You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
There is enough money in the world - sufficient to ensure a good quality of life for all.
What is the real justification for not ensuring that we maximise the well-being of most humans?
We are rapidly moving to our next seismic industrial revolution, that will automate a huge proportion of work.
How will we ensure that in a low-human labour economy, that the majority of our global population will have sufficient resources?
It seems to me that market-driven, capitalism cannot answer these questions yet - if at all. So why do we continue to pursue the system…?
Because it seems to me that we are only heading for a terrifying and brutal ‘survival of the fittest’ where fittest means that you have a huge amount of assets already. I can’t see in a world of greater automation and mechanisation the need for anything other than an ‘elite’.
I don't think political parties help in this and the (UK) electoral system means you need to vote with who is most likely to win.
Also, most people aren't actually that 'political'. It's easier just to vote one way, then go about your business.
Things aren't really that bad in the developed world (clean water/shelter/food), so changes are small and happen over a long time, giving rise to a 'what's the point' mentality.
Plus with PR you only ever get massive compromises, so no party gets to implement their policies as intended.
Something that would be welcome in these troubled times, uncontrolled exerciser of political power is a very bad thing. Politics should be about consensus not "we won get over it". If the politician doesn't gain the losers' (for want of a better word) 'buy in' things will not improve. I have voted for most major parties in elections. After living in S. Wales in the late 80's never again for Tories. My vote nowadays is most likely to be Green as we need to get a grip on climate change.
Pain and fear....
As someone born and bred in the North East and started work in Heavy Engineering in 1979 i cannot ever vote Tory - they have never changed their spots as the current mob demonstrate.
My political views are built on pain (witnessed and experienced) many Traditional Torys (Home Counties folk) views are built on fear of Unions, Poor people, immigrants and loss of control and ultimately the significant benefits they hold.
The great con has been Thatcher,Blair and Bojos ability to convince piss poor people that they actually hold or will get all those middle class benefits.
I believe we have currently the worst educated (in the broadest terms) working class (in the broadest sense) since the Industrial revolution.
The stress test is underway and will get tougher next year, i think its a "boiling a frog" process. There will be no revolution.
I used to think that this current world would start to slowly rotate back to a more balanced view, but i doubt this, my own four kids (all well educated and employed) have no political views, this is my fault as they have been raised in a relatively comfortable middle class home and they often cannot understand why i get so fired up over "stuff"
I have given up and withdrawn from much of this as i have concluded that it will not change in my lifetime.
I vote for the Santa Cruz marketing department. If they manage to sell their whole cache of Alu Chameleons at RRP they should be given the country to run for a few weeks.... Bet they could have IPO'd BHS in the US for $50bn...
This is my favourite piece of writing on this subject, and I revisit many times.
...We are forced to take tests with definite answers — A, B, C, or D? How well we do at these determines, to an extent, our position in life... a major symptom of this style of learning, combined with our natural proclivity to land on easily digestible answers, is that we start thinking in rigid categories: War is good. War is bad. Capitalism is good. Capitalism is bad. America is Socialist. America is a Free Market System. We must support our troops. College is useless. College is indispensable...These slogans become substitutes for actual understanding, and it’s not as benign as it seems.
It takes a substantial deprogramming to realize that life is all grey, that all reality lies on a continuum.
Not being an unemployed Northerner I'll never vote labour. Right wing through and through. Unfortunately there isn't a right wing party I can vote for currently.
Edit this forum is shit when not using a block ad browser. Endless Cookie popups and constant ads.
It’s never just one thing though, Kinnock didn’t have widespread support from the press barons, Labour still smelt of The militants etc. It’s always a multitude of things.
Sure, but the programme was revisionist to say the least. I doubt any floating voter saw Kinnock's "well alright" moment and thought he was their guy.
Unfortunately there isn’t a right wing party I can vote for currently.
You say currently.....I am intrigued to know when was the last time there was a right-wing party which you felt you could vote for?
Sure, but the programme was revisionist to say the least. I doubt any floating voter saw Kinnock’s “well alright” moment and thought he was their guy.
I think the view was the swing had already happened, but frankly I am a bit skeptical of anyone who believes they understand how that election played out. One of the great advantages of Twitter is that it exposes the number of people who have followed the Emperor in his unfortunate garment choice,
Not being an unemployed Northerner I’ll never vote labour.
Just a little bit off…
If you’ve been brought up in a household that leans a particular way politically, why do you cling so desperately to that allegiance no matter what?
Is that even true, what are you basing it on?
My dad voted Tory, I hated the Tory party from around age 11 onwards. It is not about being blinkered, it is about how you see the world and what you care about.
It is not about being blinkered, it is about how you see the world
🤔
Plus with PR you only ever get massive compromises, so no party gets to implement their policies as intended.
