Government & Post Election Discussion

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

You are so cynical, Mr K! What you have failed to grasp is that an overwhelming number of people who tend to be left wing when young, turn out to be rabid Tories when they get to that certain age!

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

That age where they have to really start to pay money for the socialist agenda.

Or the age where they benefit most from it.

People vote in their best interests. It's rarely about ideology.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Damien

Or the age where they benefit most from it.

People vote in their best interests. It's rarely about ideology.

To some extent, but it's more about being older and wiser.

Many school leavers are very idealist and don't appreciate that things are not as straight forward as they first appear. Then, over the years, experience tells you that your original beliefs were just nieve.

That certainly happened to me, and I have heard many accounts of such transformation. It doesn't happen so much the other way around, however, although some experiences (eg a bad boss) can turn some Tory supporters into Labour supporters.

In my case, I still believe that those who are poor should be helped out of their dire situation rather than exploited, that people should be treated equally and paid in line with their skills and abilities rather than for reasons connected with irrelevant factors, such as gender or race. I believe that money should be distributed more fairly but that this should be achieved by increased take home pay rather than through taxation or benefits. The genuinely disabled should be able to get better financial assistance and help and the people who try to cheat the system should be punished severely. All the tax loopholes exploited by the wealthy should be closed down, made easier by simpler laws. And so on.

The change for me was seeing what was possible and what was not, and the realisation that socialism did not ultimately work for anyone, including the poor. My core beliefs remain the same. It's the knowledge of how best to achieve them that has changed.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

To some extent, but it's more about being older and wiser.

I think it's a bit convenient that the wise thing to do is triple-lock pensions whilst tripling tuition fees.

Another reason might be rather than more knowledge it's actually that as people accumulate wealth the policies which benefit them change. You might be all for a radical increase in home building until you face the prospect of it depressing the value of your newly purchased home. A cut to jobseekers allowance for the under-25s is less of a concern when you're over 25.

This would also explain why the same trend doesn't happen for people who work in the public sector.

This is obviously a simplification, exceptions exists, but in general older demographics vote Tory because it benefits them and younger voters vote Labour because they believe it will benefit them.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Damien

I think it's a bit convenient that the wise thing to do is triple-lock pensions whilst tripling tuition fees.

Its what you call electoral bribery nothing more nothing less...

Originally Posted by denphone

Its what you call electoral bribery nothing more nothing less.

Bribe or doing what your voters want. Labour do the same thing, vote for us and we'll spend more on 'x'.

To be fair this time around the Tories did try to say they won't offer much, might even spend less on pensions and even had the social care policy and got pilloried for it. They're not going to make that mistake again.

Originally Posted by Damien

Bribe or doing what your voters want. Labour do the same thing, vote for us and we'll spend more on 'x'.

To be fair this time around the Tories did try to say they won't offer much, might even spend less on pensions and even had the social care policy and got pilloried for it. They're not going to make that mistake again.

They got pilloried for offering something similar to what the opposition were offering after they had poured scorn on those same offerings.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Damien

Bribe or doing what your voters want. Labour do the same thing, vote for us and we'll spend more on 'x'.

To be fair this time around the Tories did try to say they won't offer much, might even spend less on pensions and even had the social care policy and got pilloried for it. They're not going to make that mistake again.

l don't disagree as both parties are as culpable as each other when it comes to electoral sweeteners.

Originally Posted by Maggy J

They got pilloried for offering something similar to what the opposition were offering after they had poured scorn on those same offerings.

It's not socialist if the Tories do it.

That said I thought the social care policy wasn't too bad. Someone has to pay somewhere. At least this way you got to keep your home until you die, the flaw to me was that it became a lottery on if you got dementia or not.

And it also highlighted the other side of your example. The Tories took some Ed Miliband policies are suddenly they're decent policies to the right-wing press and they're barbaric to Labour. The Tories essentially proposed a bigger inheritance tax to pay for social care and suddenly Labour were outraged.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Mr K

That'll account for the Tories increased 'strong and stable' majority at the last election

Originally Posted by Damien

I think it's a bit convenient that the wise thing to do is triple-lock pensions whilst tripling tuition fees.

Another reason might be rather than more knowledge it's actually that as people accumulate wealth the policies which benefit them change. You might be all for a radical increase in home building until you face the prospect of it depressing the value of your newly purchased home. A cut to jobseekers allowance for the under-25s is less of a concern when you're over 25.

