This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- TSR opinion poll, Feb 2024: how would you vote in the general election?
- 2023–24 by-elections thread
- Can someone please give me feedback on my A-Level Politics essay?
- Should i vote Labour?
- Rethinking the nation state - what a Labour Government could do
- Edexcel A-Level Politics Paper 1 Essay Feedback
- Was Jeremy Corbyn a Better Labour leader than Kier Starmer
- Rochdale By-election: George Galloway elected as new MP
- Politics
- LNAT Section B
- Lee Anderson defects to reform
- Jeremy Hunt to deliver budget on March 6 as election looms
- Have the Tories stopped being Conservative?
- Edexcel A-level Politics Paper 1 (9PL0 01) - 23rd May 2023 [Exam Chat]
- How does one even go about answering this question!?
- Do you wish Johnson to return?
- Working Class / Left wing football clubs?
- Politics edexcel alevel 2023 predictions
- UK government loses Rwanda scheme appeal in the Supreme Court
- Rishi Sunak gives Net Zero speech: PM waters down key policy goals
What motivates people to vote Labour?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by redferry
You are so out of touch and your views so warped that I literally see no point in arguing with you due to just how ridiculous your generalisations are.
As someone who has associated with people from many walks of life, with half my family having worked their way out of council estates and the others living in Welsh Mining villages/rural Italy, and with two parents that are social workers, I would like to think I have experienced a wide variety of working class people, and I can assure you, most are not as you have described.
As someone who has associated with people from many walks of life, with half my family having worked their way out of council estates and the others living in Welsh Mining villages/rural Italy, and with two parents that are social workers, I would like to think I have experienced a wide variety of working class people, and I can assure you, most are not as you have described.
I am really not out of touch, but how's this for a proposal........
I actually think there are two types of underclass, the naive and the spiteful.
Your typical 50yr old who used to work down a coal mine would fall under the naive. Your 18yr old girl in rochdale, with her 3 kids would fall under the spiteful. The kids of the girl from rochdale will grow up to be the typical chav thugs we see roaming the streets.
Everything I have been saying has been more geared towards the spiteful because this is the type of people I have encountered. I am fully capable of admitting my reasoning may not apply to the "naive" underclass, but I sure as hell will not spare any thought for the other type which I propose exist.
Original post by billydisco
I am really not out of touch, but how's this for a proposal........
I actually think there are two types of underclass, the naive and the spiteful.
Your typical 50yr old who used to work down a coal mine would fall under the naive. Your 18yr old girl in rochdale, with her 3 kids would fall under the spiteful. The kids of the girl from rochdale will grow up to be the typical chav thugs we see roaming the streets.
Everything I have been saying has been more geared towards the spiteful because this is the type of people I have encountered. I am fully capable of admitting my reasoning may not apply to the "naive" underclass, but I sure as hell will not spare any thought for the other type which I propose exist.
I actually think there are two types of underclass, the naive and the spiteful.
Your typical 50yr old who used to work down a coal mine would fall under the naive. Your 18yr old girl in rochdale, with her 3 kids would fall under the spiteful. The kids of the girl from rochdale will grow up to be the typical chav thugs we see roaming the streets.
Everything I have been saying has been more geared towards the spiteful because this is the type of people I have encountered. I am fully capable of admitting my reasoning may not apply to the "naive" underclass, but I sure as hell will not spare any thought for the other type which I propose exist.
Why are they naive? Plenty of the people you talk of have GCSEs and A-levels, but no opportunity to go to uni and there would be little point anyway due to the lack of jobs in their area.
Original post by redferry
Why are they naive? Plenty of the people you talk of have GCSEs and A-levels, but no opportunity to go to uni and there would be little point anyway due to the lack of jobs in their area.
I am not on about these people and I have made that clear.
There is a sodding massive great difference between an 18yr old girl with two kids claiming benefits and someone with qualifications unable to get a job or go to university.
I even made this distinction in the miner post above, when I said about a cushty life on benefits. I said that this is only when children are involved and the benefits rocket to levels where there are generous residual amounts. When children aren't involved I appreciate the benefit amounts given are very small.
I know a few single mums with two children who can afford to join £40 a month gyms. They receive no support from their parents so how are they affording such "luxuries"? (and no they dont starve their kids or anything).
The other group are naive because their "lack of luck" has been down to stupidity. They didn't set out to defraud the system. A teenager have two kids knowing she cannot afford them is defrauding the system and the taxpayer.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by Edenwood
I am beginning to think billydisco is a troll as I am having difficulty with the idea that any human being can genuinely be this self righteous, unreasonable, callous and generally stupid when it comes to other people's lives
Someone's still a little annoyed I made them look a bit silly with the following post.....
Billydisco
The bit I have highlighted clearly demonstrates my point was not about a single government decision, but generally speaking!
Original post by Edenwood
I wrote a whole paragraph detailing where you contradicted yourself. What's the problem? It's right in front of you! You even quoted it in your post!
Seeing as you say that, with respect to the decision to lift 2 million people out of tax, the Tories are being "blackmailed," I could only assume with such firm and forceful language that you were opposed to the thing they were being "blackmailed" to do, ie. lifting people out of tax. It was a fair inference, perhaps you should have clarified your position on the issue, something I notice you still haven't actually done.
Your gushing sentiments about Nigel Farage just prove how false your beliefs are. What you're basically saying is that you've heard a couple of speeches by him and, without knowing any of his policies, have decided that would make him an excellent prime minister. You have been convinced of an entire ideology by demagogy and nothing more. Thomas Jefferson was a crap speaker, but he is still regarded as one of America's best presidents. Perhaps you should try looking behind superficial ramblings before forming conclusions on politicians.
I'm still not quite sure how doing "as much damage to Britain as possible" makes people feel inclined to vote for Labour. How does "ruining education" win votes? How does letting immigrants in who can't vote win votes? The only demographic that remains is your dubious teenage pregnancy group, but I find it difficult to believe that they alone would be enough to win Labour over 800 seats at the recent local elections. This whole paragraph and the unaccounted for points you made in it is stupid anyway, but I think you ought to reevaluate the conclusion you have come to on this matter because it seems misguided and nothing short of ridiculous to me.
I already showed you where you contradicted yourself in the post you just read. It's not my fault you appear to have selectively read an entire paragraph that answered your question the first time.
Seeing as you say that, with respect to the decision to lift 2 million people out of tax, the Tories are being "blackmailed," I could only assume with such firm and forceful language that you were opposed to the thing they were being "blackmailed" to do, ie. lifting people out of tax. It was a fair inference, perhaps you should have clarified your position on the issue, something I notice you still haven't actually done.
Your gushing sentiments about Nigel Farage just prove how false your beliefs are. What you're basically saying is that you've heard a couple of speeches by him and, without knowing any of his policies, have decided that would make him an excellent prime minister. You have been convinced of an entire ideology by demagogy and nothing more. Thomas Jefferson was a crap speaker, but he is still regarded as one of America's best presidents. Perhaps you should try looking behind superficial ramblings before forming conclusions on politicians.
I'm still not quite sure how doing "as much damage to Britain as possible" makes people feel inclined to vote for Labour. How does "ruining education" win votes? How does letting immigrants in who can't vote win votes? The only demographic that remains is your dubious teenage pregnancy group, but I find it difficult to believe that they alone would be enough to win Labour over 800 seats at the recent local elections. This whole paragraph and the unaccounted for points you made in it is stupid anyway, but I think you ought to reevaluate the conclusion you have come to on this matter because it seems misguided and nothing short of ridiculous to me.
I already showed you where you contradicted yourself in the post you just read. It's not my fault you appear to have selectively read an entire paragraph that answered your question the first time.
Original post by billydisco
There's no point assigning current actions to the tories when they are being blackmailed by the lib dems at every decision they make.
The bit I have highlighted clearly demonstrates my point was not about a single government decision, but generally speaking!
Original post by billydisco
I am not on about these people and I have made that clear.
There is a sodding massive great difference between an 18yr old girl with two kids claiming benefits and someone with qualifications unable to get a job or go to university.
I even made this distinction in the miner post above, when I said about a cushty life on benefits. I said that this is only when children are involved and the benefits rocket to levels where there are generous residual amounts. When children aren't involved I appreciate the benefit amounts given are very small.
I know a few single mums with two children who can afford to join £40 a month gyms. They receive no support from their parents so how are they affording such "luxuries"? (and no they dont starve their kids or anything).
The other group are naive because their "lack of luck" has been down to stupidity. They didn't set out to defraud the system. A teenager have two kids knowing she cannot afford them is defrauding the system and the taxpayer.
There is a sodding massive great difference between an 18yr old girl with two kids claiming benefits and someone with qualifications unable to get a job or go to university.
I even made this distinction in the miner post above, when I said about a cushty life on benefits. I said that this is only when children are involved and the benefits rocket to levels where there are generous residual amounts. When children aren't involved I appreciate the benefit amounts given are very small.
I know a few single mums with two children who can afford to join £40 a month gyms. They receive no support from their parents so how are they affording such "luxuries"? (and no they dont starve their kids or anything).
The other group are naive because their "lack of luck" has been down to stupidity. They didn't set out to defraud the system. A teenager have two kids knowing she cannot afford them is defrauding the system and the taxpayer.
But why are you generalising from a minority (ie people who are on benefits but have a cushty life?) when the reality for the majority of that group is about as far as you can get from what you describe? You already said you hate everyone on benefits and referred to them as an underclass, I don't see how what you have described is relevant to a large proportion of people on benefits (look at the figures, most aren't even on them permanently, it is there for a fall-back when people hit upon hard times).
Why is it down to stupidity? You do know a lot of people don't have the intelligence or home environment to attain good grades? You can't just magic qualifications out of nowhere.
You seem to think the majority of people on benefits are single mothers. Strange given there are three times as many men on JSA than women, and in 2010 there were more claimants with dependants who had a partner than those that didn't.
(edited 11 years ago)
historically belief in the Trades Union system - that said the folk mythology of the TU movement ignores the impact of managers and owners efforts in improving productivity by improving conditions and safety ( a sober, clean , clothed , reasonably fed and well rested workforce is a productive workforce - the motivation behind Lever, Salt and Cadbury's infrastructure improvements in and around their plants including creating Saltaire, Port Sunlight and Bournville ...
the trade unions since the 1960s have increasingly lost touch with the reality of the workers they are meant to represent and their hierarchies have become a home for second rate and unelectable Labour politicians even down to employer paid but working for the union convenors from the likes of Uniscum .
Blair and Blinky's thirteen glorious years were based on endless cheap credit , risk taking by banks they had deregulated and the creation of a client state not only among the underclass but among the 'working class' m by making the majority of familes benefit recipients instead of controlling tax bloat ...
the trade unions since the 1960s have increasingly lost touch with the reality of the workers they are meant to represent and their hierarchies have become a home for second rate and unelectable Labour politicians even down to employer paid but working for the union convenors from the likes of Uniscum .
Blair and Blinky's thirteen glorious years were based on endless cheap credit , risk taking by banks they had deregulated and the creation of a client state not only among the underclass but among the 'working class' m by making the majority of familes benefit recipients instead of controlling tax bloat ...
Original post by chrisawhitmore
The only good version of a voting exam I've heard is one where you select your candidate, and then there are 3 multiple choice questions on that candidate's policies, and you have to get at least 2 right for your vote to be registered.
Clearly thats not a very good test, its not very hard at all to imagine a more suitable one.
But I have come to think that perhaps voting on different issues should require different qualifications. For example, I have heard it said many times on this thread that the economic issues upon which we vote are way beyond most people's understanding, ie. you need roughly a first year university level understanding of economics to even form a rational opinion. If thats what it takes then why not offer the education for free and allow them to take an exam on it before voting on the issues. Now you've heard of two voting exams!
For more moral consensus issues (gay marriage), there is no education really necissary other than to have an understanding of ethics.
Original post by Otkem
I shall never forgive the Labour party for what they put my family through during 2009-10. I am interested though in seeing what motivates people to vote for such a damaging party. They damaged the economy, they damaged family values, they damaged people's trust in their government. They damaged everything you can imagine basically. What motivates you to want another Labour Govt? My opinion of Labour voters is that they are extremely selfish and do not care about the good of the long-term economy, as long as they get their handouts courtesy of the taxpayer. Now of course this isn't representative of all Labour voters, but I am at a loss as to explain why they won so many local council seats, and am quite frankly damn worried.
Well said, takes balls to go and say that on here, considering the majority of users here are left of centre.
It will take a long time for me to trust Labour again, then again I'd probably be saying something very different if I wanted to sit around all day and leech off the taxpayer.
[QUOTE="billydisco;37438646"]
You are aware a tip requires low paid workers to run, right?
Original post by Bornblue
Not everyone has the opportunity to gain qualifications. You're so out of touch with reality it's untrue. So many kids in inner city estates barely know their father, come from incredibly unstable backgrounds and go to failing schools. Not everyone can go to university and not everyone can be a doctor.
and I will say again, are you suggesting we are physically unable of carrying our rubbish to a tip? Or hiring a lorry to dump it all in? No
I think you don't fully understand professions like banking. When the (Northern Rock?) crisis (or it may have been RBS actually) occurred we were an hour away from being sent back to the stone-age due to the money markets and runs on banks....
