[Closed] Voting - is it purely about what's in your own interests

what's best for the country, poor people etc

This for me.

[quote=wombat ]

what's best for the country, poor people etc

Watched the bbc nate silver thing last week, saw a guy being asked about voting say "I used to be a student so I voted labour, now I have my own business so I vote tory"
Kinda depressed me.

It's easier to vote in the interests of others if you're quite comfortable yourself.

what's best for the country, poor people etc

Same for me. I've not used the welfare state, nor do I intend to unless I have to, but it's important to me that it exists.

I do let a party's immigration policy sway me quite heavily though, which is a personal interest. But while I'll never vote for UKIP because of their immigration policy alone I'll never vote for the Conservatives because of their immigration policy and how they treat the poor and the welfare state.

Game theory innit

Voting for a good welfare state/nhs/societal issues is ultimately done for selfish reasons, as it creates an environment where you feel safe & supported, don't worry about cost of health, crime etc.

What's best for society.

I should vote Tory.

I'll wind up voting Green. And then get depressed about it.

I was brought up in a reasonably political environment, I remember how shocked I was the day I discovered that some people actually voted for who they thought was best for them personally, rather than what was best for the country. The thought had never occurred to me.

or what's best for the country, poor people etc?

That's my reasoning. Given IDS' persecution of the poor and disabled, I could never vote for the Tories as I find them morally repugnant.

I should vote Tory.

I'll wind up voting Green.

+1

I remember how shocked I was the day I discovered that some people actually voted for who they thought was best for them personally, rather than what was best for the country

I thought that people did vote for what was best for them (83 election, I was about 8 or 9), a bit like you'd pick your mates in football, until my Dad set me straight (he voted Green IIRC). I remember being quite surprised. We weren't a political family though so I guess I was probably fairly naive about politics at that time.

or what's best for the country

What does that really mean though?

I discovered that some people actually voted for who they thought was best for them personally,

To be fair to those who did / do, that was Thatcher's main message to society for the beat part of 15 years. "F*** everyone else, just worry about how much cash you have."

What does that really mean though?

The common good?

I see it as helping the largest number of people with more emphasis on those who have least. If my taxes go up to pay for that, then I'm fine with that.

What's best for the country is what's best for me.

Tried to explain this to my 7 year old son yesterday (voting for the best for the country). I think he got it. However, if he asks my MiL he'll find out the meaning of voting for your own interests only... 🙄

Simple demographics, political parties and the media split us all down into groups, then sell us things based on what group they think we fit into. Most manifestos now seem built around the idea that people vote based on self-interest, which is then reinforced by media, who constantly focus on what it all means for YOU.
It would appear that our rulers are big believers in game theory.

ninfan - Member

Game theory innit

Voting for a good welfare state/nhs/societal issues is ultimately done for selfish reasons, as it creates an environment where you feel safe & supported, don't worry about cost of health, crime etc.

Not at all - middle classes don't need to worry as much about crime as they live in decent areas and also get decent education, etc etc

footflaps - Member

I see it as helping the largest number of people with more emphasis on those who have least. If my taxes go up to pay for that, then I'm fine with that.

This +1

The same middle classes that vote for immigration policies that give them cheap polish nannies and builders?

Or the working classes that vote for UKIP because immigration represses their wages?

I'm probly best off in the short term with the Tories in agen - I will, however, be voting Green. And not regretting it 🙂

In my mind Tories/UKIP & to a lesser extent Labour stand to serve: Me (selfish), Us (insular), Them (xenophobic) and Green stand for: Us (inclusive)

The same middle classes that vote for immigration policies that give them cheap polish nannies and builders?

You mean Harold Wilson's referendum in 1975?

Same as Ernie.

It continues to surprise me that people still vote for parties that have no interest in the country as a whole, but merely a teeny subset of it, and on the back of a 'dream' sold to them that they can earn a place amongst that teeny subset (if only they wok hard enough, etc etc).

It continues to surprise me that people still vote for parties that have no interest in the country as a whole, but merely a teeny subset of it, and on the back of a 'dream' sold to them that they can earn a place amongst that teeny subset (if only they wok hard enough, etc etc).

That's been the thinking in the US for the last 50 years and look how well it's worked out there!

That's been the thinking in the US for the last 50 years and look how well it's worked out there!

