They are probably voting against their own economic interests, either knowingly or unknowingly. But they may of course be voting based on economic ideology, or on social issues, or foreign policy etc.
Politics at Westminster | BREAKING: UKIP
- Thread starter Team Brian GB
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
They are probably voting against their own economic interests, either knowingly or unknowingly. But they may of course be voting based on economic ideology, or on social issues, or foreign policy etc.
Voting according to your economic interest is deemed fair enough if you vote Labour, but morally bankrupt if you're Conservative. This starts to grate.
If you agree with the distinction of Labour benefiting poor and Conservative benefiting rich, then a poor person voting based on economic self-interest is also helping a lot of other poor people.
Of course you can vote for your economic interests, but don't get all pissy when people call you a prick for stealing food out out of poor children's mouths.
Oh, and I don't think someone is 'morally bankrupt' because they vote Tory. I grew up in rural Oxfordshire and most of my old friends tend to vote Conservative... I don't think they're morally bankrupt, I just disagree with them politically.
My view is that Labour may try to help the poor but their policies normally end up ensuring that they become poorer/less inspired to try and get out of their circumstances. Hence I vote Conservative.
I can believe you don't think that, but there's a large part of the left that are incredibly patronising.
If they intend to spend the rest of their lives on benefits.
Yeh, but then that's not what the Tories do, is it?
This is like when BSC started claiming that the Conservative government were actively trying to kill off the vulnerable. It's just a bit weird.
My view is that the Conservatives generally run the country better - they utilise funds better, they encourage individuals to go to work, and consequently we become wealthier as a whole - some of that money can go to helping the poorest in society.
You might disagree with that, but this is the problem with the moralising stuff. I want the poor to be helped - it's something I believe to be important - and that is precisely why I vote Tory.
This graph sums up why I think you have it completely backwards:
As you can see:
- Inequality rose hugely under the last Conseravtive government
- The number of households with no workers rose hugely under the last Conservative government, before slowly decreasing under Labour
- Ditto unemployment rate
I'll get back to this after the football.
This is the point. It's a vote for what is, or ought to be, one of the basic ideas of civilisation - that in an inevitably harsh and unfair world, the rich and fortunate help the poor and unfortunate.
I don't really care whether it's motivated by self-interest or principle. In the same way, I don't care whether a rich person votes for redistributionist policies out of principle or because the supposed principledness he observes in himself makes him feel all warm inside. I'm not sure there really is a difference between the two. Either way, he's doing the right thing.
Yes, but you make the assumption that the Conservatives have no interest in helping the poor and unfortunate(two separate entities).
Morality is apolitical. Most people in this country are more than happy that tax payers money is going towards the poor and the unfortunate. If they're not happy about that, that does not automatically make them a Conservative voter.
To be fair, this is one anecdote, and I fail to understand how on earth he didn't win the case if what you write is true.
It's hard to prove that you are disabled when they won't accept any medical evidence. The video was 'all they needed'.
Should he have got my sister to set off the fire alarm and when he couldn't get down the stairs they'd have to believe him?
I don't know. The thing is - obviously I can sympathise with the case, and few wouldn't, but this can't be used as evidence of how the Tories have no interest in helping the unfortunate. This kind of thing happens under both governments.
You've failed to understand the figures, or even read what Mike wrote.
Yes, there is some difference in voting pattern between the classes, but it is obvious from the figures that huge numbers of working class people must vote tory, and huge numbers of middle class must vote labour. Which is what anyone with any objectivity might expect.
There seem to be a lot of posters obsessed with class and background in this forum at the moment, who seem to think every opinion someone holds must be dictated by that.
It's issues that matter, not who your grandma was or what colour collar you dad wore..
Neither Labour not Conservative are going to cede electoral reform. The only difference is that Labour didn't lie about it while the Tories took the fairly safe bet that it would be stuffed in a vote. Libs fecking the boundary changes is good news though.
Sure, but I'd say a lot of disabled people have a problem with how the Tories' policies are affecting them. Same with less wealthy parents with their child benefits and so on..
What a bunch of plebs.
Deary me
It shows just how much you know about politics. Almost all the pro Tory political commentators have called it a brilliant strategic move. Read Iain Dale today, or Ben Brogan or Tim Montgomery. All obviously have to put a Tory negative slant on it, but it was a stunning speech, made like Cameron many moons ago without notes, and for over an hour.
This is a classic step to the middle ground, moving into so-called traditional conservative territory, stealing their agenda and appealing to this abandoned voting block who feel abandoned as George and Call me Dave focus only on free markets and big business. From the Torygraph:
What happened in the past little matters now as the country suffers. After two and a half years of this coalition government: BORROWING IS RISING TO RECORD LEVELS, as public services are being decimated and the rich are getting richer. People are looking for an alternative ...