This would also explain why the same trend doesn't happen for people who work in the public sector.

This is obviously a simplification, exceptions exists, but in general older demographics vote Tory because it benefits them and younger voters vote Labour because they believe it will benefit them.

That doesn’t represent how I think at all!

---------- Post added at 22:12 ---------- Previous post was at 22:10 ----------

Originally Posted by Damien

It's not socialist if the Tories do it.

That said I thought the social care policy wasn't too bad. Someone has to pay somewhere. At least this way you got to keep your home until you die, the flaw to me was that it became a lottery on if you got dementia or not.

And it also highlighted the other side of your example. The Tories took some Ed Miliband policies are suddenly they're decent policies to the right-wing press and they're barbaric to Labour. The Tories essentially proposed a bigger inheritance tax to pay for social care and suddenly Labour were outraged.

They were simply taking account of public views.

Well well well, Corbynites of the hard left variety, will be a bit miffed at Jeremy’s stance on reversing the ban on Daily Mail, on Virgin Trains....

http://uk.businessinsider.com/jeremy...branson-2018-1

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Mick

Well well well, Corbynites of the hard left variety, will be a bit miffed at Jeremy’s stance on reversing the ban on Daily Mail, on Virgin Trains....

http://uk.businessinsider.com/jeremy...branson-2018-1

Not many from the hard left on here Mick.

Originally Posted by Mick

Well well well, Corbynites of the hard left variety, will be a bit miffed at Jeremy’s stance on reversing the ban on Daily Mail, on Virgin Trains....

http://uk.businessinsider.com/jeremy...branson-2018-1

They're trolling the Daily Mail. Both in suggesting this will happen after they privatise the rail networks but also referencing a Chairman Mao quote. An actually pretty dodgy quote at that. The 'a hundred flowers will bloom' is a reference to this campaign by Mao where he temporary allowed criticism of his regime only for many of those who did to later find themselves targetted.

The ban itself isn't so much but a commercial decision not to sell the Mail they're dressing up for PR purposes. Virgin are allowed to choose which papers they stock.

Originally Posted by Damien

They're trolling the Daily Mail. Both in suggesting this will happen after they privatise the rail networks but also referencing a Chairman Mao quote. An actually pretty dodgy quote at that. The 'a hundred flowers will bloom' is a reference to this campaign by Mao where he temporary allowed criticism of his regime only for many of those who did to later find themselves targetted.

The ban itself isn't so much but a commercial decision not to sell the Mail they're dressing up for PR purposes. Virgin are allowed to choose which papers they stock.

But by doing so, they are being very political. I don’t read any newspaper, but I do not agree on censorship of this kind. We all have our different views on immigration, it does need tighter control, the U.K. cannot sustain hundreds of thousands of people coming here every year. People who claim this is xenophobia are talking nonsense. People who claim it’s racist, are equally doing the same.

This is Branson probably throwing a pathetic tantrum, because of Brexit, which he venomously opposed and he is likely using the Mail as a scapegoat.

Tim Farron had his views on gay sex, but I didn’t see anyone suggesting he should be banned from anywhere. It’s hypocrisy again, at it’s highest form from some liberals.

Originally Posted by Mick

But by doing so, they are being very political. I don’t read any newspaper, but I do not agree on censorship of this kind. We all have our different views on immigration, it does need tighter control, the U.K. cannot sustain hundreds of thousands of people coming here every year. People who claim this is xenophobia are talking nonsense. People who claim it’s racist, are equally doing the same.

This is Branson probably throwing a pathetic tantrum, because of Brexit, which he venomously opposed and he is likely using the Mail as a scapegoat.

I wouldn't ban The Mail. I think it's more evidence of American-style culture wars entering British life which I don't like. The Mail itself is probably the biggest cheerleader for such a war, far more than The Sun, with it's tendency to label judges as enemies of the people and opposition as traitors. The Mail is keener than anyone to frame everything as us vs them.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by Damien

I wouldn't ban The Mail. I think it's more evidence of American-style culture wars entering British life which I don't like.

Ah, but Mick would love an American style culture ! tbh not sure why he doesn't emigrate, would Trump let him in ??

Passengers are always free to buy a Daily Hate before they board the train, you can never rely on their stocks of toilet paper.....