[b][i] "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country"[/b][/i]

John F Kennedy 1961

Theres a word for people who vote purely for themselves, and their own narrow selfish interests, which generally involves wanting more money, and shiny things for [b]ME, ME, ME!!!![/b]

They're called Tories. According to the polls they depressingly represent about 30+% of the population

[i]That's my reasoning. Given IDS' persecution of the poor and disabled, I could never vote for the Tories as I find them morally repugnant.[/i]

I'm sure IDS has not set out to persecute the poor and disabled. Does anyone think that the welfare state had not got out of control and certain people were using it as a crutch? Why should these people be allowed to get away with that?

The problem seems to have been that certain overzealous Inspectors have disbelieved honest claiments which is going to happen occasionally given the numbers involved. Your statement is a complete distortion of the facts...IMHO!

Climate policies.
with thanks to the Centre for Alternative Technology.

[i]They're called Tories. According to the polls they depressingly represent about 30+% of the population[/i]

Thats Bollox Binners and you know it! There are always extremes, but all the Tories I know and associate with are hard working people who pay their taxes and look after their families.

Guess the politician:

“We are not here in this world to find elegant solutions, pregnant with initiative, or to serve the ways and modes of profitable progress. No, we are here to provide for all those who are weaker and hungrier, more battered and crippled than ourselves. That is our only certain good and great purpose on earth, and if you ask me about those insoluble economic problems that may arise if the top is deprived of their initiative, I would answer 'To hell with them.' The top is greedy and mean and will always find a way to take care of themselves. They always do.”

Well I reckon what's good for me is probably good for 90-95% of the population.

The general concensus seems to be the eradication of poverty

Lets all just volunteer to pay more tax

We need to reward hardworking families

What shall we do with lazy families ?

A bit of both. I see where the country needs to be heading at the same time I want to see everyone sharing a responsibility in getting it there.
No party is able do this alone so I don't blindly vote for any particular one.

I'm sure IDS has not set out to persecute the poor and disabled.

It is extremely important for the Tories to demonize the poor and the disabled, in the nicest possible way of course.

It is precisely by demonizing those who depended on welfare to make ends meet, and cast them as undeserving, that the Tories are most likely able to slash the welfare bill and minimize taxation for the wealthy elite, non doms, tax dodgers, etc., while redirecting money to for example Trident replacement.

They would have some explaining to do if they freely admitted that those on low wages and with disabilities deserved greater help while at the same time they slashed the welfare bill.

Ironically amongst all talk of the nice middle class socially aware tyres on here that will be voting Green next week we've missed by far the biggest voting against own interests block.

The average age of the a UKIP voter is 62.

Judging by UKIP's plans for the NHS, pensioners voting for UKIP = Turkeys voting for Christmas.

so I don't blindly vote for any particular one

I thing this is key. Some people will vote for a party no matter what they planned to do. Labour or Tory burned into their souls.

My dad is in a right mess. He was a true leftie; shop steward, picketed at Wapping; yet he can't face voting Labout after what they did when they got in last time.

But he can't face voting Tory/UKIP/Green; it's against his programming.

What can he do?

Guess the politician

I did actually. The bit which always sticks in my head is : [i]"The top is greedy and mean and will always find a way to take care of themselves"[/i].

It's so true and yet you would be surprised how many worry people about the plight of the super rich elite.

Or the working classes that vote for UKIP because immigration represses their wages?

A big fat Bullshit from me as a zero hours contracted individual earning less than 20k.

My dad is in a right mess. He was a true leftie; shop steward, picketed at Wapping

Am I your father?

I'm lucky enough to have a fairly decent job, house, and relatively comfortable life so it makes little difference to me personally which party is in power. For the people at the bottom though it makes a massive, life-changing difference so I'll be voting for them not myself.

The average age of the a UKIP voter is 62.

Judging by UKIP's plans for the NHS, pensioners voting for UKIP = Turkeys voting for Christmas.

UKIP voters tend to be working class Tories so they have been voting against their own interests all their lives.

Am I your father?

I'll ask my mum.

I vote for the mp, not a party. It depends which candidate will do the best for the constituency.

I'm sure IDS has not set out to persecute the poor and disabled. Does anyone think that the welfare state had not got out of control and certain people were using it as a crutch?

We'll have to disagree. I believe it is a deliberate policy to massively over publicise a few extreme cases of benefits abuse and to be seen to cracking down ruthlessly on a ****less underclass.

The rationale is two fold, by creating a common enemy (for the hard working families), the Tories can distract from the real issues (like the economy being in the doldrums, increases in inequality etc).

Secondly it acts as justification for their ideological drive to slash government spending at all costs.

Why should these people be allowed to get away with that?