Not so. Look to Scotland or many other countries that use forms of PR
Not being an unemployed Northerner I’ll never vote labour.
Aren't "Unemployed Northerners" part of the the reason BoJo has his 80 seat majority currently? Oddly enough people with a (presumed) Labour tradition, voting against their standard patterns. In fact kind of the opposite of the OP's complaint about entrenched political loyalties...
I think more people are willing to examine their own political ideologies than the OP perhaps gives them credit for. The question is of course, what conclusions do they reach and how does it affect their voting behaviour? Being open minded doesn't mean your vote has to change...
Look to Scotland or many other countries that use forms of PR
Given that Scotland has an SNP majority govt since what, 2011 or thereabouts? PR doesn't seem to be working that well.
Oh dear- the SNP got one wafer thin majority. the rest of the governments since creation have been minority governments or coalitions. currently we have a minority SNP government with a S&D type deal with the greens
Previous administration was also minority government.
PR does not mean you cannot have single party majorities ( even tho that was a part of the intention with Holyrood) it just means you need 50%+ support to get a majority
There are reasons for both widespread/community unemployment and for personal/individual unemployment. These are of course not always the same reasons. Whether or not these reasons are fully understood by those who are unemployed (or whether or not a scapegoat* is used in place) - a vote/votes may be cast from reaction/spite and/or desperation just as they may be cast for a solid belief in change or from party allegiance. In my time I’ve seen a swing to the former (voting out of reaction/spite) yet I’m also fairly certain that the electorate’s trust in party politics/politicians of all stripes is at an all time low.
*Scapegoats seem to be so easy to sell? ‘People are more likely to engage in scapegoating when they are stressed, experiencing oppression, or afraid’
Some ‘professional’ politicians (and various grifters) of course know this?
I still find it astonishing that anyone could vote tory. Where is these peoples moral compass?
even tho that was a part of the intention with Holyrood
It wasn't "part of" anything. Labour tried to design an SNP majority out of it, it was explicit..They failed because the SNP always have a higher seat share (over the vote share) If it was proper PR the SNP wouldn't have the ability to "appoint" another MSP rather than a by-election happening (as has what's happened when Dugdale resigned)
I'm a fan of PR and AV systems but the Scottish one was pretty badly designed from the outset (it's aim wasn't so much PR as keeping the SNP out of control that didn't work well).
here is enough money in the world – sufficient to ensure a good quality of life for all.
What is the real justification for not ensuring that we maximise the well-being of most humans?
Well that has been happening for the last 50 years. Billions of people dragged out of poverty, educated having access to medicines, having prospects in life to excel...it is working...This kind of thing takes decades. So on the whole the global 'system' is working for the majority of people. 100 years ago something like 80% of the world was in abject poverty, now its something like 10% according to the UN's figures. So this depressing narrative of a worsening world that alot people love to push is just BS.
I still find it astonishing that anyone could vote tory. Where is these peoples moral compass?
We have morals...just different ones to yours. Who died and made you the person who decrees what is moral and what is not. Morals and principles are not universal. They are personal to individuals and vary massively from person to person. This ridiculous notion that Tories are immoral and labour is moral is just getting ridiculous especially in light of current events that actually demonstrate, if anything, the exact opposite is more the case.
If people can't debate issues on the strength of their arguments then it is best they don't take part rather than trying to change the debate to slagging off people involved in the debate - when people stoop to despicable tactics like that they've already lost the argument. We've had more than enough of that tactic in recent years and its done nobody any good at all.
This ridiculous notion that Tories are immoral
It's not a 'ridiculous notion', it's fact. The fact you cannot see this, proves just how blinkered you actually are. Our society is collapsing, and this is largely due to tory policy. Far right ideologies are once again on the rise, and this is largely down to tory policy; see tory immigration policies. Deprivation and inequality are massively increasing; this is due largely to tory policy. The fact is that the tory party do not have the same 'morals and principles' most decent people do; they are selfish, self-serving greedy ammoral ****s. Take your blinkers off.
I didn’t vote Labour from 2005 to 2017, because of the Iraq + Afghanistan wars, as too many people in the Labour leadership were those who voted for it. I will not vote for a party led by those who think the murder of innocent people is in any way justified. I don’t think that’s unreasonable really.
A greater percentage of Tory MP's voted for these wars than Labour MP's - who did you vote for instead?
Someone who didn't vote for or support those illegal wars.
Where is these peoples moral compass?
Where the bloody hell is the grammar in that sentence? 🙂
I still find it astonishing that anyone could vote tory.
Rather than telling them they're immoral, if you you're trying to persuade them to vote differently you'd be better served in trying to understand why they vote Tory now. The notion that every Tory voter is somehow a "selfish, self-serving greedy ammoral ****" is clearly nonsense. My dad's a Tory voter, and he's very much none of those things.
