This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The Guardian
- How is Sunak doing as PM?
- Should i vote Labour?
- Rishi Sunak working towards general election in 'second half of the year'
- Is there a reason why the government has failed to control its borders?
- 2023–24 by-elections thread
- Lee Anderson defects to reform
- TSR opinion poll, Feb 2024: how would you vote in the general election?
- Rishi Sunak relaunches plans to send asylum seekers to Rwanda
- Who will win the next general election in Canada
- Have the Tories stopped being Conservative?
- [Official] 2024 US elections megathread
- Why are you concerned about migration?
- Reshuffle: David Cameron is back and Braverman sacked
- UK government loses Rwanda scheme appeal in the Supreme Court
- Can someone please give me feedback on my A-Level Politics essay?
- Cameron-comeback, opinions?
- Jeremy Hunt to deliver budget on March 6 as election looms
- LNAT Section B
- A Level History Source Question Feedback !
Why do most poor people vote conservative?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Jacky Hearts
I never quite understood why people give champagne socialists stick. I always thought it's quite admirable for someone with social privilege to understand the way they're privileged and want to ensure everyone can live like that.
I never quite understood why people give champagne socialists stick. I always thought it's quite admirable for someone with social privilege to understand the way they're privileged and want to ensure everyone can live like that.
Exactly, which is why I hugely admire my family.
Tory policies would benefit them yet they support policies not in their own financial interests for the benefit of those less well off.
Original post by Bornblue
Fair enough.
I just don't believe though that vast amounts of people want to sponge off the state. They don't. Benefits are a safety net, that's all. They're not a way of life.
I just don't believe though that vast amounts of people want to sponge off the state. They don't. Benefits are a safety net, that's all. They're not a way of life.
Exactly people i know have had to use benefits not because there scroungers but because they lost their job and couldnt find another one.
"...because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires." - John Steinbeck
Original post by Markt1998
Firstly how do you know where the industry will locate there are areas with high deprivation which seem to get no investment which instead goes to the South East so there would be no guarantee of jobs being created in the neccesary areas.
Secondly cutting benefits would put the people claiming them below the poverty line yes this may counter benefit scrounging but that could be tackled by efficent investigation which wouldnt punish ordinary people.
Thirdly you talk about this much needed money to invest in industry and create jobs. When it is often industry itself which withholds money from the government via tax avoidance countering that would save a lot more than cutting benefits would.
Secondly cutting benefits would put the people claiming them below the poverty line yes this may counter benefit scrounging but that could be tackled by efficent investigation which wouldnt punish ordinary people.
Thirdly you talk about this much needed money to invest in industry and create jobs. When it is often industry itself which withholds money from the government via tax avoidance countering that would save a lot more than cutting benefits would.
First of all, the vast majority of the investment is planned to go up North to create this "northern powerhouse". Industry can go pretty much anywhere providing the government gives a business an attractive offer, obviously for some types such as manufacturing it has to have good transport links, take London Docklands for example. No one wanted to invest there, it was seen as too much of a big task with extremely high deprivation - and with a bit of government investment and subsidiaries to companies, it became one of the most important parts of the UK.
Cutting benefits wouldn't be drastic, it would be to a certain point where families can live a standard life. We hear all these stories of families having extravagant holidays, weddings, houses etc. on benefits - that needs to stop. If they could be working, they cannot have a standard of living which a working person is wanting to have but they cannot afford it. That's not right at all.
And yes, cracking down on tax avoiders is extremely important and it needs to be done. But it still does not mean you cannot cut/cap benefits.
Original post by Michael P
During the time of the election, I noticed a lot of poor unemployed people voting for the conservative party. Why did these people shoot themselves in the foot by making their life (and their children's life) so much more difficult? Do people like to sacrifice themselves for the greater good of the country? Are people really so far up their own bottoms? I wonder if this is some kind of altruistic gesture. It does seem like it to me...
It would be interesting to be some statistics on this.
It would be interesting to be some statistics on this.
I'm not so sure you're entirely right here - I mean, personally, yes, I am nationally classified as a quotes 'poor person' whilst being an avid Torie supporter, however, I do feel I am an anomaly. Poor people, generally, have traditionally voted Labour throughout the generations, somewhat sheerly due to their perceived notion as being 'the party for the poor', particularly in relation to the considered 'party for the rich'; that is the Conservatives. This is never going to change. And I don't think it is going to change. 3 weeks tomorrow, the Tories won because of the quiet voters who, quite frankly, were going to vote blue anyway.
Here's the drill:
The ideologically driven lefties will always vote Labour.
The ideologically driven right wingers will always vote Conservative.