If you mean a tiny minority, then so what, all systems have a small number who abuse it and in most cases it's in the noise. I'd be more worried about the large coorporates who abuse the tax system and pay no tax, but then they are the Tory paymasters, so are effectively untouchable.

[i]I vote for the mp, not a party. It depends which candidate will do the best for the constituency.[/i]

Really??

Don't they all come out with the same message on a local level...Health,roads, infrastructure, protecting the greenbelt etc etc.

Isn't that what the Council elections are for?

I dont think it really matters because of the way our electoral system works. We are only voting for who is our local MP. Once elected they can sit with any party group they choose, or none. They are under no obligation to sit with the one the associated with prior to polling day, and dont have to go back to the electorate if they do.

As for who is Prime Minister that is upto the party that has the most MPs sat with it. They decide using whatever rules they dream up. Again the electorate get no say in the matter. Afterall there is no guaruntee that the party leaders are elected MPs in their constituency

Really??

Don't they all come out with the same message on a local level...Health,roads, infrastructure, protecting the greenbelt etc etc.

No, they don't all come out with same message after election. Some do genuinely work for constituency and are not always toeing party line.

Although most of them are self-serving wan..rs 😀

NB If you don't think IDS is being too tough on the poor, mentally ill and disabled, consider benefit sanctions. We have created a parallel legal system for the poor / unemployed, only the odds are completely stacked against them eg:

In his oral evidence Dr David Webster of Glasgow University said that over the last twenty to thirty years there has been a shift to a 'parallel secret penal system' through a number of incremental changes. He urged MPs to ask fundamental questions about whether such a system is necessary or wanted.

When asked why he describes it as a 'secret' system he said;

It is a secret penal system because the decisions are made in secret by officials. The claimant is not present. They are not legally represented. The punishment is applied before there has been any hearing. If they get a hearing it is long after the punishment has been applied. The scale of penalties are more severe than the scale of penalties that is available to magistrates courts or sheriff courts in Scotland. You are talking unmistakably about a penal system that has a set of characteristics which, I would suggest, are totally unacceptable in a democratic society.

http://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/news/benefit-sanctions-parallel-secret-penal-system

Why should these people be allowed to get away with that?

[i]If you mean a tiny minority, then so what, all systems have a small number who abuse it and in most cases it's in the noise. [/i]

Is it a tiny minority though? Are you saying that we don't have huge areas where unemployment is way above the national average, where some people have never worked and have become reliant on benefits?

I don't think I know anyone who votes purely in their own self interest. Equally I refuse to believe that anyone votes in a purely selfless manner.

However, people will disagree on what is best for the country - both in terms of what the final outcome looks like and how we achieve it.

Example - IDS fundamentally believes that UC would/will create a fairer, better society. You may disagree with him but some people will agree and will vote to see it happen.

The aims of the "bedroom tax" were to encourage people to move out of large homes and into smaller ones. This would free up larger homes for larger families and also free up cash that could be spent on other people.

Both ideas that in principle were intending to have a positive influence on society.

However, they also have negative impacts. People need to weigh up whether they think these are the right methods, if they will have the right results and whether the positive/negative aspects are something they agree with.

It becomes harder to make these decisions when you are personally involved - not many people will vote to put up their own taxes significantly or otherwise decrease their own standard of living significantly*.

The other complicating factor is how the information is portrayed. You only have to look on this thread for the kind of emotive language that is used (mainly from lefties on here as they shout the loudest). IF you don't have accurate facts it is hard to make an informed decision. All sides will say the other is bending the truth and that their information is correct.

Is it a tiny minority though? Are you saying that we don't have huge areas where unemployment is way above the national average, where some people have never worked and have become reliant on benefits?

Not at all, but the main issue is we don't have enough traditional low skill jobs in the UK after outsourcing manufacturing to the Far East.

I vote for the mp, not a party. It depends which candidate will do the best for the constituency.

That's a different question. Despite my strong opposition to the Labour Party it is clear that not all individuals within the Labour Party are the same. For example if my local Labour candidate was a member/supporter of the Labour Representation Committee I would vote for them. This would be a vote to the individual not the Party.

For example I have no fundamental differences with Seumas Milne, Andrew Fisher, and John McDonnell, other than what the hell are they still doing in the Labour Party.

Is it a tiny minority though? Are you saying that we don't have huge areas where unemployment is way above the national average, where some people have never worked and have become reliant on benefits?

Like parts of south Wales? I don't know whether you go biking in south Wales, but the funding for those was largely achieved through the EU because the area required economic regeneration after the mines/industry closed. But spending on a few bike parks was never going to be enough.

