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.

Yes, you are right, Edless, that is why the Mail is the nation's 2nd most popular paper, and in a survey in 2004, about 20% of the Mail's readership were Labour voters and 17% were Liberal voters. Also the majority of the Mail's readership are women.

'One particularly telling example of the female factor is the growth of the Daily Mail's website. The British daily is perhaps the world's bestmedia practitioner of gender targeting, exemplified by its slogan: "Every woman needs her Daily Mail."
It was a latecomer to the digital world, but now, with its strongly female agenda, the Daily Mail's online audience has risen by 44 percent in the past year. More important, the daily's site traffic and unique visits top those of its rivals by 50 percent, again confirming the power of women when it comes to the Web.'

www.newsandtech.com/columnists/global_outlook/article_1e64c488-b521-11df-aeba-001cc4c002e0.html

Of course the "intelligentsia" call its readers thick and misogynist and racist.
They don't like the fact that it is so popular, because they are not for the people.

I guess the Sun is mainly read by men.

But the Mail is mainly read by women. That is one reason why the arrogant male-dominated left wing intelligentsia look down on the Mail and think its readers are "thick". Anyone who doesn't agree with them is always "thick". They think the majority of the country is "thick".

However, Helen Lewis, sub-editor at the Daily Mail, said to me that she is not so sure that the glossy magazine route is correct. She told me, "The problem lies in conflating 'female interest' with 'celebrity story', and although it's been a successful formula, I think it's one that's coming to the end of its usefulness in terms of shifting copies."

The Daily Mail is the most successful newspaper in the UK in terms of attracting female readers. In 1995 (Jan to Dec) 49% of its readers were female, in 2006 (Jan to Dec) this had grown to 52% and the figures for 2007 show that it had held onto this 52% demographic. The Daily Mail enjoys more female than male readers. However, it has not completely gone down the celebrity gossip/magazine style. Undoubtedly it does feature these kinds of stories, but it balances this with news stories and a style proven to attract female readers. According to the National Readership Survey, women care about news - it being their "main reason for purchase" - but they like to be told pretty briskly what has happened, but not what it all may or may not mean. The survey also indicates that British women are turned off by sport and are not too keen on finance.

A quick glance at the Daily Mail after reading this data shows how the Daily Mail has struck the right balance to appeal to the female demographic.

Genevieve Roberts told me during an interview on this issue: "In the UK, the Daily Mail has the highest percentage of female readers, and unsurprisingly, this increases its appeal for advertisers."

www.editorsweblog.org/analysis/2008/07/where_have_all_the_female_readers_gone.php

actually it is with some disquiet i think that both the lead parties are going to court the typical Mail reader...

neither got enough votes at the last election, therefore no-one is comfortable enough in their position to ignore the illiberal elements in their own party. whilst Blair had a huge majority, he could annoy both liberals (with ID cards) and the Mrs Duffys of the world (immigration, gay marriage) ...now both the main parties are going to want their Mrs Duffys back, whilst trying to hang on to their share of 'liberal' small-L voters. Although benefits-bashing is associated on here with dumb-ass conservative voters, in actual fact a statement such as 'i want to profit from being in work rather than out of it' is not that daft, and a point shoved by both left- and right- thinkers...and is the kind of issue both labour and conservatives are going to have to work hard on to pull in those voters.

the conservatives, for the now, will be held back from doing this by their tie to the Liberals (for the better i think)..at least until the next election. Labour however seems hampered by a current lack of identity. unclear which way that will play out.

Hammy02 Wed 14-Dec-11 10:40:11
Unless you are fairly well off, it is very misguided to vote Tory. They are the party for the wealthy. Their shrinking of the welfare state and cutting of benefits is evidence of this

No.
They are the party for those who are prepared to take responsibility for themselves and their families.

The Labour party courted voters by increasing benefits and introducing uncontrolled immigration. The benefits bill has been way out of control for years, helped along by immigrant labour.

I was brought up in a lower working class home - we struggled to make ends meet, were frequently hungry and went without electricity and gas when mum didn't have 'a shilling for the meter'. My parents were traditional Labour voters.
I dragged myself up by my bootstraps, so to speak and at the age of 50 have had a nice life for the last 20 years. I wouldn't describe myself as 'well off' - it has taken me 30 years to attain a good salary, but I have always voted Tory.
The last Labour govt. created a nation of shirkers and people with a victim mentality/inflated sense of entitlement.

Manatee. I agree. But no politician will do ANYTHING about that - because THEY are all benefitting from it. Did you read that MP's are fighting to get their 'second homes allowance' back? It makes me feel sick. So there are politicians who are saying that there is 'no money left', yet they are taking AWAY from the vulnerable, to feather their OWN nests.

And to those of you that say we should be grateful for the benefits we receive - I would HAPPILY give you my uncontrolled epilepsy, or the autism, partial deafness, GDD, LD's, mild epilepsy, EDS and cardiac problems my DD has, or the autism, EDS, hypotonia and brittle asthma that my DS2 has, in exchange for NOT needing those benefits, and being able to earn enough to support us.

Those of you that are fit and well enough to earn enough to pay more taxes should be GRATEFUL that you don't have to cope with the disabilities that people like MY family do. One day you may NOT have such good health...

If you read properly Hunty, we actually said except those with disabilities.

Are you really not grateful to live in a country with such an amazing welfare state and NHS given your circumstances?

I was grateful to the State - NOT the individual taxpayers. Just as when I WAS working and paying a lot more Tax, I didn't expect anyone to be grateful to me for doing so. It is only fair and right in the 21st Century that those who have, provide for those that don't.

And while you are saying 'except those with disabilities', you contradict yourself in the very next sentence by asking 'Are you really not grateful to live in a country with such an amazing welfare state and NHS given your circumstances?'

