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:
