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.
I think it's fair to say there used to be a moderate left-wing bias at the BBC - those days are long gone and we have a government that directly threatens the organisation for not towing the line and tries to put pressure not to appoint certain people with the 'wrong' politics.
Just because people on both sides find it biased doesn't necessarily make it balanced. Lots of people were utterly convinced that the BBC was massively biased against Brexit but that was largely because the facts were massively biased against Brexit, but they didn't want to hear them.
We are turning into a horrible combination of the worst aspects of Russia and the US by the day.
They believe if you work hard you will be rewarded like they were.
The counterpoint to this is, they likely believe that the reason the next generation aren't thriving is because they are lazy bastards. Youth of today, they've got it easy, not like when we were growing up. They can't afford food, it's they're own fault because they're just not trying.
I think it's contempt born from jealousy, and it's not a new phenomenon. My gran used to tell me "you don't know you're born" when I was prepubescent. How often have you heard "bloody Millennials"? Some of those Millennials are in their 40s and grandparents themselves now. The old like to rag on the young and that, too, is likely a very Tory trait.
Her reliance on her sources/handlers is problematic.
You can level the accusation at pretty much all the Political editors: Sam Coates, Robert Peston, Theo Usherwood at LBC, I've heard them all use the same jargon they all probably use and rely on the same sources. One of those stories for instance is about her tweeting about a supposed brawl blamed on Labour supporters. The story turns out to be crap. The same incident was written about by Sam Coates in the same way, and was done so using the same two sources that Kuenssberg relied on, same withdrawal by the reporter in question, same apologies after the event by their respective organisations. 2 minutes of goggling reveals the whole sordid mess involving several reporters, but somehow this is used to single Kuenssberg out for special opprobrium.
57 per cent of owner-occupiers and 43 per cent of mortgage-holders voted Tory
Well, that's about as statistically significant as the 2016 vote.
It's really weird to hear people defend LK - she literally edited together two different JC interviews to make him look bad. That doesn't get done by accident.
Well, that’s about as statistically significant as the 2016 vote.
I know you've picked a side on this point and are determined not to be wrong, but you are. Read the article.
You're also moving the goalposts - 'well it's just a generalisation' -> 'well yeah you have facts to back it up but I've decided I don't agree with them'.
OK cool
There's none so blind, as those who won't see...
Both sides say there is BBC bias against them.
Ah yes the traditional cry however there are several issues with this.
Firstly just because one group claims bias doesnt actually mean it is true. It could just mean it isnt biased as much to them as they would like.
Secondly the "both sides" is a problem. Since we should also have the other parts of the spectrum also complaining about bias if your idea that everyone complaining shows a lack of bias.
Thirdly the BBC is big so you could have different bias in different parts of the organisation. BBC comedy for example does probably have a centre left bias (although the number of comedians further to the left are minimal) whereas the politics was rightward bias. I mean can you imagine anyone so hard left as Andrew Neil is to the right having a position of power for any time?
57 per cent of owner-occupiers and 43 per cent of mortgage-holders voted Tory
Is it the home ownership or the age which is the cause of the Tory swing? Generally older people tend to vote Tory and also you're more likely to own a home the older you are.
There’s none so blind, as those who won’t see…
Which means what exactly?
but somehow this is used to single Kuenssberg out for special opprobrium.
Peston got a lot of crap for it as well although its worth noting he did seem more apologetic about it than she did.
She gets more grief since for years she reliably reported whatever Cummings told her as a "anonymous source" whereas the others werent quite so bad.
I dont believe any of the others went full out with the dodgy editing of interviews either?
Well done for editing out the crucial part that discredits your argument folks. Jesus it's getting like FB on here. Expected better from Cougar at least. 🙄
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).
Yes i am a landlord - accidentally. I provide a high standard flat for below market rent and I gave my tenants significant discount when furloughed
I am well aware of what a fortunate position I am in
A lot of it probably just comes down to genetics/evolution – like most things..
I think I've mentioned this before, but I read a study recently that explored why when voters are shown "blind" polices (i.e. without revealing which party they're from) overwhelmingly support "left-wing" social policies and yet "right-wing" parties get voted in.
The study suggested that people generally are keen on "left-wing" policies but when asked to tell researchers which party they think they originate from, they often ascribe them to the manifesto of the party they just voted for, and in cases of right wing supporters the more content they are with their chosen party's performance in recent voting, the more they associate left wing policies has having originated from or are the actual policies of; right wing parties. It's self perpetuating myth making
She gets more grief since for years she reliably reported whatever Cummings told her as a “anonymous source” whereas the others werent quite so bad.
Sure, but from the question of "if you've got evidence, throw it up" and the response it a series of non-stories, then it doesn't appear so strong a claim. If anything aim your ire at Nick Robinson, an actual self-admitted Tory...and yet he gets away almost scot-free by comparison
I think I’ve mentioned this before, but I read a study recently that explored why when voters are shown “blind” polices (i.e. without revealing which party they’re from) overwhelmingly support “left-wing” social policies and yet “right-wing” parties get voted in.
Nothing new. When polling if they ask which party will you vote for, you get one answer. If you ask which party do you feel most represents people like you (or similar) you get a different answer (tribal allegance etc).
There are lots of things which determine who people end up voting for, personality (belief in the person), relatability (can you connect with them), actual policies come a distant third....
Eg Labour at the last election, Corbyn mainly failed on the first two (for those outside the left) and the actual policies were irrelevant. Likewise Boris scores very highly on being 'relatable', people like him as a character and don't really care about the details.
the response it a series of non-stories
Really? Editing together two interviews to misrepresent/discredit someone is a non-story? Wowsers.
What about a programme about Johnson's relationship with the truth which contains no examples of him lying, despite him having been sacked from two jobs for lying?
And wider BBC bias? Nah....
It’s really weird to hear people defend LK
It's not really; people need to trust in institutions such as the BBC, so whenever there is any suggestion it's less than impartial, they feel a need to defend it. Overlooking any failings, is common.
Which means what exactly?
See above.
Another tactic is to attempt to discredit/dismiss any 'dissent', et voila:
Sure, but from the question of “if you’ve got evidence, throw it up” and the response it a series of non-stories
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?
So; why not have social/keyworker housing, state owned, with revenues going directly into the public purse rather than private pockets? When such existed, housing was far more genuinely affordable. It's rental properties only being in private hands, that exacerbates the issue.
A successful economy needs a functioning rental market.
The UK economy was 'successful' when there was plenty of social etc housing.
Well done for editing out the crucial part that discredits your argument folks.
You claimed that "homeowners tend to vote Tory," not "homeowners tend to vote Tory more than they tend to vote Labour." Those are two very different claims and your cited source backs up the latter. I didn't edit out a crucial part, I didn't include it because it simply wasn't relevant.
It's not me who's doing the goalpost-moving, I'm afraid.
You claimed that “homeowners tend to vote Tory,” not “homeowners tend to vote Tory more than they tend to vote Labour.”
How could the former mean anything different from the latter? That was clearly what I was saying, what else could I have been saying? Homeowners tend to vote Tory rather than space-rat? FFS.
Explain to me how the statement you took issue with was wrong - oh that's right, you can't.
'The internet: pick a side, be a dick about it'