To think that being Tory doesn't make you thick?

[RainbowSheep]

Ok, my family are all very liberal (I mean my parents, aunts & uncles, who incidently have all had lots of money & opportunities throughout their lives). Their parents (who were poor working class) were more conservative as are me and my brother, who are both pretty poor. We recently had a family get together where I was told by my uncle (university lecturer) that Tories were unitelligent and I was beginning to sound like an idiot for having conservative views... I don't think I am particularly right wing.

Having now read a few of the posts, I misunderstood the question; so my pedantic answer is "no, being a Tory does not cause you to be thick".

YANBU

i find it really odd that people would resort to 'well, that's because you're thick' rather than accept that the other side of the political spectrum may have a point, or a heart, or a brain. Even those couching it as 'a little unintelligent to vote Tory' are really being just as lame. It's not an intelligence marker - it's an opinion held by arriving at a different set of beliefs after X amount of thought, great or small depending on the individual.

My experience is that politicians and people working in politics tend to form friendships or productive working partnerships with people from across the political parties - they don't tend to write off everyone on the other teams as automatically stupid because, patently, they aren't. Nor could they assume everyone who believes is a different system either motivated by greed or envy.

The kind of people who would equate being Tory with being thick (or equate being Labour and being thick) are not going to be particularly politically sophisiticated themselves, or they might realise that these are alternative approaches for similar goals of Whole Society benefit.

KateFrothers thinks emoting is a substitute for logical thought.

I agree with the proposition that there's a lack of empathy from Tories.

The more conservative people (from a few countries) I know or have met throughout my life have also tended to be the ones who make a judgement about vast swathes of people with less than them. They weigh them in the balance and find them wanting, then use spurious examples of people who have pulled themselves up by the bootstraps to try to show that anything is possible.

You can point out the ways in which those people actually had (non-obvious) advantages, and that such advantages can be seen to be part of a trend whereby people can improve their lot, and that certain disadvantages beyond their control were missing, which helped them further....They don't want to hear it.

I don't think they're necessarily stupid, but I do think they are less willing/able to grasp the complexity of a person's life, and the interplay between the individual, the family and society that makes success more or less likely.

our debt problem was worsened by building-in spending above tax-revenue - richer people in the UK actually pay a massive share of the Income tax paid in this country. (as someone on 10k, I am soon to be taken out of income tax altogether..) Tax -evasion and avoidance have always been there - (think of Lester Piggotts elementary cheque book mistake) - in this country it is the governments usage of revenue that has caused the vast chasm of debt. the kind of taxation that effects the low-waged most is council tax..and fuel tax ...both increased under labour!

I don't think you can put your head in the sand about the UKs debt problems whilst Italy and Greece are floundering the way they are..

of course, you might think the 18bn of cuts promised by labour would 1) have been enough and 2) been delivered on

i don't, on the other hand. Without solvency the government can't be sure to deliver on the Nhs, the welfare state..anything. The national debt isn't a stupid thing to be concerned about, nor a selfish one.

OldMumsy Mon 12-Dec-11 09:33:12
KateFrothers thinks emoting is a substitute for logical thought.

Quote please? Or you could continue to misquote me and misrepresent what I've said but it does make you look a little... what's the word... thick?

Anyone with an ounce of intelligence will read the thread and see what I actually did write and then they can decide whether statements like that by OldMumsy, Proudfoot and the like have any substance. They may also wonder why you choose to attack me? Do I threaten you?

It's a shame some have to resort to name calling and belittling without backing up their statements. Especially when there are people on this thread who have taken the time to actually try to explain their opinions whether they sit on the left or the right.

Edles I don't think anyone from either side is not concerned with the national debt. It's a long thread so I may have missed it but I don't think anyone has said being concerned about the debt is stupid or selfish.

What there most certainly is is disagreement about the best way to manage that debt and reduce it without sacrificing all the welfare state to an extent that we no longer have one.

I think most of us would agree that the infrastructure and spending on setting up the welfare state is just not there to reinstate anything that is lost.

"I was told by my uncle (university lecturer) that Tories were unitelligent"

But don't the socialist hierarchy think that everyone (except them) is unintelligent? That's why they are so keen on the Nanny State, because they don't trust ordinary people to have enough brains to run their own lives in the way that Big Brother has decreed is the one and only true path.

The figures on the national debt and borrowing compared to other countries, and other periods of recession in the UK, are really interesting.

There's the argument that since it isn't, actually, as bad as it has been at various times in the past, and it isn't as bad as it is in some (comparable) countries, you might think that it's been spun precisely to pave the way for mass privatisation of the welfare state.