Take the time to listen, rather than lecture. "Seek first to understand, then to be understood", as I was once taught (the only useful thing I've ever taken out of management courses...)
The notion that every Tory voter is somehow a “selfish, self-serving greedy ammoral *” is clearly nonsense.
To be clear; I said:
the tory party .... are selfish, self-serving greedy ammoral *
Take the time to listen, rather than lecture
Quite... 😉
To be clear; I said:
Yep, fair enough, I made the link to the voters for dramatic effect.
But my point stands; understanding the reasons behind people's actions is the best first step to persuading then to act differently. Just telling them (or assuming) that they're idiots/racists/unemployed northerners/pick your insult isn't going to help.
Yep, fair enough, I made the link to the voters for dramatic effect.
But that's disingenuous and misleading. I have no problem with you challenging my argument, or quoting in context, but please don't make out I've said something I haven't.
Yep, mea culpa, apologies.
If people can’t debate issues on the strength of their arguments then it is best they don’t take part rather than trying to change the debate to slagging off people involved in the debate
Ooh, ooh, me sir, please! I know this one!
Toryism as a concept is about letting things be and interfering as little as possible. That sounds good, doesn't it? Why would you want a government telling you what to do? Well, it sounds good, but it doesn't work out well for everyone. Because power is unevenly distributed. Power comes from lots of things - intelligence, money, a singleminded temperament to name a few. The question is, should the powerful be allowed to exploit the less powerful? A small government enables this. Personally I don't think the powerful should be able to exploit the less powerful, because I have compassion and I feel bad for those less fortunate. So the question is, how can you have compassion and still want a small government? I have argued with people who consider themselves passionate, and when grilled on the plight of the poor and unfortunate, the most common endpoint of the argument is something along the lines of 'well, that's their own fault, isn't it?'.
Well - is it? Let's say someone don't work very hard and they don't hold down jobs. 50 years ago they'd have been labelled a wastrel or idle. But maybe they actually have ADHD, a condition that we're only becoming aware of and understanding in recent terms. So now whose fault is it?
Ah, you say, but Toryism grows the economy, and a stronger economy benefits everyone. Well, perhaps, but how does Toryism grow the economy? By allowing people to exploit each other, often. For example, it suits businesses to have their workers self-employed or on zero-hours contracts, so they grow and do well, but it doesn't suit the workers. Often you can grow an economy by reducing worker's (i.e. OUR) rights, but this isn't necessarily a good thing, from a compassionate viewpoint.
I think that people are always compassionate to people they consider to be 'us', and callous towards 'them'. This is fundamental human nature. The difference between people is the size of the circle they draw that includes 'us'. There are many reasons, some entirely understandable, why people would draw a small circle, but I choose to draw the circle around the entire human race, because everyone is in need in some way or another, and it is good to help those in need. End of.
This is why it is possible to act compassionately to those around you, but still vote Tory - because those 'others' fall outside the circle. I do not believe voting Tory in its modern form is compatible with being compassionate, although there are some people that may not realise this.
Plus with PR you only ever get massive compromises, so no party gets to implement their policies as intended.
Said as if this is a bad thing. Negative feedback systems exist for a reason; to prevent excursions into danger territory. Which is obviously where the UK is at the moment.
Plus with PR you only ever get massive compromises, so no party gets to implement their policies as intended.
Why do some people use 'compromise' as a dirty word? If the majority get to do whatever they want without having to consider the minority - that's tyranny.
Our electoral system forces disparate views into coalition with each other to make the parties and the voter base as big as possible. This is why there's so much infighting between factions in the Tory and Labour parties; and this is also why so many voters feel disenfranchised - they don't have a party that really represents their views. Your Tory PM might have a particular point of view, but they always end up shaping the government to their view, so you can very well end up with policies being enacted that are not supported by the majority of the population.
FPTP is a dreadful system - yes, things get done, but they are frequently not in the country's best interests, they are not what people really want, they're not competent, they're short-termist or they serve only to undo whatever the 'other side' did. Our country is badly run and generally always has been, and this is a key reason IMO.
I do not believe voting Tory in its modern form is compatible with being compassionate,
This kind of comes back to my previous point about how you choose who to vote for. Many people (in fact, I think, the majority, although that's just a gut instinct on my part) use the pragmatic/tactical approach; which of the parties with a chance of winning can I just about live with, dislike the least, or stand a chance of beating the party I dislike the most.
In the last general election, for many this really was a choice between a kick in the nuts and a punch in the face; the thought of voting Tory made many people feel uncomfortable for the compassion reasons you state, but the Labour party just weren't seen as having the competence to run the country. So, a lot of people held their nose and voted Tory as they considered it the least worst of an appalling set of options.
