I feel like most people would identify it with a focus on economic prosperity (on a national or global scale) with no concern for other issues like identity or economic prosperity on more local scales.

The plebs are a little socially conservative, but the urban elites and even rural middle class are batshit leftist and given that we're a first world country the middle class is huge

I mean yes I suppose I am one of those myself, but I don't meet many

My local seat is Con/Libdem swing if that's any indication

But the conservative party is socially leftist so

It's not like that's not what they've done

Ok to argue it's the conservative party directly that have done these things is perhaps a stretch, but these things have largely occured in their time in office

Catholic tories? We 1690 now bois

Your suggestion of the tories "over time getting more conservative" which is more realistically termed "growing a fucking spine" doesn't happen without people who are 'edgy' real conservatives

No the Conservative Party wasn't formed until 1830

the Tory party has existed much longer

or rather, existed much earlier and was morphed into the Conservative party

If you don't think party politics were a massive force as early as the end of the 17th century you're wrong

Not being as left as Labour does not make them actual conservatives, this is the only way I can see them being viewed as not pretty damn left

Idk who they might refer to Wacka, did Tommy join?

I don't recall him doing that

The "existance of minimum wage" isn't really the issue, the issue is that whenever labour brings up raising it the conservative response isn't to argue the other side it's to say "ok but not that much"

which they do on

many issues

I mean, yes?

I don't care about gays getting married but giving them tax breaks when their union does nothing positive for society is wild. Hetero marriages actually serve a useful purpose.

Hence why they were given tax breaks

Child benefits incentivise broken families. Family welfare is whatever

If you pay out money to every single mother with a brood there are no negative consequences to breaking families.

Ok then I don't much care about that

I'd probably make the limit like 25k or something but it's not an issue I'm about to lose sleep over

Yes we should

Agree tbh

Tbf it's primary season, it's expressly for in-fighting

Muslims and a couple Norf FC heroes

I think the dems will pull themselves together after primaries but I think Trump will win still

They did, to a large degree. The machinery filed into line

it didn't work for them in the end, but they did unite as far as the organs of power go

That is

good to hear

i hope it's real

Warren will not get the nom

I'm pretty sure Biden will get it

I can deal with that, the vast majority were indeed black in the time period they refer to.

Ok the racial dimension is dumb but I don't think you're ever going to talk them out of it

It's not even an Africa/Empire thing, it's more like Rich and poor who happen to live in very weak states that don't protect them

and Ireland :^]

The government budget before the first world war was tiny @wacka

it inflated even more after ww2

not by monetary inflation did it get bigger

the actual spending

was multiplied many times during and after the first world war

Well idk Lizard. Most of the world is pretty fucking racist and anti-semetic. It's only really whites that aren't

Well OK I guess the Chinese probably don't give a shit about Jews but, they're definitely pretty racist

^

Compensation was the ONLY right way to do it. Unlawful seizure of property by the state without compensation would have rent the state in half

You cannot simply seize property that someone owns and not compensate them in an advanced society like late 19th century England and expect the state to survive that

That doesn't mean they were in favour of eroding property rights

You're wrong

simply

you are

That is precisely how they viewed it

Their right to not have their property arbitrarily seized by the government was their primary form of freedom

To refer to slaves? It absolutely is

Yes, but the britain based merchants with ledger books telling them they had 80 slaves on their distant plantation regarded those slaves as their lawful property

and they were until that law

I mean I'm arguing that the state seizing property for moral reasons without compensation is not good ever for anything

It was a debt more likely to randos and foreign treasuries because they paid the owners off on the spot

I'm happy to have paid taxes for that. I'm happy to pay a share of a debt that lets me live in a society that found the actual just solution to the problem

Lol most of those slavers descendants were ravaged by estate taxes in WW1

they paid it back

don't fear that

you haven't

you've paid money to random debters

Also when, in the 1880s, the government decided to pay this. Almost none of the governments wealth was from taxation of random plebs

it was from merchant duties, many of whom were profiting from slave products, and taxes on estates

Probably because WW1 happened and annihilated the country's finances before it was paid off before

then WW2 happened and did it again

Deal

Well if it's WW1 I'm definitely blaming Austria

Put it all on Bosnia just to make it the least fair possible

ez

and they didn't pay either of their world war bills in full <:peepoMad:611573754060996618>

I mean if I were the French I'd be inclined to shove a enormous pipe up Germany's ass for turning the north and east of my country into a continous warzone too. So I can't exactly fault them for that bill

The Franco-Prussian war was tiny and lasted one year, maybe 900,000 died on both sides. The First World War took 4 years and killed 1.4 million Frenchmen alone. For that you have to get a victory that is worth more than the one gained for a one year war of less than 1/10th the casualty scale. Also the war was in large measure Germany's fault for giving Austria a blank cheque of unconditional support to do literally anything to Serbia. There's a boat-load of literature about the German high-command (who were a prominent government institution, not just a military body) being eager for conflict beyond their natural duty to prepare for the eventuality.

But, the comically stupid figure of Conrad von Hotzendorf, the Austrian cheif of staff who wanted the war literally to get in a married woman's pants, makes me want to blame Austria entirely

Lord Protector Boris tbh

Not really

There have been plenty of kingdoms that have survived a ton of shit monarchs. Just history doesn't remember most of them because they were shit, but not shit enough to cause problems.

Charles isn't shit enough to cause problems

At worst he will be an annoying preachy shit. Which honestly is one of the worst things he can conceivably be in his position

I refer you to Charles meeting Greta Thunberg today

for why he'll probably be a preachy shit

I think the pro-monarch sentiment when Liz dies will be more than enough to coast through a mediocre Charles reign that follows

honeslty if that was the real truth I wouldn't even be mad

It'll be proper weird when Liz dies tho

Except for that one Ugandan poet guy

I would too

Not the kind of thing you willingly miss

Why is the commie in the comments of this tweet quoting the Bible like he doesn't think Christianity is some eternal evil?

Looking forward to King Bill

King Bill, 5th of his name

Charles gonna be Edward VIII all over again

Get coronated to be in the book then abdicate a year later

Ok that's fair