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

Absolutely, well said

I have no issue with having more of bankers' compensation be variable rather than fixed comp.

People who are used to thinking of a "bonus" as a nice extra £2k at Christmas find this hard to really understand. I say this because that was my mindset until I entered a similar field with a much more uneven spread of fixed/variable comp.

Financial advice is generally "assume your bonus will be zero! don't count your chickens before they hatch". This makes a lot of sense but if your comp is £100k fixed and £200k bonus, effectively in your head you've accepted a £300k offer. (Or often these are expressed as "fixed base £100k, standard bonus £100k, top bonus £200k" or similar, so you "expect" to get at least £200k.) Maybe you budget so that you can survive on £100k but you hope to add the other £100k (well, £50k after taxes) to your house deposit savings, etc.

What I mean is, it "feels" like a clawback even if you simply don't get paid that bonus, so bankers are very focused on making sure they get it. People who don't have a huge variable component to their comp don't understand how motivating it is.

If your issue is either a) you think banker overall comp is too high, or b) the behaviours that are incentivised for bankers via bonus structures are not aligned with what's good for society, fine, but that's unrelated to fixing bonuses at 2x base. Variable comp IS a mechanism for reducing banker comp when they perform badly, which people in this thread claim to want.

@Hellisotherpeoplesfeet Whilst I mainly agree with you (and I'm not a Tory) having grown up till I was 30 in a midlands mining town and since then lived in much 'posher' places- I think that the values of poorer Tory voters don't necessarily align with the Torys either- I found very few 'non well off ' Tory voters agreed with a much smaller state, they were pretty pro nationalisation , not paying for health etc. i found they voted very much based on their own situation at the time and often on 'one issue' politics such as Brexit , views changed radically depending on what was in their wallet at certain times, security of jobs, access to housing etc. to be frank I think their votes are often easily bought by tinkering with pay packets and using negative stuff such as 'negativism towards benefits/immigration' etc rather than votes being based on deep alignment to particular sets of values- and I do understand that even if I think it's somewhat misguided , whereas with better off Tory's I do think it's particular values, small state, (often because they can pay private) and a feeling that 'it's all down to you' - I understand that too, until it goes radically wrong. I don't think you can discount the fact many thought that Brexit was a good idea for whatever reasons they had , or that they distrust anyone very much on the left. (Which was how they saw Corbyn) -

Apart from the promise of Brexit, it is very much about feeling absolutely abandoned by Labour and thinking that local Labour councils have run areas into the ground. They see the changes happening in the area due to the Tory government and feel it is worth everything else.

Add in Corbyn (he lost voters that perhaps haven't come back) and an opposition too tied up in identity politics to actually be offering any tangible benefits and this is where we end up.

Oh and fielding a labour candidate in the local by-election that had a role in all but shutting the local hospital is never going to get the X next to their name.

I'm being obtuse?

And yet we have had several posters stating that they will vote Tory because they know what a woman is, even though they can't tell us what a woman is.

I wasn't aware I was playing a game. I was trying to work out what several posters meant and why that would cause them to vote Conservative.

To answer the actual thread: I wouldn't say "smaller state" is necessarily a Tory "value". Definitely it's a strong wing within the party but it's by far not the only one, and it's hard to argue that the last few years of Conservative rule have been particularly small-state libertarian...!

Words/phrases/values like: doing your bit, service, quiet patriotism, for King and country, mustn't grumble, knowing the neighbours, charity begins at home, British sense of humour, pints at my local.

^ none of those things are party-political but in some ways they are more associated with the Conservative Party, because they more explicitly claim to value them and tie them to a concept of British culture which they want to uphold.

Those values go deeper than economic policy preferences and if they are attacked, it causes a stronger reaction.

Currently, the Labour party has a highly-visible activist wing which is quick to label any expression of patriotism or pride in Britain (heck - even using the word "Britain") "nationalist", loves corporate trainings which say that drinks after work aren't inclusive and Little Britain is problematic, demands highly-personalised treatment for every niche identity... Is it really a surprise that Labour are struggling to attract voters despite the poor performance by the Tories?

If Labour are struggling to attract voters, and yet are significantly ahead in every opinion poll, what does that say about the Conservatives?

www.markpack.org.uk/155623/voting-intention-opinion-poll-scorecard/

The extremist Labour activists definitely put people off voting for them. It's probably the main reason why the default party of government is the Tories and Labour only get in when people are sick of the Tories. I don't know why Labour doesn't get their people in line, their views are highly unrepresentative of the vast majority of Labour voters.

Are Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng's views that it is more important to make the rich richer, than help the poor eat, representative of Tory voters, or do they need to be brought into line?

Yes, the Tories need to bring them into line. Because as it stands, they will lose the next general election.

Well I eagerly await that happening. Presumably it will be done swiftly, what is the process for removing the Prime Minister?

They lose the general election because another party wins more seats.

Oh right, so you are not expecting the Tories to bring them into line.

I have researched how to properly spoil a vote rather than vote Conservative. I wanted my spoiled vote counted as a spoiled vote and perhaps read by election agents/candidates.

Having said that I understand why people vote Conservative and as long as we live in a democracy - they have that right.

At the moment they are they only ones willing to say what a woman is, and are somehow more diverse than Labour!

There is something about the working hard without relying on state support message that appeals to people. Especially those who have done that (or believe they have done that) themselves.

My natural instinct is Labour but until they can defend the protected characteristic of sex I cannot vote for them.

I'm also no longer in favour of the Union. Not since rUK voted Scotland out of Europe.

If Scotland gains independence rUK will never, ever have a Labour Govt again. (My personal suspicion)

@jgw1

I'm being obtuse?And yet we have had several posters stating that they will vote Tory because they know what a woman is, even though they can't tell us what a woman is.

Wtf? You've had the word woman explained to you again and again! And going back to an earlier post, yes, having XX chromosomes is a perfectly good working definition of what defines a woman. I accept there are a tiny proportion of people who have chromosomal abnormalities, and I'll leave it to experts regarding sex in those circumstances, but that doesn't alter the fact that someone's sex is completely obvious in the vast majority of cases.

Apologies. I know I said I wouldn't carry on posting on this topic, but I won't be gaslit!

Indeed what a woman is, has been explained again and again in different sometimes contradictory ways.

Oh and when I've had to deal with MSPs - I can guarantee that the ones who will get back to you, help you, turn up at events and demos...are the Conservative MSPs!

Why is that? Why are they willing to do that and other MSPs (of all political colours) don't?

There are a few exceptions - normally female!

So you were privileged and lucky that you were born into a family who had the means to provide you with a life that allowed you to attend a prestigious university.

I'd love to see whether you'd be if you had less luck in life. It's not all hard work.

Agree with you on this, although I don't live in Scotland so that doesn't apply.

What I always find interesting about these posts is people will come on and say I think it might be XYZ and someone always jumps in well the Tories do that too which really doesn't have much relevance when it's why people aren't Voting Labour! Human decision making is really complex and what applies to one party might not to the other.

It does appear to me (especially in some of my friends social media) that labour can never be criticised and are sacred. If you dare question it you want babies to die and children to starve.

I think labour needs to go and be replaced or have a massive shake up. It will certainly be an interesting election goodness knows who I'm voting for!!!

Are Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng's views that it is more important to make the rich richer, than help the poor eat, representative of Tory voters, or do they need to be brought into line?

Truss and Kwarteng's views are that it is more important to grow the overall economy, even if unequally, than to redistribute more of a smaller pot.

This view is shared by many although naturally not all Tory voters in principle.

Their specific strategy for doing that - tax cuts funded by high borrowing, starting with personal income tax - can be and is debated hotly within the party and by Tory voters. I'm sure factions are lobbying as we speak. I doubt either Truss or the other factions are basing their arguments on "how can we best fuck over the poor today, mwahaha" though.

Goodness do they actually believe that their moves will grow the economy?
My mind is boggled.

A lot of small business owners vote conservative, and most are not rich.

I don’t know whether anyone listened to the Andrew Neil Show this evening. It was quite clear that the options were to continue with the process of stagnation - of dividing a diminishing piece of pie - or something entirely radical to awaken the economy, encourage investment and stimulate growth. It may or may not work. The alternative was to carry on with the failed policies - like those proposed by Labour, which will have the effect of shrinkage.

Whose failed policies have we been following for the last 12 years, that has got us into this mess?