The poor will always vote Labour.
The rich will always CHANGE THEIR MINDS.
Trust me, I know what I am talking about.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by jamestg
First of all, the vast majority of the investment is planned to go up North to create this "northern powerhouse". Industry can go pretty much anywhere providing the government gives a business an attractive offer, obviously for some types such as manufacturing it has to have good transport links, take London Docklands for example. No one wanted to invest there, it was seen as too much of a big task with extremely high deprivation - and with a bit of government investment and subsidiaries to companies, it became one of the most important parts of the UK.
Cutting benefits wouldn't be drastic, it would be to a certain point where families can live a standard life. We hear all these stories of families having extravagant holidays, weddings, houses etc. on benefits - that needs to stop. If they could be working, they cannot have a standard of living which a working person is wanting to have but they cannot afford it. That's not right at all.
And yes, cracking down on tax avoiders is extremely important and it needs to be done. But it still does not mean you cannot cut/cap benefits.
Cutting benefits wouldn't be drastic, it would be to a certain point where families can live a standard life. We hear all these stories of families having extravagant holidays, weddings, houses etc. on benefits - that needs to stop. If they could be working, they cannot have a standard of living which a working person is wanting to have but they cannot afford it. That's not right at all.
And yes, cracking down on tax avoiders is extremely important and it needs to be done. But it still does not mean you cannot cut/cap benefits.
Personally the entire northern powerhouse idea is a load of rubbish.
To get the investment you need to have a mayor but just a few years ago Newcastle (where i live) decisively voted against having one so it looks like no investment for us. Manchester is the city the politicians suggest as the centre of it, Newcastle and the North East is over 100 miles from it hows that going to help us statistically the most deprived area in the UK.
To your second point yes there are benefit scroungers who have holidays and big cars however to afford such things on the current benefit cap you would have to be spending no money on children etc. I advocate the investigation and punishment of these outliers instead of the indiscriminate cutting of benefits which can cause families to drop below the poverty line.
Original post by Michael P
During the time of the election, I noticed a lot of poor unemployed people voting for the conservative party. Why did these people shoot themselves in the foot by making their life (and their children's life) so much more difficult? Do people like to sacrifice themselves for the greater good of the country? Are people really so far up their own bottoms? I wonder if this is some kind of altruistic gesture. It does seem like it to me...
It would be interesting to be some statistics on this.
It would be interesting to be some statistics on this.
It's amazing how stupid some people are. Don't they realise what'll happen to them under the Tories if they get seriously injured at work or lose their job but somehow get themselves sanctioned? Seriously,
.Fortunately, only a minority of poor people will have voted Tory. A lot of them did vote Ukip though
Original post by Markt1998
Personally the entire northern powerhouse idea is a load of rubbish.
To get the investment you need to have a mayor but just a few years ago Newcastle (where i live) decisively voted against having one so it looks like no investment for us. Manchester is the city the politicians suggest as the centre of it, Newcastle and the North East is over 100 miles from it hows that going to help us statistically the most deprived area in the UK.
To your second point yes there are benefit scroungers who have holidays and big cars however to afford such things on the current benefit cap you would have to be spending no money on children etc. I advocate the investigation and punishment of these outliers instead of the indiscriminate cutting of benefits which can cause families to drop below the poverty line.
To get the investment you need to have a mayor but just a few years ago Newcastle (where i live) decisively voted against having one so it looks like no investment for us. Manchester is the city the politicians suggest as the centre of it, Newcastle and the North East is over 100 miles from it hows that going to help us statistically the most deprived area in the UK.
To your second point yes there are benefit scroungers who have holidays and big cars however to afford such things on the current benefit cap you would have to be spending no money on children etc. I advocate the investigation and punishment of these outliers instead of the indiscriminate cutting of benefits which can cause families to drop below the poverty line.
How is the idea of the northern powerhouse rubbish? It's finally giving the North more jobs, more investment and more poltical power. It'll be stopping just London and the SE from benefiting from economic growth!
Just because there is no mayor doesn't mean there will be no/little investment. The centre of it all is, yes, Manchester - but it's wanting to proportionally give investment to places with deprivation. So the more deprived the place is, the more investment it will get. Manchester if you like will be the political centre of the northern powerhouse - not the investment centre.
I wouldn't call it indiscriminate. I'll copy and paste a previous post of mine outlining my idea for benefits.