Full disclosure - I voted LibDem, as they were the only party in my them constituency who had any chance of beating the Tories (they didn't, no-one would in the Cotswolds), and, if I'm honest, as they were the closest party to my own political beliefs, but that was just luck.
Toryism as a concept is about letting things be and interfering as little as possible.
As a concept, maybe. The current lot of "Tories" are about as far away from that concept as it's possible to be.
Cf. brexit.
The current lot of “Tories” are about as far away from that concept as it’s possible to be.
I think the fact that the current lot have been so regularly criticised by the old Tory 'big beasts' (Heseltine, Clark, Major, even May) demonstrates that they are actually very far from 'traditional' Conservative values.
Its crazy really, Johnson today will tell us how his plans will reverse the last few decades of dithering, neglecting to mention that the last few decades have seen the Tories in power for 29 of the last 42 years
but people will still buy it!
As a concept, maybe. The current lot of “Tories” are about as far away from that concept as it’s possible to be.
That's why I said 'as a concept'. The current lot are quite literally self-serving and immoral, and that's not hyperbole.
The current lot are quite literally self-serving and immoral, and that’s not hyperbole.
*Tries to think of even-handed, "but the thing you need to remember is" response*
*Fails*
Many people (in fact, I think, the majority, although that’s just a gut instinct on my part) use the pragmatic/tactical approach; which of the parties with a chance of winning can I just about live with, dislike the least, or stand a chance of beating the party I dislike the most.
I think you give people too much credit.
The ones you hear talking about it, the ones you see posting on the Internet in places like here, the ones who are engaged regardless of on which side they fall, I don't believe that they're a good representation of the the greater populace. (Again, like you, this is just a gut feeling on my part).
I think the majority simply don't care. Post this question on Facebook, then post something banal about the colour of your underpants or your third '@' or something and see which of the two generates the most discussion.
In 2016, fully a quarter of eligible voters didn't bother to turn up. Of those that did, some of the exit interviews were staggering. Some folk voted randomly; many voted on a single policy (eg, "more money to the NHS, that's good, right?"); what almost no-one voted on despite the cries to the contrary today was "we knew what we were voting for." No-one had a clue, myself included, we weren't ready to make an informed decision. Why? Because by & large, we don't care.
And that's why we're "blinkered politically," we vote Labour / Tory / Green / Monster Raving Loony because we always have. It takes the effort out of it.
Why do some people use ‘compromise’ as a dirty word? If the majority get to do whatever they want without having to consider the minority – that’s tyranny.
Because what they mean is "my personal priority might not be the winner".
In the last general election, for many this really was a choice between a kick in the nuts and a punch in the face; the thought of voting Tory made many people feel uncomfortable for the compassion reasons you state, but the Labour party just weren’t seen as having the competence to run the country. So, a lot of people held their nose and voted Tory as they considered it the least worst of an appalling set of options.
That may be true, but not for any of the English people I know well enough to ask WTF they were thinking! I've heard, "Boris is a breath of fresh air - just the shake up to politics we need" and "I'm fed up listening about Brexit, I just want it over [a remained at the referendum]" and "its the only way we can ensure that the democracy of the referendum gets served [a Brexit voter, but by no means a raving UKIP supporter through and through]". Interestingly up here it is about "stopping sturgeon" (for whatever reason they give) rather than anything about labour or borris.
I always voted labour as they align closley with my thoughts and are the only party big enough to keep the tories out, I used to think a vote for any other party was a waste of a vote as it had no chance of overthrowing the tories.
However recently I've lost faith in what they stand for and thought I'd be better off showing my support for a party that takes a strong stand about things, like the Greens. Although they may never get in to power, at least if they are lobbying for the things that I believe in then that may force the adoption of some change by the party in charge.
The current lot of “Tories” are about as far away from that concept as it’s possible to be.
Yup. And there's a real risk/chance someone will start a small c conservative fiscally responsible party and do a Brexit Party/UKIP: Take 10 PC of the Tory vote in crucial places.
Much like the Green Party/SNP/Lib Dems do to Labour.
If you make the Tory party a big state interventionist party that spends like crazy you nick a load of Labour seats but you leave a gap.
Actually, I don't think that's going to happen, but it's worth thinking about.
Its crazy really, Johnson today will tell us how his plans will reverse the last few decades of dithering, neglecting to mention that the last few decades have seen the Tories in power for 29 of the last 42 years
but people will still buy it!
First recorded incidence of a leopard changing it's spots.
I think the majority simply don’t care
Yep I think that's accurate. Huge strides in social equality and the redistribution of wealth were made post war. To such an extent in western democracies that pretty much all the issues that had plagued nations; employment rights, healthcare, housing, education, equality were largely* dealt with. Certainly for the Boomers and large sections of Gen X have had years (in comparison to almost all sections of society in the past) of unparalleled wealth and good fortune**. It's easy to think that voting isn't important any more.