I'm pretty certain as a society we could carry our rubbish to a tip, than have our whole economy return to the stone-age (which is why binmen are not paid a particularly high salary because they are replaceable)....
So to conclude, if binmen went on strike either:
-I would either carry my rubbish to the tip
-I would hire a van, or hire a lorry and collect my/road's rubbish
-Somebody would see an opportunity in the market and offer a service for payment
The fact all these options exist are because binmen are replaceable.
and I will say again, are you suggesting we are physically unable of carrying our rubbish to a tip? Or hiring a lorry to dump it all in? No
I think you don't fully understand professions like banking. When the (Northern Rock?) crisis (or it may have been RBS actually) occurred we were an hour away from being sent back to the stone-age due to the money markets and runs on banks....
I'm pretty certain as a society we could carry our rubbish to a tip, than have our whole economy return to the stone-age (which is why binmen are not paid a particularly high salary because they are replaceable)....
So to conclude, if binmen went on strike either:
-I would either carry my rubbish to the tip
-I would hire a van, or hire a lorry and collect my/road's rubbish
-Somebody would see an opportunity in the market and offer a service for payment
The fact all these options exist are because binmen are replaceable.
You are aware a tip requires low paid workers to run, right?
Original post by billydisco
I am really not out of touch, but how's this for a proposal........
I actually think there are two types of underclass, the naive and the spiteful.
Your typical 50yr old who used to work down a coal mine would fall under the naive. Your 18yr old girl in rochdale, with her 3 kids would fall under the spiteful. The kids of the girl from rochdale will grow up to be the typical chav thugs we see roaming the streets.
Everything I have been saying has been more geared towards the spiteful because this is the type of people I have encountered. I am fully capable of admitting my reasoning may not apply to the "naive" underclass, but I sure as hell will not spare any thought for the other type which I propose exist.
I actually think there are two types of underclass, the naive and the spiteful.
Your typical 50yr old who used to work down a coal mine would fall under the naive. Your 18yr old girl in rochdale, with her 3 kids would fall under the spiteful. The kids of the girl from rochdale will grow up to be the typical chav thugs we see roaming the streets.
Everything I have been saying has been more geared towards the spiteful because this is the type of people I have encountered. I am fully capable of admitting my reasoning may not apply to the "naive" underclass, but I sure as hell will not spare any thought for the other type which I propose exist.
You're stereotyping, this is unnecessarily harsh tbh, assuming what you have about the 18 year old girls.
And about the 50 year old, does he deserve to receive benefits?
My dad has worked close to central government for most of his career under Conservative and Labour governments. He's seen how they actually work from the inside, how they implement their policies in a more practical way too boring to be detailed in national newspapers, and from over 30 years of that has concluded that both are pretty bad, but Labour not quite as bad as the other one. And he can safely confirm that The Thick of It may have a few too many expletives but is an accurate picture of the often farcical nature of central government - work on project and spend thousands on it for three years, minister changes his mind because of some tiny strategic point, project immediately dumped. No wonder my dad is looking forward to retirement.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by Otkem
I shall never forgive the Labour party for what they put my family through during 2009-10. I am interested though in seeing what motivates people to vote for such a damaging party. They damaged the economy, they damaged family values, they damaged people's trust in their government. They damaged everything you can imagine basically. What motivates you to want another Labour Govt? My opinion of Labour voters is that they are extremely selfish and do not care about the good of the long-term economy, as long as they get their handouts courtesy of the taxpayer. Now of course this isn't representative of all Labour voters, but I am at a loss as to explain why they won so many local council seats, and am quite frankly damn worried.
I too felt this way, so I switched my political support to the Liberal Democrat Party , who promised to abolish student fees for good. They came in and did nothing at all to prevent fees rising to £9,000 a year.
I will never support the Conservative Party, they work for the good of the upper class and no-one else. A classic example is Mr Cameron's condemnation of public sector workers going on strike ("bad for the economy"), yet fully supporting the bank holiday provided by the Royal Wedding (surely just as damaging, eh David?). He also gave his fellow upper-class chums a nice tax-break, whilst genuine people in need on social welfare are forced into "work placement" schemes where they are paid less than the minimum wage. Oh, and pensions for OAPs? For Mr Cameron it's out of sight, out of mind.
The only Conservative policies I've supported since they came in 2 years ago is their plans to A) reform the HOL and B) make civil partnerships equal in status to marriages.
I think the UK is in a very sorry state of affairs when a member of the infamous "Bullingdon Club" is leading the country.