"- people who rely on benefits should have it increased (the disabled)
- people who definitely cannot get a job should have it capped
- people who are attempting to get jobs, volunteering in the community, starting up a home business, learning at home or retraining should be given extra money to assist
- people who are not doing anything, when they could be working as there are jobs available should get a decrease"
My opinion is that it's because poorer people are less educated. They question less and are more likely to accept their emotions in place of reason. The conservatives appeal to emotional reactions: punishment for the evil, rejection of foreign values, maintenance of the status quo. The more educated you are, the more likely you are to question all of that - the more likely you are to be progressive. But conservatives profit from the status quo, hence their alliance with the ill-educated.
I wrote a blog article about this subject available here: http://journalofinterest.com/essays/social-apathy/
I wrote a blog article about this subject available here: http://journalofinterest.com/essays/social-apathy/
A crude union between the rich and poor results in the world’s popular conservative parties. The rich are naturally conservative because they benefit from the status quo – it’s made them rich and influential. The poor, on the other hand, do not benefit from the status quo, and so at first glance one wonders why they would support it. The conservatives need votes to maintain their power, and being that the hierarchy of power is skewed such that only a few have power, in order to secure it they must also win the votes of others who don’t. Thus enters the peculiar arrangement between rich and poor: The rich benefit fiscally, and the poor (believe that they) benefit by seeing their values espoused by government. The poor are usually not well-educated (and it would not be in the interest of the powerful to educate them), and so are likely to hold conservative values, which are definitionally inherited from the past and therefore not derived through independent thought. Education broadens the mind, and progressive politics necessarily requires broad mindedness. In this way, the conservative parties must often act contrary to science and wisdom because they already have two higher priorities: 1., the maintenance of the status quo, and 2., the pandering to the values of the poor, who keep them in power.
Original post by jamestg
How is the idea of the northern powerhouse rubbish? It's finally giving the North more jobs, more investment and more poltical power. It'll be stopping just London and the SE from benefiting from economic growth!
Just because there is no mayor doesn't mean there will be no/little investment. The centre of it all is, yes, Manchester - but it's wanting to proportionally give investment to places with deprivation. So the more deprived the place is, the more investment it will get. Manchester if you like will be the political centre of the northern powerhouse - not the investment centre.
I wouldn't call it indiscriminate. I'll copy and paste a previous post of mine outlining my idea for benefits.
"- people who rely on benefits should have it increased (the disabled)
- people who definitely cannot get a job should have it capped
- people who are attempting to get jobs, volunteering in the community, starting up a home business, learning at home or retraining should be given extra money to assist
- people who are not doing anything, when they could be working as there are jobs available should get a decrease"
Just because there is no mayor doesn't mean there will be no/little investment. The centre of it all is, yes, Manchester - but it's wanting to proportionally give investment to places with deprivation. So the more deprived the place is, the more investment it will get. Manchester if you like will be the political centre of the northern powerhouse - not the investment centre.
I wouldn't call it indiscriminate. I'll copy and paste a previous post of mine outlining my idea for benefits.
"- people who rely on benefits should have it increased (the disabled)
- people who definitely cannot get a job should have it capped
- people who are attempting to get jobs, volunteering in the community, starting up a home business, learning at home or retraining should be given extra money to assist
- people who are not doing anything, when they could be working as there are jobs available should get a decrease"
Firstly Investment wont be spread evenly because to get the investment you need the political powers and to get the political powers you need a mayor and many cities voted against having a mayor.
Secondly even if all cities get an even split of investment what about the towns and more rural areas. The suggested means for a creation of the Northern Powerhouse is inefficent and would only aid certain areas.
Thirdly your ideas on benefits are much better than the ones proposed by the Conservative Party (not indiscriminate) although i feel you overstate the quantity of people who are benefit scroungers.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Markt1998
Firstly Investment wont be spread evenly because to get the investment you need the political powers and to get the political powers you need a mayor and many cities voted against having a mayor.
Secondly even if all cities get an even split of investment what about the towns and more rural areas. The suggested means for a creation of the Northern Powerhouse is inefficent and would only aid certain areas.
Thirdly your ideas on benefits are much better than the ones proposed by the Conservative Party (not indiscriminate) although i feel you overstate the quantity of people who are benefit scroungers.
Secondly even if all cities get an even split of investment what about the towns and more rural areas. The suggested means for a creation of the Northern Powerhouse is inefficent and would only aid certain areas.
Thirdly your ideas on benefits are much better than the ones proposed by the Conservative Party (not indiscriminate) although i feel you overstate the quantity of people who are benefit scroungers.
I don't think the North would vote against mayors if they were turning down future investment, as the North knows its need for more investment is high.
The majority of people who live in rural areas are either the retired or have enough money to commute. The towns and rural areas will benefit because if there's government investment in one place - you can expect more industry and investment elsewhere thanks to the multiplier effect.