* Obviously not totally, you can pick as many holes in it as you'd want to. In broad terms we live like kings in comparison to our grandparents and beyond.
** It turns out that it was built on the shakiest of foundations, but while folk are relatively comfortable, I don't think there's going to be a political revolution anytime soon
No-one had a clue, myself included, we weren’t ready to make an informed decision. Why? Because by & large, we don’t care.
Alternatively the style and language used in the manifesto documents is used to obfuscate what is really happening or to discourage people from enquiring too closely.
Then "The Conservative Propaganda Machine" (aka Laura Keussenberg) will use their best efforts to avoid close scrutiny of that manifesto whilst dragging something from another parties document to the fore and giving it a 'special' slant.
“I still find it astonishing that anyone could vote tory. Where is these peoples moral compass?“
TJ - don’t you rent a flat out?
Some people (many?) may take the view that people renting out properties is one of the biggest problems in society because it reduces the supply of homes for ownership.
It would be easy to bridge from that to a similarly bombastic statement about your moral compass or lack of it.
So perhaps it would be better to see people as humans first and debate issues in a courteous and respectful way in order to understand others and avoiding rushing to blanket judgements.
Just saying…
(And if you don’t rent a flat out and I’ve confused you with someone else I’m happy to stand corrected).
Some people (many?) may take the view that people renting out properties is one of the biggest problems in society because it reduces the supply of homes for ownership.
Conversely,
If you don't have the deposit for a house and there are no rental properties available, what are your options? A tent?
I'm playing devil's advocate of course, the entire market is bollocksed. We are once again penalising the poor. If you can afford the down-payment on a property then you can start to pay off your mortgage; if you can't afford that then you can start to pay off someone else's mortgage.
The problem isn't necessarily the fact the TJ (or anyone really) rents a flat. The issue is that property owners are free to ask for as much as they think they can get for it, that's the bit that's unsustainable. Combined with the lack of social housing, which should serve to hold the relentless price increases down, the fact that rental costs damn near as much as a mortgage does is probably something that should be controlled.
Then “The Conservative Propaganda Machine” (aka Laura Keussenberg) will use their best efforts to avoid close scrutiny of that manifesto whilst dragging something from another parties document to the fore and giving it a ‘special’ slant.
If you're going to make accusations like that you should have the decency to a) back it up with some proof and b) spell her name correctly.
Laura Keussenberg
Is it my imagination, or has she been a lot less prominent on the news since Dom finally Drove Home To Durham?
Then “The Conservative Propaganda Machine” (aka Laura Keussenberg)
I'm glad this is now a widely recognised fact, rather than just a few murmurings. She's a tory stooge and nothing else. 'Journalist' my arse...
If you’re going to make accusations like that you should have the decency to a) back it up with some proof
Okey dokey:
https://www.trtworld.com/turkey/turkey-slams-bbc-reporter-for-fake-news-285167
Cosy:
Combined with the lack of social housing, which should serve to hold the relentless price increases down,
I say this again and again, affordable social housing on brown field sites is the solution to a lot of issues - creates skilled jobs, builds close to jobs/public transport links do ticks green boxes, cuts the benefits bill, gives people the roots they need to get on at work and school to give themselves more options, so less crime and justice cost, social services etc
It's a 10-20 year solution that will never happen when all parties have a 4-5 year plan. It should be Starmers central key policy.
Okey dokey:
And the name? 🙂
Anyway, I'll have rummage through those links, ta.
FWIW, you rightly said I was disingenuous earlier, but just posting a picture like that could be considered the same without an explanation of the context in which it was taken.
And the name?
Liara isn't too concerned with the truth, so why should we be?
just posting a picture like that could be considered the same without an explanation of the context in which it was taken.
Sure, but it's very 'informal', and just looks like they're having a private chat, which could imply they have a closer relationship than is healthy for an employee of a supposedly 'impartial' state broadcaster. You won't see similar pics of her with other politicians. And what's that about Turkey's 'gold palaces'? Does she not know about this woman, she has a gold carriage ffs:
TJ – don’t you rent a flat out?
Some people (many?) may take the view that people renting out properties is one of the biggest problems in society because it reduces the supply of homes for ownership.
It would be easy to bridge from that to a similarly bombastic statement about your moral compass or lack of it.
I think you are being hugely unfair to TJ. I've never met the man, but I can say with some degree of confidence that if I was renting a flat in Edinburgh I'd rather he was the landlord than most other people. If we accept that not everyone in the country has the capital, credit rating, or desire to buy a property then there is a need for rental properties, and there is a need for landlords who aren't out to screw over the tenants.