This was a brilliantly delivered speech, full of ideas and innovation. Actual spending policies can't be set out until Gideon presents his budget in the Autumn, then the documents can be reviewed and alternatives offered.
What's happening now, happened exactly the same under Cameron in opposition. Policy ideas are released bit-by-bit.
Furthermore, Cameron's conference speech next week will be fun when he will be forced massively to the right to appease his rabid backbenchers.
But the fun part will be when he refuses to rule out a referendum on the EU because the big businesses and their vested interest in staying in will not allow it. Watching those right wing fruit loops go bananas will be fun
But the fun part will be when he refuses to rule out a referendum on the EU because the big businesses and their vested interest in staying in will not allow it. Watching those right wing fruit loops go bananas will be fun
Well the poor and unfortunate are very much overlapping groups. As Mike explained above, your circumstances at birth are a huge predictor of your success in life. And even someone who works their way up from humble origins to become fabulously wealthy is lucky - there may be a hundred just as talented and hard-working who don't get the breaks needed to succeed in a very competitive market.
It's true that there's nothing inherent in conservatism, as traditionally understood, that should exclude redistribution, since it sees human civilisation as beset by a harsh world and capricious fortunes. But a) it's historically been the ideology of the status quo, and the status quo has meant high inequality; and b) the modern incarnations of conservatism, under Thatcher, Reagan, the current Tory party and especially the current Republican Party, have been hostile to redistribution in principle, because they buy into trickle-down - a theory most economists regard as ridiculous.
So whether it's through fear that most change is likely to be for the worse, or wishful thinking/post-hoc self-justification/confirmation bias, conservatism has generally been the ideology most resistant to the state forcing the rich and fortunate to help the poor and unfortunate.
Furthermore, Cameron's conference speech next week will be fun when he will be forced massively to the right to appease his rabid backbenchers.
But the fun part will be when he refuses to rule out a referendum on the EU because the big businesses and their vested interest in staying in will not allow it. Watching those right wing fruit loops go bananas will be fun
It is interesting that Labour seem to be the most united party at the moment, very much contrary to expectations two years ago.
Being out of government focuses the mind wonderfully.
It can also lead to bitter arguments and divisions though, which had been a genuine concern with Labour since the leadership election. Seems to have all settled down though, touch wood...
Which is why Miliband was also clever to draw a line under both old and new Labour.
Consign them both to history and move in a new direction.
Says it all when he pleased both Len McClusky AND the Blairite camp of the party.
Consign them both to history and move in a new direction.
Says it all when he pleased both Len McClusky AND the Blairite camp of the party.
This graph sums up why I think you have it completely backwards:
As you can see:
- Inequality rose hugely under the last Conseravtive government
- The number of households with no workers rose hugely under the last Conservative government, before slowly decreasing under Labour
- Ditto unemployment rate
Mike when are you going to stop posting misleading, unlinked, without methodology graphs? You do know we have statisitcians and economists on this forum and we definitely know when we need to know when we are being bullshitted.
Secondly, according to your own graph, inequality, poverty and unemployment began to fall during the 90's, 7 years of Conservative Government. Due to lag effects, it's probably even more likely that policies to reduce this began in the 80's under Thatcher. The trend was unaltered under a New Labour government.
Increasing the allowance (quite considerably) for low income workers? Just to name one.
And you misread what I wrote, I'm saying there is probably more intergenerational family voting patterns associated with New Labour, than Conservative.
Deary me
Read Iain Dale today, or Ben Brogan or Tim Montgomery. All obviously have to put a Tory negative slant on it, but it was a stunning speech, made like Cameron many moons ago without notes, and for over an hour.
This is a classic step to the middle ground, moving into so-called traditional conservative territory, stealing their agenda and appealing to this abandoned voting block who feel abandoned as George and Call me Dave focus only on free markets and big business. From the Torygraph:
What happened in the past little matters now as the country suffers. After two and a half years of this coalition government: BORROWING IS RISING TO RECORD LEVELS, as public services are being decimated and the rich are getting richer. People are looking for an alternative ...
This was a brilliantly delivered speech, full of ideas and innovation. Actual spending policies can't be set out until Gideon presents his budget in the Autumn, then the documents can be reviewed and alternatives offered.
What's happening now, happened exactly the same under Cameron in opposition. Policy ideas are released bit-by-bit.