It may be inefficient to start with, but long term it will work. Providing the economy stays strong and the UK increases its attractiveness for more industry and business- it should go well.
I don't try to overstate it. I know a very small percentage claim it wrongly, but it's still a percentage that shouldn't exist. Just like the amount of money lost from tax avoiders shouldn't exist.
Original post by jamestg
I don't think the North would vote against mayors if they were turning down future investment, as the North knows its need for more investment is high.
The majority of people who live in rural areas are either the retired or have enough money to commute. The towns and rural areas will benefit because if there's government investment in one place - you can expect more industry and investment elsewhere thanks to the multiplier effect.
It may be inefficient to start with, but long term it will work. Providing the economy stays strong and the UK increases its attractiveness for more industry and business- it should go well.
I don't try to overstate it. I know a very small percentage claim it wrongly, but it's still a percentage that shouldn't exist. Just like the amount of money lost from tax avoiders shouldn't exist.
The majority of people who live in rural areas are either the retired or have enough money to commute. The towns and rural areas will benefit because if there's government investment in one place - you can expect more industry and investment elsewhere thanks to the multiplier effect.
It may be inefficient to start with, but long term it will work. Providing the economy stays strong and the UK increases its attractiveness for more industry and business- it should go well.
I don't try to overstate it. I know a very small percentage claim it wrongly, but it's still a percentage that shouldn't exist. Just like the amount of money lost from tax avoiders shouldn't exist.
Personally a more efficent method of boosting economies in the north would be to create regional assemblies with similar powers to that of Scotland. The North East currently has problems in attracting new industry because South East Scotland can offer better incentives. Also much of the areas that need the most investment are far removed from the rest of the country for example Barrow so would be immune to a multiplier effect.
On your point about mayors, yes they would be voted for now but it rather feels like forcing an unwanted beuracratic layer on to people and i feel that is certainly unfair.
Original post by Markt1998
You racist
I'm not racist and I'm even Asian although only ethnicity speaking not in terms of culture or life style. Why am I accused of being racist just for voting UKIP when a lot of UKIP is made up of Indians and foreigners
Original post by iodo345
I'm not racist and I'm even Asian although only ethnicity speaking not in terms of culture or life style. Why am I accused of being racist just for voting UKIP when a lot of UKIP is made up of Indians and foreigners
Some of it is because of ignorance as to what UKIP actually stands for in terms of leaving the EU rather than kicking all foreigners out of the country.
However some of it is because despite UKIP itself not being based on racist principles some members are racists like the councillor who had a photo taken of him doing a Nazi salute.
Also sometimes the things that Nigel Farage says come across as being racist and intolerant for example when in the election debate he talked about foreigners bringing AIDs to the country.
Original post by Markt1998
Some of it is because of ignorance as to what UKIP actually stands for in terms of leaving the EU rather than kicking all foreigners out of the country.
However some of it is because despite UKIP itself not being based on racist principles some members are racists like the councillor who had a photo taken of him doing a Nazi salute.
Also sometimes the things that Nigel Farage says come across as being racist and intolerant for example when in the election debate he talked about foreigners bringing AIDs to the country.
However some of it is because despite UKIP itself not being based on racist principles some members are racists like the councillor who had a photo taken of him doing a Nazi salute.
Also sometimes the things that Nigel Farage says come across as being racist and intolerant for example when in the election debate he talked about foreigners bringing AIDs to the country.
Yes this is true as I think he also blamed a traffic jam on immigrants but I still feel reluctant to even say I voted UKIP in public as all I seem to get is "how could you vote for them?" or "They're racist!" and made to appear like a neo Nazi or something. However, I still feel they deserve the 80 seats from proportional representation as they did get 12% of the vote and were third so feel cheated out in many ways.
Original post by iodo345
Yes this is true as I think he also blamed a traffic jam on immigrants but I still feel reluctant to even say I voted UKIP in public as all I seem to get is "how could you vote for them?" or "They're racist!" and made to appear like a neo Nazi or something. However, I still feel they deserve the 80 seats from proportional representation as they did get 12% of the vote and were third so feel cheated out in many ways.
The people who genuinely believe that UKIP are racist are normally politically ignorant and should be ignored.
Personally although id hate to see UKIP with 80 seats proportional representation is the only truly democratic system. Also it would help the greens and other left wing parties get seats which would hopefully push Labour back to the left.
Original post by Bornblue
No I don't agree with you. I haven't read that point but no doubt it's some deluded nonsense.
Umm didn't you support UKIP? And now you're gloating about the tories? And then you claim UKIP is an anti-establishment party? Umm okay.
This isn't a football match.