Now TJ's reaction to tory voters is extreme, and your defence of it was probably justified but attempting to say he has no moral compass because he is one of Edinburgh's most socially conscious private landlords undermines that argument!
Now your point was probably valid - I'm pretty sure my in-laws are tory voters (at least some of the time). They don't fit the "mould" I would normally stereotype tories to be. They grew up working class, left school at 15, worked in heavy industry, my FIL was a shop steward for several years, they still live in a former mining town. BUT they've done well considering that background - bought their council house and sold it, early retirement on final salary pension as part of job reductions in the 90s, children have both gone to university and now own houses and have good jobs. Tory policies delivered social mobility for them. They believe if you work hard you will be rewarded like they were. Everything bad in the country (Scotland) is Sturgeon's fault - and that's because she's obsessed with nationalism rather than running the country. If they vote tory though I don't think they vote for the party that is actually in power - they vote for the party they think the tories should be, the party that was being described at the party conference today: the party of aspiration and social mobility, the party that delivered for them in the 80s. Do I think they've lost their moral compass? No. I don't think they believe that voting tory is a vote for treating people badly that's an unfortunate side effect of the people at the top of the tory party, but not why they voted for them.
I’m pretty sure my in-laws are tory voters (at least some of the time). They don’t fit the “mould” I would normally stereotype tories to be. They grew up working class, left school at 15, worked in heavy industry, my FIL was a shop steward for several years, they still live in a former mining town. BUT they’ve done well considering that background – bought their council house and sold it, early retirement on final salary pension as part of job reductions in the 90s, children have both gone to university and now own houses and have good jobs. Tory policies delivered social mobility for them. They believe if you work hard you will be rewarded like they were.
Se; this is pretty easy to dissect, in terms of why they might think the tories are good for them. First off, and I appreciate this is contentious because it sounds quite demeaning without clear context; leaving school at 15, would not have really given them a particularly good education as young adults, in the way university/adult training would have (there is a clear correlation between voting patterns and educational attainment levels), so perhaps not a particularly well rounded and informed view of the world, including politics. Secondly; they have achieved 'in spite of' their backgrounds, quite probably through luck and possibly good judgment, rather than hard work on it's own. Right to buy was of course originally a Labour policy idea, stolen by the tories then disastrously implemented (here, they've enjoyed the 'luck' of being able to actually have a council house in the first place, and being able to buy at much lower relative values than today). That they cannot see through all that, and appreciate their own good fortune, shows how 'blinkered' they are, if they truly believe voting tory brings such rewards.
they’ve done well considering that background – bought their council house and sold it, early retirement on final salary pension as part of job reductions in the 90s, children have both gone to university and now own houses and have good jobs. Tory policies delivered social mobility for them. They believe if you work hard you will be rewarded like they were
This is just the classic 'boomers who don't know how lucky they were' scenario. Bribing people in social housing by selling them the houses cheap was a deliberate strategy to take away Labour votes IIRC - homeowners tend to vote Tory.
Bribing people in social housing by selling them the houses cheap was a deliberate strategy to take away Labour votes IIRC
Yup that's certainly true. And that's the
imperative behind Tory planning legislation - to build homes to stimulate the economy in the short term and make new Tory Voters in the medium to long term.
One the other hand, well off successful people are also more likely to vote Tory. So closing Grammar schools closed down a stream of Tory voters. (For decades we had exclusively state educated PMs after State Grammar schools were introduced in 1945 with the approval of all parties. Since Major we haven't had a single state educated PM and there are none on the horizon.) So every party tries to create the voters they need.
well off successful people are more likely to vote Tory
Are they?
Yes, but 2019 was a bit freaky:
Your objection is that I spelled the woman's name incorrectly. Have a word with yourself.
someone will start a small c conservative fiscally responsible party
Fiscally responsible! Don’t make me laugh. At least in my political memory, ‘fiscally responsible’ in terms of Conservative governments has seemed to not reduce public spending, but to divert public money into private hands.
Whether that’s by selling of nationalised assets at below market value, procuring services through outsourcing or PFI, we don’t have any increased efficiency. It’s the biggest fairytale the Conservative party peddle, and right now they don’t even bother to do it without smirking.
Well that has been happening for the last 50 years. Billions of people dragged out of poverty, educated having access to medicines, having prospects in life to excel…it is working…This kind of thing takes decades.
It happened for a reasonably short period, largely as a result of policies driven by democratic socialists - in the UK mostly Labour. It has not been the case in the UK for at least 20 years.
- Decreased income and job security
- Decreased access to affordable, decent housing
- Falling standard of living for families on one average-earning worker
- Decreased access to higher education
- Levelling off and now declining life expectancy
- Increased levels of personal debt - largely due increased house prices
- Increase in benefit bills supplementing low wages (Corporate welfare).
