Is it time for British to become Republicans?

[JimC]

Really so there is an equivalent of people in the bottom of society thinking that one day they will be at the top voting for conservatives outside the US?

Indeed. Off the top of my head, look at the following Prime Ministers: Thatcher (England), Howard (Australia), Merkel (Germany), Belusconi (Italy). The majority of voters of France, Canada and many other nations have also brought in governments that promised to support and improve opportunities for the common folks to make it to the top one day. In Australia the poor and deluded suckers who keep falling for this trick are known as "the aspirational classes".

To be fair, at least in the case of Australia, there is always the question of the competence of the Labour party under some of its leaders. Voters vote "against" just as much as "for"

[mistermack]

Really so there is an equivalent of people in the bottom of society thinking that one day they will be at the top voting for conservatives outside the US?

Indeed. Off the top of my head, look at the following Prime Ministers: Thatcher (England), Howard (Australia), Merkel (Germany), Belusconi (Italy). The majority of voters of France, Canada and many other nations have also brought in governments that promised to support and improve opportunities for the common folks to make it to the top one day. In Australia the poor and deluded suckers who keep falling for this trick are known as "the aspirational classes".

To be fair, at least in the case of Australia, there is always the question of the competence of the Labour party under some of its leaders. Voters vote "against" just as much as "for"

Absolutely. And here as well, in the UK, it's not just competence of the party, but the quality of the leaders.
The Tories consistently dump a leader, if he/she doesn't click with voters. And generally, when they choose a leader, they are trying to choose one that will win votes.

The Labour party consistently choose a leader who is cosy with the Unions, and ignore the vote-winning aspect. Blair was the glaring exception to that, and he kept getting elected.

The present leader is from the same mould. Very little appeal to the voters, but chosen by the big union vote.
It's history repeating itself. If labour lose, it's down to the leadership choice. Again.

If Labour consistently chose a leader on vote-winning appeal, they would hardly ever lose an election.

[Hermit]

Really so there is an equivalent of people in the bottom of society thinking that one day they will be at the top voting for conservatives outside the US?

Indeed. Off the top of my head, look at the following Prime Ministers: Thatcher (England), Howard (Australia), Merkel (Germany), Belusconi (Italy). The majority of voters of France, Canada and many other nations have also brought in governments that promised to support and improve opportunities for the common folks to make it to the top one day. In Australia the poor and deluded suckers who keep falling for this trick are known as "the aspirational classes".

To be fair, at least in the case of Australia, there is always the question of the competence of the Labour party under some of its leaders. Voters vote "against" just as much as "for"

To be fair, do you have evidence that the Coalition is any more competent? That voters have historically been voting against it less often than against Labor?

[Hermit]

in the UK, it's not just competence of the party, but the quality of the leaders.
The Tories consistently dump a leader, if he/she doesn't click with voters. And generally, when they choose a leader, they are trying to choose one that will win votes.

In Australia the Labor Party does that too. It dumped more leaders that party members perceived not to "click with voters" than the conservatives. Most recently it was Kevin Rudd. Before that it was Bob Hawke. And both of them had just won elections. Others are Simon Crean and Bill Hayden. I can't be bothered to list more. In the same time span the "Liberals" dumped one, and that was as a result of ideological faction fighting. Turnbull, an actual liberal, was ousted by the party's stronger right wing.

I wish you people would stop indulging in special pleading. A huge number of members at the bottom of society, thinking that one day they will be at the top, do vote for conservatives outside the US. Huge enough to put the cons into government. The conservatives would never get there if it only got its votes from middle and upper management, doctors, lawyers, architects, highly qualified professionals in general, business owners, millionaires and billionaires. Sandwich hands in lunch shops vote for the cunts because they believe promises that they too can become fast food chain owning tycoons if they work hard enough, that the trickle-down theory works as advertised, and that the cons make it all possible. Sad but true.

[JimC]

Really so there is an equivalent of people in the bottom of society thinking that one day they will be at the top voting for conservatives outside the US?

Indeed. Off the top of my head, look at the following Prime Ministers: Thatcher (England), Howard (Australia), Merkel (Germany), Belusconi (Italy). The majority of voters of France, Canada and many other nations have also brought in governments that promised to support and improve opportunities for the common folks to make it to the top one day. In Australia the poor and deluded suckers who keep falling for this trick are known as "the aspirational classes".