I come from a wealthy background. Both my parents are doctors and we have a very comfortable lifestyle. I'm a law student and have very good links into firms.
If anything the tories will benefit my family. Yet I absolutely cannot support them thinking about what their cuts and policies will do to the poorest and most vulnerable in society.
Umm didn't you support UKIP? And now you're gloating about the tories? And then you claim UKIP is an anti-establishment party? Umm okay.
This isn't a football match.
I come from a wealthy background. Both my parents are doctors and we have a very comfortable lifestyle. I'm a law student and have very good links into firms.
If anything the tories will benefit my family. Yet I absolutely cannot support them thinking about what their cuts and policies will do to the poorest and most vulnerable in society.
My idea is pretty effective. People like you get to support these people while the rest of us can choose to give our money to the needy who require genuine help. I am sorry I would rather see much needed funds go to a cancer patient , it is sickening of me.
I do support and did vote UKIP, I was saddened of course that we apparently live in a democracy and a single seat in parliament was worth 4 million votes but hey that is democracy. Tories was a second best simple as that. They offered a EU referendum while Labour did not.
That is interesting we are literally polar opposites, you come from a rich background and upper class lifestyle but prefer Labour/SNP politics and I come from a working class poorer background and support Tory/UKIP politics. That is pretty weird if I may say so myself.
Original post by The two eds
My idea is pretty effective. People like you get to support these people while the rest of us can choose to give our money to the needy who require genuine help. I am sorry I would rather see much needed funds go to a cancer patient , it is sickening of me.
I do support and did vote UKIP, I was saddened of course that we apparently live in a democracy and a single seat in parliament was worth 4 million votes but hey that is democracy. Tories was a second best simple as that. They offered a EU referendum while Labour did not.
That is interesting we are literally polar opposites, you come from a rich background and upper class lifestyle but prefer Labour/SNP politics and I come from a working class poorer background and support Tory/UKIP politics. That is pretty weird if I may say so myself.
I do support and did vote UKIP, I was saddened of course that we apparently live in a democracy and a single seat in parliament was worth 4 million votes but hey that is democracy. Tories was a second best simple as that. They offered a EU referendum while Labour did not.
That is interesting we are literally polar opposites, you come from a rich background and upper class lifestyle but prefer Labour/SNP politics and I come from a working class poorer background and support Tory/UKIP politics. That is pretty weird if I may say so myself.
Then let's tackle tax avoidance and no we don't have to leave Europe.
UKIPs supporters claim it to be this plucky little anti-establishment party yet you're happy that THE MOST ESTABLISHMENT party got it.
Baffling.
I do however absolutely support proportional representation and think it's a joke UKIP only got one seat.
Well I support policies which benefit people who come from a less well off background then myself such as you in the knowledge I already have a comfortable and fortunate lifestyle, yet you actively vote against your own interests in favour of those at the top. It really is baffling.
You may one day through no fault of your own lose your job. You'd certainly be happy to have a safety net to catch you and pull you back on your feet. Like hell you'd happily be chucked out onto the street.
(edited 8 years ago)
Related discussions
- Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The Guardian
- How is Sunak doing as PM?
- Should i vote Labour?
- Rishi Sunak working towards general election in 'second half of the year'
- Is there a reason why the government has failed to control its borders?
- 2023–24 by-elections thread
- Lee Anderson defects to reform
- TSR opinion poll, Feb 2024: how would you vote in the general election?
- Rishi Sunak relaunches plans to send asylum seekers to Rwanda
- Who will win the next general election in Canada
- Have the Tories stopped being Conservative?
- [Official] 2024 US elections megathread
- Why are you concerned about migration?
- Reshuffle: David Cameron is back and Braverman sacked
- UK government loses Rwanda scheme appeal in the Supreme Court
- Can someone please give me feedback on my A-Level Politics essay?
- Cameron-comeback, opinions?
- Jeremy Hunt to deliver budget on March 6 as election looms
- LNAT Section B
- A Level History Source Question Feedback !
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 hours ago
Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The GuardianLast reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKLast reply 1 week ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Big Discussion #1: What should be top priority to protect the environment?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Where do you stand on the political spectrum (8values)? – Take a quiz here!Last reply 3 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 3 weeks ago
No progress made on half of UK government’s levelling-up targetsLast reply 3 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?Trending
Last reply 3 hours ago
Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The GuardianLast reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKLast reply 1 week ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Big Discussion #1: What should be top priority to protect the environment?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Where do you stand on the political spectrum (8values)? – Take a quiz here!Last reply 3 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 3 weeks ago
No progress made on half of UK government’s levelling-up targetsLast reply 3 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?