So people are trapped in towns and villages where there are no jobs. Other manufacturers moved in, and have moved out again to the far east as Footflaps has said. I suppose they could do what Tebbit said, and get on their bikes? Tebbit has since said that was a mistake, among many from the Government of the time.

So they could move where the jobs are...if they can afford the rent/house prices...

Not at all, but the main issue is we don't have enough traditional low skill jobs in the UK [b]after the invention of technology[/b]. Low skilled jobs have pretty much gone in the numbers they existed previously and there is nothing the politicians can do about it.

Think of the Apple effect, many millions of people buying the same product on credit so that Apple top brass can earn multiples of millions every year. And you can apply that to loads of products now. Globalisation means the the rich will get richer and the poor will take on ever more debt or look to charities for food, just so the can keep Sky, their iphone and send seflies on Facebook.

My guess is that you are less keen on this JFK quote, EL

In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now.

Lets all just volunteer to pay more tax

I'd be happy to given a more equitable distribution of the country's wealth.

Bit selfish to just consider the UK though? If we are going to redistribute let's do it properly, why just restrict ourselves to the UK. On a global scale if we distributed wealth I guess most people in this country would end up poorer.

My guess is that you are less keen on this JFK quote, EL

Yes I'm no fan of JFK, my username might be a clue.

Apparently JFK stole the quote from his old headmaster.

Voting - is it purely about what's in your own interests

Yes - although those interests ought to include the impacts on others if you are a rounded human being(!)

But ultimately, everyone should vote for the party that they think represents them best. Then we ought to end up with the majority of people getting their way.

Ignoring reality - of course.

I vote for the mp, not a party.

I wish more people did this our local MP seams to be an example of 'If we put a ___ rosette on a donkey it would get in' being taken too literally. In the 25 odd years he has been the local MP I think he voted against his party once and I can't recall him ever expressing an opinion in public that wasn't written party policy.

MP's....bunch of idiots. In the austerity years they ALL voted for a 9% pay increase. This says a great deal to me. However I firmly believe the Queen and Prince Philshould run the country...bring back a medieval system etc etc....heheheh 😀

[i]Why should these people be allowed to get away with that?[/i]

Why use language like that?

People on benefits are on the breadline, often far far below it, the idea that all that claim benefits are work shy scroungers surely by now has been discredited? Most people who receive benefits are the working poor.

MP's....bunch of idiots. In the austerity years they ALL voted for a 9% pay increase.

MPs do not set their own salary increases. It is beyond their powers. They do not vote on their own pay.

jonba - Member
Equally I refuse to believe that anyone votes in a purely selfless manner.

Spoken like a true Tory.

I have enough, more than enough. But that is still massively less than the average earner. If a government was prepared to increase my tax to enable the poorest in our society to not live in abject poverty, people in the rest of the world to have the basic fundamental human rights of access to safe living conditions, clean water, enough to eat, and education for their children, then I'd vote for them regardless of the colour of their rosette.

I vote for what I feel is best for most. I've tended to vote Labour in the past, voted Lib Dem once and I will be voting Green this time. I run my own business. We're comfortable, we have enough. I help others when I am able and I don't expect anything in return other than they try and help spread the love.

I'd rather eat my own sh!t than vote tory.

Spoken like a true Tory.

I don't follow or belong to one political party, I have already voted this year and did not vote Tory.

I have enough, more than enough. But that is still massively less than the average earner. If a government was prepared to increase my tax to enable the poorest in our society to not live in abject poverty, people in the rest of the world to have the basic fundamental human rights of access to safe living conditions, clean water, enough to eat, and education for their children, then I'd vote for them regardless of the colour of their rosette.

Come back when you've sold your bike/computer/phone and sent the money to Nepal.

Come back when you've sold your bike/computer/phone and sent the money to Nepal.

That's a rather silly comment.

The poster said that they were prepared to pay an increase on their tax to enable the poorest in our society to not live in abject poverty.

Why would they have to sell their bike/computer/phone and send the money to Nepal for that to happen ?

It is perfectly feasible to have a tax increase to enable the poorest in our society to not live in abject poverty, without selling personal items and sending the proceedings overseas.

jonba

Come back when you've sold your bike/computer/phone and sent the money to Nepal.

I have more than enough to do both. I don't want to get in to willy waving about the amount I do give to charities, but it's a significant %age of my income.

A bit of both for me.

[i]Why use language like that?

