious persuasion or "obeying the elite".
Nor was the political upheaval of the last General Election.

>Small countries like the UK with a large population, very little >resources to export,

???

UK is the 4th largest exporter in the world .
2024 it had a trade imbalance, imported less than we export.

>In addition we allow the wealthiest in the population to >become richer while giving them free health care and >pensions so that they can give their wealth to their children >when they die un taxed.

The wealthiest in UK certainly pay towards state health , education, and social care in their taxes. As for whether or not they actually use any of those services ,I'd suggest they are more likely to buy them privately. If they claim State pension, it's taxed. When they die, their estate faces taxes.

>It’s a bonkers system that perpetuates class divide

Its changing fast Class divide in UK today has changed out of all recognition in the space of my lifetime.

PoliticsNerd

David49

Economic view, only a communist would prioritize a social view and we know how successful, that has been.
Someone has to earn the welfare before it can be given away.

Prioritising purely economic goals ignores important social issues like equality, human rights, and community cohesion. Would that be your intention? History also shows us that ignoring social values often leads to instability and inequality. Is thst also something you would accept?

Assuming that welfare can only be earned before being given away dismisses the moral and ethical responsibilities society has toward vulnerable populations. What if those who do not need it have simply taken from those who do. Wouldn't that takes us back to pre-democracy days?

Communism may not work, but I would suggest the alternative extreme wouldn't be any better for the majority. But you are, of course, entitled to vote on whatever matters most to you and it's certainly good to hear all views on what sways us.

Before you can give equality a nation has to get an income from outside, it may sell minerals or finished products maybe services, until then the workers have to accept what is on offer.
Under the threat of military, police or religions persuasion the population obey the elite.

Small countries like the UK with a large population, very little resources to export, imports close to half the food it needs, millions of migrant workers and most of the consumer goods don’t have a chance, everything is wrong
In addition we allow the wealthiest in the population to become richer while giving them free health care and pensions so that they can give their wealth to their children when they die un taxed.

It’s a bonkers system that perpetuates class divide

Well I didn’t get him, I was too young to get him.

David49

Economic view, only a communist would prioritize a social view and we know how successful, that has been.
Someone has to earn the welfare before it can be given away.

Prioritising purely economic goals ignores important social issues like equality, human rights, and community cohesion. Would that be your intention? History also shows us that ignoring social values often leads to instability and inequality. Is thst also something you would accept?

Assuming that welfare can only be earned before being given away dismisses the moral and ethical responsibilities society has toward vulnerable populations. What if those who do not need it have simply taken from those who do. Wouldn't that takes us back to pre-democracy days?

Communism may not work, but I would suggest the alternative extreme wouldn't be any better for the majority. But you are, of course, entitled to vote on whatever matters most to you and it's certainly good to hear all views on what sways us.

Mt61

Jackiest

Alf Garnet was created to poke fun at right wing racist people.

I thought Alf was a racist? Never really watched that program

The point was which way he decided to vote. With his certainly socially very right-wing views or his very left wing economic ones.

Jackiest

Alf Garnet was created to poke fun at right wing racist people.

I thought he was created to maximise viewing figures!

Mt61

Jackiest

Alf Garnet was created to poke fun at right wing racist people.

I thought Alf was a racist? Never really watched that program

Many people didn't " get it " and agreed with Alf and his odious views.

David49

Economic view, only a communist would prioritize a social view and we know how successful, that has been.
Someone has to earn the welfare before it can be given away.

I see holding the two views as being perfectly compatible, David. We managed a mixed economy reasonably successfully in the post war era.

Jackiest

Alf Garnet was created to poke fun at right wing racist people.

I thought Alf was a racist? Never really watched that program

LauraNorderr

Politics Nerd. My answer was clear.

I wouldn't be trying to understand which area you are suggesting influences if it was clear to me. No doubt a case of my lack of understanding. My apologies.

Economic view, only a communist would prioritize a social view and we know how successful, that has been.
Someone has to earn the welfare before it can be given away.

Politics Nerd. My answer was clear.

LauraNorderr

I suppose I prioritise the idea of a strong economy so that the social benefit of looking after the less fortunate is achievable.

I would, to a certain extent, agree with this poster, but as the current economic 'orthodoxy' has proved to be unable to achieve either a 'strong economy' or looking after the less fortunate I'm out in the wilderness.

LauraNorderr

I suppose I prioritise the idea of a strong economy so that the social benefit of looking after the less fortunate is achievable.

Thank you LauraNorderr. So do you think that means you prioritise your economic views over your social views or that they line up?

I see myself as a centerist. My economic views seem to outweigh my social views at times but it can be vice-versa. I would guess I often sit at the crossover point as anything "extreme" would make me vote elsewhere.

eazybee

Another patronising post.

I value everyones point of view easybee - they help me form my own, but I feel these repeated accusations aren't constructive.

Perhaps you could help me understand what I did that upsets you? For context, I was trying to work out where I sit with this.

I suppose I prioritise the idea of a strong economy so that the social benefit of looking after the less fortunate is achievable.

Alf Garnet was created to poke fun at right wing racist people.

eazybee

Another patronising post.

What are you on about? Patronising? How?

MYOB

Another patronising post.

I don’t really ‘get’ what you mean, sorry. I suppose the class thing is different here, more how much money you have. I suppose the current uni types tend to vote for greens or socialist left here if that is any help. A lot of us change all the time, not too many rusted on voters here.