It's quite clear to don't just hate conservative policy, you actually hate conservative people with your snide name calling in that post. You optimise everything that is wrong with labour voters - an arrogance to policy making and condescending to other people not sharing your thoughts and policy.
the speech was a load of nonsense and waffled on mainly because the leader of the labour party still has a image problem. One nation won't work.. it's everything that Blair and Cameron has said and there's no reason to assume things will be different. The number 1 issue in this country is the economy and jobs. Labour has no solution this, they caused it, and they don't know how to fix it. It's very stupid to think that Labour "help the unfortunate" when unfortunately, just like with the 70's left-wing policies inevitably ended up with higher borrowing, a correction, and years of cuts which inevitably affect unfortunate people more than rich people.
Furthermore, Cameron's conference speech next week will be fun when he will be forced massively to the right to appease his rabid backbenchers.
But the fun part will be when he refuses to rule out a referendum on the EU because the big businesses and their vested interest in staying in will not allow it. Watching those right wing fruit loops go bananas will be fun
The EU is an unfortunate sideshow, but the bigger part of the conference to is to see the approach of Hunt on the NHS. Reform of the welfare state by IDS, and if immigration will make a come back.
Sure, people will magically forget that much of the Labour shadow front-bench where also in Browns front bench.
Have the 2 people who put the 2 halves of this sentence together ever met?
It wasnt a lie. It was, as you rightly describe, a "fairly safe bet that it would be stuffed in a vote." If Labour had taken the same bet they might be in government right now.
And if it had backfired on the Tories and the referendum had gone the other way, what are you saying, the Tories would have welched? What grounds have you got for thinking that?
Really? What you wrote, and I quoted (in full) was :
So poor people will continue to vote for the party they gives them money. And rich people will vote for a party that let's you keep your own money.
Hardly a surprise.
Which isn't the same at all is it?
Whichever of the two things you meant to say, they're both wrong, Mikes figures indicated only a relatively small (10-13%) difference in voting.
First of all, that was one of the concessions that the Lib Dems got in order to be part of a coalition.
Secondly, it would be brilliant for my brother-in-law if he had income, but his only income now is job seekers allowance and some child benefits- with no prospect of actually getting a job because he's actually disabled and should be getting disability allowance too- unfortunately he was the person they wanted to get rid of because of their funding cuts and didn't give a shit if it meant ruining a family's lives
I thought it was good speech. Showed his human side a few funny lines but let’s not get carried away. Leaders of the opposition should position themselves to be seen as electable decent people who could take over the PM's job if the incumbent becomes very disliked. That is all that can be done in opposition.
Very few speeches by PM's get remembered as seminal virtually none of the opposition leaders conference speeches will be. Can anyone recall anything DC said in any of his conference speeches, I can't? That’s not the point of them. Ed will have a recognition gain because he is on the telly. He might be seen as someone who isn't new labour or old labour and that his party seems to like him.
That is about as good as it gets when you are in opposition. He shouldn't bring new policies forward because if they are thought of as good ideas, they get pinched and if they turn out to be flavour of the month or bad ideas it gets hung around his neck.
My biggest concern over the last few years has been that the banks get away with minor changes to the way they do business and in insisting they separate high street banks from investment banks he at least seems to get that point.
Very few speeches by PM's get remembered as seminal virtually none of the opposition leaders conference speeches will be. Can anyone recall anything DC said in any of his conference speeches, I can't? That’s not the point of them. Ed will have a recognition gain because he is on the telly. He might be seen as someone who isn't new labour or old labour and that his party seems to like him.
That is about as good as it gets when you are in opposition. He shouldn't bring new policies forward because if they are thought of as good ideas, they get pinched and if they turn out to be flavour of the month or bad ideas it gets hung around his neck.
My biggest concern over the last few years has been that the banks get away with minor changes to the way they do business and in insisting they separate high street banks from investment banks he at least seems to get that point.
West Coast Main Line franchise process a 'fiasco' says Branson
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19817798
That's privatization for you.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19817798
That's privatization for you.
"And the goods you sell are the ones we already own"
It's pedantic of me, perhaps, but I can't read that sentence and not wince that he used "optimise" when he meant "epitomise".
"One Nation", unless you're privately educated. That was the gist of that ridiculous speech. He made such a song and dance over his comprehensive education to draw the distinction with DC, never mind the number of politicians in his shadow cabinet that were privately educated.
How was it "the gist" of the speech?
He was championing state education for a few minutes out of 65, that's about it. There is no conspiracy to persecute the privately educated. Steve Coogan is not a Labour spokesperson.
He was championing state education for a few minutes out of 65, that's about it. There is no conspiracy to persecute the privately educated. Steve Coogan is not a Labour spokesperson.
He must have repeated "one nation" twenty times, you can't talk about inclusiveness when you are very obviously drawing an "us and them" line in the sand.