People on benefits are on the breadline, often far far below it, the idea that all that claim benefits are work shy scroungers surely by now has been discredited?[/i]

Sorry...language like what? You are implying that I am suggesting that all benefit claiments are work shy scroungers, which I am certainly not!

bigblackshed - Member

jonba

Come back when you've sold your bike/computer/phone and sent the money to Nepal.

I have more than enough to do both. I don't want to get in to willy waving about the amount I do give to charities, but it's a significant %age of my income.

I'm not doubting your generosity - it wasn't meant to be a personal attack, sorry if it came across that way.

I'm still doubting the concept of a purely selfless act. Surely the purely selfless act would be to vote for the party that would redistribute the wealth to the point where you don't have luxury items and people in the world aren't dying prematurely due to issues that could be solved with money.

Keeping a bit for yourself isn't purely selfless. So what you end up with is people who vote in varying degrees in their own self interest and that of the wider community in which they live.

It is interesting as to how people come to conclusion that they do. And I assume that the same thought processes are used in voting. I spent about £2k on a cycling holiday - that money probably could have saved someone from dying prematurely - something uncomfortable to dwell on.

Country. What's best for the country is generally what's best for individuals. The strength of the overall economy is a far bigger driver of personal benefit than individual issues for the majority of us.

Country. What's best for the country is generally what's best for individuals. The strength of the overall economy is a far bigger driver of personal benefit than individual issues for the majority of us.

surely that depends on how well the benefits of a strong economy are distributed e.g. as an extreme example, go back 100 years and the cotton industry in the Southern US states was booming but the Slaves doing all the work weren't very impressed by it...

Rockape, the use of the phrase "getting away with it" as if they're living the life of reilly on benefits

And this is what the press and politicians have managed to do, you're either in favour of millionaire benefit fraudsters with 200 children or you're not.

Anyone saying "Hmm, actually, I'm not sure it's a good thing that people are having their disability benefits taken off them because ATOS have decided that their cerebral palsy will clear up in a week or two" is now in league with the fradusters. Any doubting of cutting welfare is met with "but there are people who have never worked, 'huge areas' where no-one has a job and gets rich off benefits". As if that's:
1. true, or
2. got nothing to do with an economy that's relying on the SE/London's house prices overheating to make it look like there's a buoyant recovery.

And then there's this kind of thing " The strength of the overall economy is a far bigger driver of personal benefit". Where the only thing that seems to matter is the total GDP. Doesn't matter how it's distributed, socially or geographically. The rich got richer, the poor got poorer, but not by quite as much, so that's a win for society?

[i]Rockape, the use of the phrase "getting away with it" as if they're living the life of reilly on benefits[/i]

Fair enough, but some of the people on benefits have got used to living like that as maybe you and I would too, if we were born into these situations....but they have to be pushed, prodded and cajoled back into work, not just for the Country's benefit, but for their benefit too.

I'm not doubting your generosity - it wasn't meant to be a personal attack, sorry if it came across that way.

I'm still doubting the concept of a purely selfless act.

Who has suggested that voting is a purely selfless act ? As far as I can see no one has.

But there is a significant difference between voting for who you think is best for yourself personally and voting for who you think is best for the country.

Just the fact that you are voting for what is best for the country can have selfish implications, eg, even if they don't personally benefit some people might be happier living in a fairer and more just society, ie, they are selfishly thinking of their own happiness.

I vote for the greater common good, I benefit from the greater common good in many ways.

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation published a study in December testing whether there were three generations of the same family that had never worked. Despite dogged searching, researchers were unable to find such families. If they exist, they account for a minuscule fraction of workless people. [b]Under 1% of workless households might have two generations who have never worked[/b] – about 15,000 households in the UK. Families with three such generations will therefore be even fewer.

[b]There was no evidence of "a culture of worklessness" [/b]– values, attitudes and behaviours discouraging employment and encouraging welfare dependence – in the families being passed down the generations. The long-term worklessness of parents in these families was a result of complex problems (particularly related to ill-health) associated with living in long-term and deep poverty. In an already tight labour market, multiple problems combined to place people at the back of a long queue for jobs.

Saying "there's a couple of people defrauding the system so we'd better dismantle the system and ruin things for people in genuine need" is pretty daft.

Their dogged research wasn't very good then. I could take them to half a dozen such families including my dad's new family who are very proud to be jobless and think of those who do work as mugs. Needless to say I don't see him much now.

Being poor I can vote for what's best for me and what's best for poor people.

How smug am I? 8)