The most annoying thing is that, as Cameron et al. entered office in 2010, the economy was actually on the up due to Labour's efforts. It is now in a worse position than what it was with Labour (thanks, Mr Osbourne!). I agree that Labour made some terrible mistakes, but they had genuinely begun to turn things around; I believe Ed Miliband is what this country needs as a PM.
To the fools that think the Tories are more corrupt than Labour...The Iraq war. Checkmate.
Oh and as for the tories being millionaires...do you really think that the the Milibands, Blairs and Browns are true working class people?
Labour is morally corrupt to the core and would stab their own brothers in the back for power (Pretty literally in Eds case).
Oh and as for the tories being millionaires...do you really think that the the Milibands, Blairs and Browns are true working class people?
Labour is morally corrupt to the core and would stab their own brothers in the back for power (Pretty literally in Eds case).
Original post by LaurenPhilippa
The most annoying thing is that, as Cameron et al. entered office in 2010, the economy was actually on the up due to Labour's efforts. It is now in a worse position than what it was with Labour (thanks, Mr Osbourne!). I agree that Labour made some terrible mistakes, but they had genuinely begun to turn things around; I believe Ed Miliband is what this country needs as a PM.
The most annoying thing is that, as Cameron et al. entered office in 2010, the economy was actually on the up due to Labour's efforts. It is now in a worse position than what it was with Labour (thanks, Mr Osbourne!). I agree that Labour made some terrible mistakes, but they had genuinely begun to turn things around; I believe Ed Miliband is what this country needs as a PM.
Baring in mindEd was pushing for us to move to the euro...
Ed miliband has the charisma of a gnat, a voice that makes you want to punch him and has yet to apologise for the 50'000 Illegal Immigrants that labour let in the country.
I'd rather Gordon Brown be PM than him and thats saying something!
Original post by Aspiringlawstudent
Insufferable proles.
Insufferable proles.
Wow, you sound so mature, intelligent and upper class
Original post by OrangeUK
I would like to know who the HELL voted for the Tories?!
Scotland needs to become independent.
Scotland needs to become independent.
I did, problem?
Related discussions
- TSR opinion poll, Feb 2024: how would you vote in the general election?
- 2023–24 by-elections thread
- Can someone please give me feedback on my A-Level Politics essay?
- Should i vote Labour?
- Rethinking the nation state - what a Labour Government could do
- Edexcel A-Level Politics Paper 1 Essay Feedback
- Was Jeremy Corbyn a Better Labour leader than Kier Starmer
- Rochdale By-election: George Galloway elected as new MP
- Politics
- LNAT Section B
- Lee Anderson defects to reform
- Jeremy Hunt to deliver budget on March 6 as election looms
- Have the Tories stopped being Conservative?
- Edexcel A-level Politics Paper 1 (9PL0 01) - 23rd May 2023 [Exam Chat]
- How does one even go about answering this question!?
- Do you wish Johnson to return?
- Working Class / Left wing football clubs?
- Politics edexcel alevel 2023 predictions
- UK government loses Rwanda scheme appeal in the Supreme Court
- Rishi Sunak gives Net Zero speech: PM waters down key policy goals
Latest
Last reply 7 minutes ago
Anyone else applying/has applied to UCL's Robotics and AI MEng course??Last reply 20 minutes ago
LSE International Social and Public Policy and Economics (LLK1) 2024 ThreadLast reply 1 hour ago
Inlaks, Commonwealth, and Other Scholarships for Indian Students 2024: ThreadLast reply 1 hour ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadLast reply 1 hour ago
Official University of the Arts London Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 1 hour ago
LAWYERS: Can I bring an action against my old schoolLast reply 1 hour ago
JK Rowling in ‘arrest me’ challenge over hate crime lawLast reply 1 hour ago
Children to no longer be prescribed puberty blockers, NHS England confirmsLast reply 1 hour ago
Official: University of Manchester A106 2024 Entry ApplicantsMedical Schools
1275
Last reply 1 hour ago
Official Cambridge Postgraduate Applicants 2024 ThreadLast reply 2 hours ago
Official University College London Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 2 hours ago
AQA GCSE English Literature Paper 1 (8702/1) - 13th May 2024 [Exam Chat]Trending
Last reply 4 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 6 days ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 2 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?Last reply 3 weeks ago
How did John Major become PM with barely any qualifications?Trending
Last reply 4 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 6 days ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 2 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?Last reply 3 weeks ago
How did John Major become PM with barely any qualifications?