If you’re going to make accusations like that you should have the decency to a) back it up with some proof and b) spell her name correctly.
Remember the mahoosive "broadband communism" banner on Newsnight?
Some tried to make the defense of toryism on grounds they make the pot bigger so everyone benefits. If only it were true
1) tories economic record is poor. Just look to the record
2) trickle down economics does not work - what actually happens is power and wealth get ever more concentrated with the richest taking a greater share
The tories exist for one reason only - to retain entrenched power, privilege and wealth.
That they cannot see through all that, and appreciate their own good fortune, shows how ‘blinkered’ they are, if they truly believe voting tory brings such rewards.
That is one of the biggest issues with the Tory mindset, I did alright so why can't everyone else. There is a total lack of empathy and understanding/care about anyone else.
For me personally it probably wouldn't have mattered what party was in power as I am in a fortunate position but I vote Labour or Green because I see those parties as a better choice for a fairer society that may just give a shit about others. I may be wrong but I know the Tory party have never done that so have nothing to suggest they ever will.
it is astonishing that the Tories present themselves, with a straight face, as the party of economic competence The truth is that the Tories have mismanaged the economy for at least the last decade and a bit, needlessly imposing austerity, choking off growth in productivity, wages and incomes. They then called an entirely unnecessary referendum, gambling the future prosperity of the country for political gain.
The household model is terrible one, but needlessly over-paying off a zero percentage mortgage, while sending the kids to school with no dinner money, and gambling the house on a dice game...pretty much sums it up for me.
That is one of the biggest issues with the Tory mindset, I did alright so why can’t everyone else. There is a total lack of empathy and understanding/care about anyone else.
I think it's more often "I did alright so everyone below me economically/financially obviously did too"
Many also look at the headline "minimum wage up", not the detail of under 25s being shafted, cost of living becoming ever further out of reach and more part time/gig economy/ zero hours jobs.
They grew up working class, left school at 15, worked in heavy industry, my FIL was a shop steward for several years, they still live in a former mining town. BUT they’ve done well considering that background
Yes this is a classic fallacy. "Well I managed it, so if they don't they're just idle". Well no, you managed it because you were lucky in some way. And let's not forget, being born with aptitude or intelligence or even simply being born without any issues is lucky.
Tangent warning - but I promise this is coming back to the original point eventually:
When I say 'issues' this could mean a wide variety of things. For example - I knew a guy through an online platform who was barely employable. He despised working for anyone and found it very hard, and consequently was a bastard to everyone. He managed to find a job working for a publisher with a boss who was also a bastard but was willing to overlook the problems. He later was diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome in his mid 20s. Now that such things are recognised, doesn't that change the situation a bit? Isn't he now being discriminated against due to a disability?
What other conditions will be discovered later that we now ignore and people get penalised for? Something I consider significant is called social jetlag and has been studied. People whose circadian rhythm naturally starts later struggle all their lives to get up and get to work in the morning and to be productive. Forcing yourself to get up far too early (for you) every day has serious mental health implications, and yet few people care - you're simply lazy if you cannot make it into work. There have been studies with students who were failing their further education and on the point of being expelled from it - the study simply rearranged the timetable for them to start and finish later, and they did far better. How terrible to be written off as a bad student or worker and condemned to struggle all your life through some quirk of biology?
This comes back to compassion and understanding. There's a large part of society that will scoff at this idea of social jetlag or conditions like ADHD and call it excuse-making or pampering and wheel out the 'well I can do it why can't you?' line whilst not listening to the explanations of why someone can't. And I'll bet anyone 5 € that most of those people will be Tory voters. Because the only reason you can vote for Tory style policies (if policies are the reason you vote Tory) is because you don't really care to understand the issues properly.
A common Republican line of discussion in the US about why immigrants shouldn't be entering the US from Latin America is 'why can't they stay and fix their own countries?' But this isn't an actual question - they don't really want to know, they certainly don't listen when you explain it - it's rhetoric. They pose the question to beg the answer they want, which is that they are to lazy or unwilling to stay and fix the problems. They have no conception of the problems that force people to cross deserts and break laws, and crucially, they don't really want to learn. They just say these things to make the migrants look worse so they can justify not helping them.
Liara isn’t too concerned with the truth, so why should we be?
Well, two things;
1) name-calling only serves to diminish any discussion
2) do I need to explain why we should be concerned with the truth?
looks like they’re having a private chat, which could imply they have a closer relationship than is healthy for an employee of a supposedly ‘impartial’ state broadcaster. You won’t see similar pics of her with other politicians.