I don't think any politician at any time will be waving their hand dismissively at the size of the national debt (despite the characterisation of Gordon Brown). It generally doesn't follow that reducing it brings prosperity, in fact the opposite is most often true. (Apparently.)

I would agree with SWC. Except for the last bit. Being dogmatic is not the preserve of a left-wing mentality. Plenty of people on the right are dogmatic too.

I think the difference is that left-wingers are thought to be playing with someone else's money and that rarely goes down well.

In my experience ( and it is only me experience) most of the people I know on the left are far more state dependent than those I know on the right. They also contribute far less tax wise.

If you are giving almost half your income away in taxes and receiving as little as possible back, you are probably going to be more angry at perceived waste and " scrounging" than someone who gives very little but receives comparatively a great deal.

Agreed SWC.

I've never seen lefties called thick or evil or nasty or any of the choice phrases slung at Tories.

pmsl you still bitter about that SWC? Are you also jealous of those who post on support threads for ttc or primary school admissions or whatever?

There are plenty of threads for political discourse. Oh look! Here's one right here. There are a few threads that are about a specific political viewpoint. Admittedly I think there's only one running at the moment and it's quite heavily towards the left but there have been other threads that are more towards the right. There were loads around the time of the election for example.

Interesting Harry I suppose it depends what company you keep. But then, doesn't everything.

Have a look up the thread Harry. There are a couple of posters who have had a go at me without backing up their unpleasantness.

I'll concede the insults slung at the left tend to be along the lines of scroungers, uneducated, unintelligent, unable to understand complicated economic issues etc etc but they're still there.

Mud is slung on both sides because that is human nature.

Harry that isn't my experience at all.
(Excepting my mother who forgets that she has paid barely any tax ever. She's bitter about her husband's £40%.)

I actually think those who are dogmatic on the left and right are generally less intelligent - although I would exclude young people in their teens and early 20's from this. Dogmatic people seem incapable of seeing the shades of grey that exist in most situations and of seeing that sometimes both the points the left and right make can be equally valid.

For example, genuinely disabled people are being hounded by the changes to the assessment process for benefits. And there are people who are disabled, but could work and should not be getting benefits. Both traditional left and right wing views imo have truth in them.

not saying being a tory makes you thick .But anyone and mean across the partys that buys completley into a party line then i would question your judgement

Take Uc it is desinged to help the deserving poor so Cameron says

Ok let me tell you story

Im a single parent to 4 dc ( was not when i had them )

Ds3 has sn and recieves HRM and MRC .

I currentley get Ctc and CB .I also get Hb and council tax .Hb rate is dropping as am fortunate to move into a H/a house now before you say well your lucky etc many others do not get that .Then bear in mind why I got it than maybe your change your mind .

my dc are entitled to free school diners except ds2 can not eat them anyway

I get IS and Carers for ds3 .

Now this is where the Uc screws up .Due to unfortunate accident i ended up pemrtley in a wheelchair and alongisde complications that caused by it means I now get HRM and MRC .
The clue above why i got my free house

I dont claim ESA as could not face the medicals probing .But under UC I can either be disabled or I can be a carer .But not both , not that I can stop being on or the other .

Yet if was not a sp potentially i could claim ESA and partner claim Carers for my son but nope as SP I cna not be both but i am

Now when i explain to people i get told not to worry im the deserving poor that is meant to get extra help from the new tory policy funny from where im sitting .
Im going to be worse of

Human can you explain the abbreviations please? There will be people on this thread who won't know what they mean.

kate I have friends, colleagues, family and acquaintances from millionaires to single mothers so a pretty broad spectrum.

Most people watch their own backs politically, sadly. Personally, I never have and I voted labour most of my life.

It stands to reason that if you take from a system under threat you may see things differently than if you give to that system ( in the main).

A woman I know works part time as and her DH is a SAHD. They have very carefully worked out that if she only works three days the TC mean that they are as well off as if she worked full time.
So, essentially, my 80 hour a week DH and everyone else who works as hard is subsidising their lifestyle choice to have a three day week.
Any tightening up on that sort of malarky can only be a good thing, in my eyes.

Noam Chomsky - dead brainy guy, left-wing. And he's just one example - aren't most academics, people who think for a living, lefties? What does that tell you?

I am sympathetic to that point of view Harry (incidentally I have never voted Labour - just prompted by your mentioning it!).

We've always put in, in my household and my family far in excess of what we've taken out - but we are fortunate to have good health and no disabilities.

The woman in your example on the face of it appears to be using the system to fund her chosen lifestyle. However, if she, her partner or her children were disabled and she needed to work less hours because of caring responsibilities, or if neither she nor her husband could get more work, I would say that's a completely different situation and one that needs to be treated sympathetically.