And when you read back the list of difficulties my family face - would it surprise you to find out that since the ConDems have come to power - all three of us that are dealing daily with the effects of our disabilities have lost our disability benefits. Officially NONE of us are disabled any longer. And I am classed by ATOS as fit to work.

Does that mean I should suddenly become 'grateful' that I am supported (of a fashion) by Taxpayers? When right now, I am having to survive on the same paltry amount of benefits paid to any other Lone Parent, yet I have to cover ANY additional costs of mine and my children's disabilities from that? When in a short time, when Universal Credit is brought in, that I will have to work for 20 hours a week despite my own disability, and despite the fact that I am caring for two children with disabilities alone?

No, I will NOT doff my cap to those who are 'feathering my cap', as one previous poster so kindly puts it. I was paying a lot of taxes myself before my diagnosis of epilepsy, and had me and my children not been diagnosed with our disabilities within a short period of time, then now, eight years down the line, I would have been paying 50% tax. And I wouldn't have cared - because it would have been to support people that really needed it.

I'm not grateful to a state that expects me to work looking after four disabled people for eighteen hours a day, seven days a week for £55. p.w. Pay me a living wage and I may reconsider.

FGS read the bloody thread, I for one made it clear that I didn't consider carers and the disabled to be people who should be grateful. I personally think that carers should be paid a proper wage by the state. WRT to what should be classed as a disablility that will always be contentious and IMO both "hidden" disabilities and MH are woefully underfunded and misunderstood in this country. One of the reasons I despair of the current welfare state is the way it offers a pittance to the disabled and carers whilst at the same time money is wasted left, right and centre.

London, there are plenty that do think we should be grateful for 'their' money.

Londonone - YOU might feel like that. But a lot of other Tory voters DON'T. And the Government certainly don't feel that way. Or we wouldn't have all these cuts that are aimed at the disabled and their carers, would we?

I agree that 'hidden' disabilities are woefully underfunded and misunderstood in this country, but there are plenty of other, very visible and obvious disabilities that are going to suffer too. You can self-propel your wheelchair 50 yards? Then you are fit for FT work. That's just one example of how the regulations are about to change.

You can't be a disabled lone parent that is caring for a dc with disabilities. Well, you will still have to be doing that - but you won't be able to claim both Carer's Allowance and ESA - you will basically have to choose whether you have a disability OR you are a Carer. Yet you will still be the person caring for that disabled child...They just get out of paying you the paltry £55 a week, as if that's going to solve the country's financial problems.

The problem is that, maybe people on the thread think that people with disabilities and their carers are entitled to benefits. And that's great. The Tory-led government, however, do not believe that. They are making it harder and harder for the disabled and their carers to live.

I suffer from mental health problems. Some days, I really feel like I can't work. I get through the day, I go home and I go to bed and I wish I could die so that I didn't have to go through it again the next day. All these government policies regarding sickness benefit make me feel that I can't stop working. That if I did that, I'd end up with no money, sleeping on the street. So I struggle on, but I basically feel that I have no chance of getting better or being able to take time off to sort myself out.

So whatever people on the thread think, that's what the Tories are doing. I don't know how people can support that.

I did think that perhaps the post was aimed at me as I was one of the posters who had talked about people being grateful! I was simply pointing out that not all tories think all cuts are a good idea!

Because if you support a party in general it doesn't mean you support every idea they ever have!

I am sure not every labour supporter was a big fan of ID cards

But Londonone - if you are voting for them on the basis of their other policies, and they then cut support for the disabled and their carers - then it is being done IN YOUR NAME.

You don't have to overtly support this policy - but by voting for them you are tacitly supporting it.

Last time I checked this wasn't on anyone's manifesto! Also there is more about Labour I find scary!

I don't really see ID cards as some huge moral issue though. I do see withholding money from people who are in need as a moral issue. T

The whole idea of everyone pulling themselves up by their bootstraps is totally flawed. And isn't that what the Tories are all about? It's all very well and good for the millionaire David Cameron to talk about us all being in this together but he didn't exactly have to fight the odds to get where he is today.

Making cuts wasn't on the Tory manifesto? No, obviously not, they're hardly going to advertise it, are they? I don't really see the marauding Tory voters standing outside Parliament protesting it though.

i do see ID cards as an infringement of personal liberty.

and as Labour promised 18bn of cuts and as of yet have not agreed with even one cut made by the con-dems, it is really hard to believe all their objections.

We'll have to disagree on ID cards then! I fundamentally believe in people being self reliant as much as possible and taking responsibility for their actions and a small state. I believe that the state is far worse at spending my money than I am. I also believe that the weakest and most vulnerable members of society should be provided for well.

disagreeing with yellow about id cards not ed!

Yellow - I don't agree with all the cuts and have signed petitions etc against those which I strongly disagree with.

If you believe that the weakest members of society should be provided for, why on earth would you vote for the Tories?

I believe in self-reliance as well. That's why I would tax people who inherit money to the hilt. I'm not that bothered by people who've made a lot of money by working hard, but everyone I know who is making a lot of money is doing so because their parents could give them a leg up/had contacts.

The Tories seem to be very good at trumpeting self-reliance while accepting Daddy's private education and big country estate. How is that self-reliance?

The ID card thing was divisive, it doesn't really have anything to do with this argument.

You see I would include families in self reliance. You believe that the state spends money best. I believe that individuals spend money best. The ID card thing is an example of a policy you may not agree with but still support the party.

As to why I would vote Tory? - Given that the alternative was Labour who were hell bent in building a giant client state dependent on tax credits to fund their lifestyles and had no plan for how that should be funded, mit wasn't a difficult decision.