Why do poor/middle-class people vote for the Conservatives?

[moneymoneymoneymakestheworldgoround]

When the Conservatives protect privileged interests, why would anyone not particularly rich vote for them?
The conservatives are now uncapping bankers' bonuses ffs

I'm not sure you actually read what I wrote and was replying to? I have never complained about the number of people receiving benefits. I absolutely support a system which properly looks the most vulnerable members of our society. What I have a problem with is a system where people who are working need to claim benefits to top up pay they cannot live on because they are on zero hours minimum wage contracts and the state is effectively subsidising employers who chose not to pay their staff a decent wage.

via thousands of visible, audible and scientifically detectable clues from voice, presence or lack of adams apple, size of jaw, shape of forehead, depth of voice, height, bone structure, musculature, presence or lack of penis, dna, hormones etc etc etc. A baby can distinguish between a man and a woman, it's not difficult.

But this is exactly what the state should be doing. If companies had to pay their staff a fair wage, then the bosses bonuses might be cut, and that is just not on. As it is the government has had to just give millionaires more than the average annual income of an adult in the UK, because of the cost of greed crisis.

If it isn't difficult, why did you need to write such a long list?

The standard reason for people voting against their own interests - they're not very bright and believe whatever they're told with no critical thought.

It’s funny how people always assume that when poor, right wing people vote against their own interests, it’s because they’re too stupid to understand, whereas when rich lefties do so, it’s because their values are more important to them than personal gain.

I wish people would at least entertain the possibility that people might vote Tory because the party aligns with their values (smaller state, lower taxes, traditional values for example) even if they won’t personally benefit. It’s so utterly patronising not even to entertain this possibility.

I say all this as a rich lefty who’ll be voting Labour and to make myself poorer 🤷‍♀️- no one will suggest it must be because I’m too thick to understand what I’m voting for. We on the left might do well to pay Tory voters the same compliment.

I know a lot of people in Wales who vote Tory because they do not want Welsh independence.

It is disingenuous to believe that anybody can just ‘improve things’ for themselves. Retraining costs money, and time. We don’t all have those going spare. Even if you do the retraining it’s no guarantee of a higher paying job, just a fucking hideous student debt. Also, if everyone were to ‘better themselves’ are we accepting that less skilled/lower paid jobs don’t need doing? No more care workers, restaurant staff, swathes of public sector workers, cleaners, shop assistants…

I have nothing against the idea of working hard to make your own way. What I dislike about the conservative ideology is the assumption that if you haven’t you’re lazy, or have made ‘poor decisions’. Actually we need ALL jobs doing, and there should be fair pay for EVERYONE, and not disproportionate salaries at the top, and these obscene bonuses. Even the phrase ‘living wage’ - yes, we’ll make sure you have enough-ish to live, just. As in breathe and eat. If this ‘living wage’ had kept up with inflation it would be £30+ an hour.

Next time you need medical care, or the police, or groceries, be thankful that not everyone ‘bettered themselves’ so you can still get what you need. Feeling satisfied with yourself that it’s their own fault they’re doing that low-paid job.

@jgw1

A simple explanation doesn't seem to be enough, and a more extensive one is too much. You can apply your critique to any word in the English (or any) language.

It's possible to split hairs, tease out exceptions and seek further clarification on the meaning of literally any word. I could do exactly what you're doing with the word "table" for instance, and try and be clever running rings around every definition and clarification you chose to provide...

What you appear to be advocating is a complete subjectivity over word meanings on the grounds that no definition can ever be quite precise enough, and that black can be white, and day can be night, if only someone chooses it to be.

If you applied approach to "the definition of a woman" consistently to all words, that would be the way of madness, where nothing means anything, and something means nothing. I can say that my chair is a koala bear and my shoes are Prince William, because there's always a way to pick apart any argument if you refuse to accept any common ground of meaning.

If you found that difficult to read, i think I'm starting to understand why you're having trouble with the concept.

As far as I know my reading is fine. Thank you for your concern.

I'm confused now. Is a female someone who produces ova or someone who is XX? Do they have to be XX in all their cells?

A person with XX chromosomes will develop a range of female characteristics that are distinct from male characteristics. If some of these characteristics don't fully mature or function, that doesn't mean they aren't female, any more than a human born without legs isn't human just because having legs is a characteristic of a human.... as there will be plenty of other characteristics that make them unmistakably human.

If it was a simple idea, then a simple explanation would follow. Since it is not a simple idea, the explanation ends up getting more and more complicated, to the point where saying so and so knows what a woman is, is just an empty slogan.

Ffs we’re talking about much more than the fucking trans thing again. Would you actually base your vote on that, and ignore all the economic , welfare, public services, crime etc etc etc issues ?

please take the GC crap to that board and focus on the subject here.

@jgw1

Ok, let's play your game. How would I know you're a human and not a chimp?

Sorry, I've helped derail this topic... I'll stop.

Why do you have an issue with uncapping bankers bonuses?

So one has to be XX to be female?

You've reminded me some of my colleagues dislike the militant unionism of labour, the rail strikes really annoyed them the difficulty is that a lot of the "working/ middle class" no longer need unions as much ( sure to their party work on employment rights) and most people are fairly middle of the road and don't have that militant tendency so frown up what they see as unreasonableness.

That's my theory anyway.

Interestingly some are from Chorley as well MadeIn

Because you’re being obtuse.

You’re not convincing anyone so why not answer the questions you’ve been asked or continue to derail the thread.

Perfect example of why ordinary people won’t vote Labour though.

Do you think people link the way they live their lives to the government? By way of example do you think people connect the current energy crisis with the current government or do people think it's complex and not really anything to do with gov. Or do you think people connect their wages and what purchasing power they have to the gov.

I get the sense that people don't really make that connection unless it's very dramatic or obvious e.g. poll tax or decision to go to war (Iraq).

I think the problem Keir has is trying to appeal to what he thinks is a wider group turns out to be a smaller group. He is in danger of trying to be all things to all men and women and pleasing few.

I suppose I'm 'middle class'. My political instincts tilt conservative but I can't see myself voting for them at the next election in their current guise.

You mean to the right of Lenin?

I find Mumsnet more obsessed with trans issues than any political party.

Previous Conservative governments had a social responsibility of sorts. This lot don’t. The raving leftie Ken Clarke likened this governments economic policies to something you would find in South America.

@Weightlossanne Mumsnet is obsessed with women's rights issues, and so it should naturally be as it is by women for women.