Indeed, it could imply that but, like I said, I've no idea about the context in which the photograph was taken. They may have been having a chat whilst a film crew was setting up for an interview. He may have sneaked out of a meeting of the Secret Services to tell her something he shouldn't. She may be telling him about some juicy bit of BBC gossip that he can use in the current Tory war on the BBC. I don't know, all I can see is a picture. If you do know, brilliant, then tell me, then we don't have to speculate about implications.
FWIW, I'm not particularly pro-Labour or pro-Conservative (I'm anti the current government, but as above, the only thing they really share with 'traditional Conservative' principles is the colour of the rosette they wear). What I am definitely pro- is a reasoned, civilised debate about the issues involved.
No-one, literally no-one, has all the answers, but people are too keen to shout down opinions they disagree with, rather than listen to the point and understand why the person has come to that opinion. And this is one of the reasons that a) people don't bother to get involved and b) opinions get further and further entrenched towards the extremes.
looks like they’re having a private chat, which could imply they have a closer relationship than is healthy for an employee of a supposedly ‘impartial’ state broadcaster. You won’t see similar pics of her with other politicians.
This is no different that JHJ's pictures of anybody and Jimmy Saville talking together, it's just damning by association. I've read some of those links, and if that's the "evidence" that's she's somehow a deep cover Tory stooge then it's pretty thin gruel. One of them actually accuses her of "meeting with politicians and their advisors"...Erm righty-ho.
One of them actually accuses her of “meeting with politicians and their advisors”
SHE'S DOING HER JOB! BURN HER!
I’ve read some of those links, and if that’s the “evidence” that’s she’s somehow a deep cover Tory stooge then it’s pretty thin gruel.
Her reliance on her sources/handlers is problematic. Especially when Cummings was in number 10 she reliably reported the lies as "number 10 source" and allowed them to float ideas/throw shit around without the spindoctors being able to be challenged on the lies later since it was just a anonymous source.
A lot of it probably just comes down to genetics/evolution - like most things..
Studies have found that subjects with conservative political views have larger amygdalae and are more prone to feeling disgust. Liberals have larger volume of grey matter in the anterior cingulate cortex and are better at detecting errors in recurring patterns. Conservatives have a stronger sympathetic nervous system response to threatening images and are more likely to interpret ambiguous facial expressions as threatening. In general, conservatives are more likely to report larger social networks, more happiness and better self-esteem than liberals. Liberals are more likely to report greater emotional distress, relationship dissatisfaction and experiential hardship and are more open to experience and tolerate uncertainty and disorder better.[citation needed]
Genetic factors account for at least some of the variation of political views. From the perspective of evolutionary psychology, conflicts regarding redistribution of wealth may have been common in the ancestral environment and humans may have developed psychological mechanisms for judging their own chances of succeeding in such conflicts. These mechanisms affect political views.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_political_orientation
More detailed article here:
SHE’S DOING HER JOB! BURN HER!
Yes, if you consider her job to be to discredit the opposition and do PR for the government.
the fact that rental costs damn near as much as a mortgage does is probably something that should be controlled.
It's worse than that. It's not near, it's more. The difference between my monthly mortgage payments now and the rental my OH was paying on a property half the size is £6.
homeowners tend to vote Tory.
Do you want some cream to put on that rash generalisation?
Life experience, unless they veer off the path.
It's not cut and dried - Grandparents were raving Tory (and had rubbish working lives) but parents are very far over to the Left.
I was to the Centre when growing up due to wealthy friends and fitting in, and now despite having very wealthy partner we're both super left.
We've got everything we need out of life - why shouldn't others?
Lucky people should recognise that luck. It's very rarely anything to do with hard work.
Also people don't understand the economy, they've been sold a version of it. It's simply not true.
But equally people don't like change until it's absolutely necessary.
Do you want some cream to put on that rash generalisation?
No thanks.
Homeowners have, in turn, rewarded the Conservatives. In 2019, 57 per cent of owner-occupiers and 43 per cent of mortgage-holders voted Tory (against just 22 per cent and 33 per cent for Labour).
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk-politics/2021/05/how-tory-dominance-built-home-ownership
TJ – don’t you rent a flat out?
What is actually wrong with this?
What about students who need somewhere for a year, or trainee doctors who get rotated around hospitals etc, where do they live if not rented accomodation?
Not everyone wants to buy a house, in fact if everyone did own a house and no one rented it would be a drag on the economy as it would make labour very geographically sticky, which would mean you'd have jobs in one area and unemployed people in another etc.
A successful economy needs a functioning rental market.
Another BBC & LK supporter here.
Both sides say there is BBC bias against them.
There ain't no bias. The BBC is obliged to provide "on the one hand this on the other hand that" coverage and it does exactly that, including LK.
Each side provide examples to "prove" their perception.
The irony is the BBC is a (unique?) example of the state doing something absolutely brilliantly and the left attack it as much as the right do.