To be fair, at least in the case of Australia, there is always the question of the competence of the Labour party under some of its leaders. Voters vote "against" just as much as "for"

To be fair, do you have evidence that the Coalition is any more competent? That voters have historically been voting against it less often than against Labor?

I'm not arguing for high levels of coalition competence, nor am I saying that the "aspirational" voter wasn't a factor. However, I am saying that a lack-lustre Labour party did not present a compelling alternative for many years. Rudd looked the goods to many, but then the party self-destructed; so many examples of in-fighting and ill-judged implementation of policy since that even fucking Tony Abbott is likely to sweep to power next year...

Shudder...

[MrJonno]

Most people know by the time they are about 5 whether they will ever be rich and strangely enough its almost entirely based on around whether your parents will be.

Thinking if you work hard you will definitely be rich is as much of a delusion as believing in god

[Blind groper]

Yes, but becoming rich is not a problem if :
1. You have the basic talent
2. You are willing to pay the price.
3. With a little bit a luck.
4. You start young.

The talent is able to be cultivated, with the right basic business studies
The price is hard work, and to scrimp and save for a number of years
Luck, I cain't help you with. Nor youth.

The main route to riches is to set up your own business and save your money to reinvest and then re-reinvest. The business does not have to be anything especially entrepreneurial. Just an ordinary business, as long as it is sound, and as long as you are smart in the way you run it. At one stage, researchers found that more people in the USA had become millionaires through dry-cleaning than anything else.

[Clinton Huxley]

Most people know by the time they are about 5 whether they will ever be rich and strangely enough its almost entirely based on around whether your parents will be.

Thinking if you work hard you will definitely be rich is as much of a delusion as believing in god

Very much helps if you went to private school. 7% of children do but, for example, 75% of judges went there. Got to network with the cravat-wearing crowd early to get anywhere in Blighty.

[Coito ergo sum]

Most people know by the time they are about 5 whether they will ever be rich and strangely enough its almost entirely based on around whether your parents will be.

Thinking if you work hard you will definitely be rich is as much of a delusion as believing in god

I don't know anybody who thinks that they will definitely be rich merely by working hard. However, not working hard is a sure-fire way to guarantee one won't be rich.

[Clinton Huxley]

Most people know by the time they are about 5 whether they will ever be rich and strangely enough its almost entirely based on around whether your parents will be.

Thinking if you work hard you will definitely be rich is as much of a delusion as believing in god

I don't know anybody who thinks that they will definitely be rich merely by working hard. However, not working hard is a sure-fire way to guarantee one won't be rich.

unless one is Tamara Ecclestone

[mistermack]

Most people know by the time they are about 5 whether they will ever be rich and strangely enough its almost entirely based on around whether your parents will be.

Thinking if you work hard you will definitely be rich is as much of a delusion as believing in god

I don't know anybody who thinks that they will definitely be rich merely by working hard. However, not working hard is a sure-fire way to guarantee one won't be rich.

unless one is Tamara Ecclestone

Or the Queen of England. Or a Saudi prince.
Or very nearly anybody who has rich parents. Don't they have inheritance in the US?

[Coito ergo sum]

Most people know by the time they are about 5 whether they will ever be rich and strangely enough its almost entirely based on around whether your parents will be.

Thinking if you work hard you will definitely be rich is as much of a delusion as believing in god

I don't know anybody who thinks that they will definitely be rich merely by working hard. However, not working hard is a sure-fire way to guarantee one won't be rich.

unless one is Tamara Ecclestone

Hot chicks are an exception.

[Coito ergo sum]

Most people know by the time they are about 5 whether they will ever be rich and strangely enough its almost entirely based on around whether your parents will be.

Thinking if you work hard you will definitely be rich is as much of a delusion as believing in god

I don't know anybody who thinks that they will definitely be rich merely by working hard. However, not working hard is a sure-fire way to guarantee one won't be rich.

unless one is Tamara Ecclestone

Or the Queen of England. Or a Saudi prince.
Or very nearly anybody who has rich parents. Don't they have inheritance in the US?

Sure, I'm against all forms of hereditary monarchy, whether Anglo-Saxon, or Arab.

Inheritance does give an advantage, but I thought we were referring to people who were not born rich -- I.e. -- those who aren't rich to start out.

Certainly, if your family leaves you millions, then you have a lot of money. That's pretty much a tautology.

However, if you're one of the ones who starts out with little, then my statement holds. Hard work won't guarantee success, but sloth, laziness and apathy will very likely guarantee failure.